Follow up on SS

[Topper17]

Part two:

Anyway unholy scruples are scruples that don’t resolve to a state of grace. And the person is frantic, terrified, and depressed and ultimately confused and out of control. And so frequently they just jump ship claiming the confusion is because the Church has made it all confusing.

This describes Luther to a tee. Luther’s psychological state and his inability to understand the true nature of a forgiving God make it inevitable that he would find it necessary to leave the Church.

“Being a monk, I wished to omit nothing of the prayers and often overtaxed myself with my courses and written work.** I assembled my hours for an entire week and sometimes even two or three.** Sometimes I would lock myself up for two or three days at a time with neither food nor drink, until I had completed my breviary. My head became so heavy that I could not close my eyes for five nights. I was in agony and all confused. As soon as I had improved, I tried to work on my courses, but my head began to swim again. I was so imprisoned in this practice that the Lord had to tear me from this self-torture by violence.” Luther, from Schweibert, pg 150

Many think that it was failure to say the breviary as instructed, and driving himself so mercilessly, that contributed to his psychological problems. He was a monk but did not take advantage of the spiritual practices which are designed to, among other things, help those who are struggling spiritually.

We know Luther began in scruples with a fear of purgatory concerning his own parents. His knee jerk reaction to calm his nerves was the elimination of it. Sola Scriptura AND PI provide enormous relief for people with unresolved scruples because it gives them a feeling of control and simplifies belief. I’ve seen it in action with Catholics with unresolveable scruples who have gone OSAS. Nothing can be simpler and more worry free than OSAS. Of course they come to dinner talking like fruitcakes but at least they are calm fruitcakes.

Once Saved Always Saved actually did calm Luther. It allowed him to live. SS and PI were simply byproducts of Luther’s overwhelming need for certainty of Salvation.

“A deep sense of personal unworthiness is easily discerned in Luther’s attitudes and actions around this time (early monastery years), and **some worried about his mental stability. ** His superior, Johann von Staupitz, gently steered him away from such personal introversion, recommending the study of theology as an antidote to morbid introspection.” McGrath, “Dangerous”, pg. 40

“Some questioned his mental stability”, and yet, we are expected to believe that all of his doctrinal innovations, like SS+PI and SBFA should be accepted as being equal to Catholic doctrines? In fact, as you know, here on this thread we have been told that since ML developed SS, we should accept his version of how it is to be used. Astonishing! Maybe the last place we should look to for the correct way to ‘use’ Scripture would be Luther. The more we look into Luther the man, the more it becomes obvious to rational people that his doctrines MUST be questioned.

Problem is people refuse to examine Luther’s doctrines from the actual view of the really over the top extreme scruples he suffered from. And that is a real difficulty cause every Catholic blows the discussion by asking: How can you trust a crazy man? Not a good basis for an ecumenical dialogue.

First of all, if the truth is inhibits ecumenical dialogue, then not all parties are equally interested in the truth. In fact, if all parties are not committed to seeking out the Truth, then ecumenical dialogue isn’t even possible. If one of the parties seeks to avoid the discussion of the truth, or any aspect of that truth, then the goal of ecumenical dialogue, the seeking of truth, is unattainable.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[marywarfield]

Topper! What an extraordinary post! This is exactly
what I was referring to way back when I first mentioned
Luther’s mental problems and everyone got so upset with
me. Especially House was offended and the general
consensus was it doesn’t matter whether Luther had
this problem or not along with the oft expressed
view that "our differences are not so great. "
Of course that hopeful but inaccurate view is usually
put forth by Lutherans but some Catholics hold it as
well for unity is not in denying significant problems
but bravely facing the challenges they present.

Luther’s particular sickness IS a very big deal. Very. Why?
well not because of Sola Scriptura, not because of
papal primacy, and not because of purgatory or
Maccabees. Those are minor resolveable issues compared to the
biggest issue- perceptions of sin, forgiveness,
and Confession. Luther actually redefined in a most
destructive way Christ’s intentions and practices.
In other words the significance of sin and how it
corresponds to forgiveness and penance and the role
of the Confessor are radically different in Lutheranism and
even more so to other forms of Protestant faith from
the Catholic view.
Sin, forgiveness, penance, confession are issues that go
to the heart of Christ’s mission- they were his focus. They
were what He was addressing and what His Sacrifice was
all about.
Luther did what no Catholic, especially one in religious
teaching life, should do. He doubted. To doubt as we know
is the greatest insult to God. Further he did nothing to
diminish his own doubt. He did not put an end to it
but instead encouraged doubt in himself concerning
God’s forgiveness and at the same time put every
effort into undermining by his own example the
Sacrament of Penance. He refused to be forgiven in
the Confessional. And it was deliberate and I say that
because he has admitted he had this “problem.”

His way of dealing with it was to put God and Church to
the test. He tried to force the Church to prove the
efficacy of reconciliation in the Sacrament of Confession
while modeling for everyone in his own person that
at least for himself the Sacrament HAD no significant
grace to offer.

This obviously would never be something done by the
Holy Spirit-never. The Holy Spirit would not set about
trying to prove a Sacrament as worthless.
Yet Luther did. And a spirit such as that could only
come from the Evil One always looking to destroy
the Church.

 

[spina1953]

In some presumptuous way, Luther, among others, poured contempt and doubt upon some of the inspired writings which had been acknowledged and cherished and venerated for till the Reformation would be scarcely credible were it not that we have Luther’s words in cold print, which cannot lie and may be read in his biography or seen quoted in such books as Dr. Westcott’s The Bible in the Church. Why did Luther impugn such books as James etc. because they did not suit his new doctrines and opinions. Luther had arrived at the principle of private judgment of picking and choosing religious doctrines. Whenever any book such as Maccabees, taught a doctrine that was repugnant to his individual taste, toss it overboard, was his sentence ad overboard it went. it was the same for passages and texts in those books which Luther allowed to remain and pronounced to b worthy t find a place within the boards of the new reformed Bible. Luther not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated some that were left.

Luther not pleased with Paul’s doctrine “WE are justified by faith”, and fearing lest good works ( Popish superstition) might creep in, Luther added the word “ONLY” after Paul’s words, making the sentence run; We are justified by faith only," and so it reads in Lutheran Bibles to this day. What is amazing is the audacity of Luther that could coolly change by a stroke of the pen, a fundamental doctrine of the Apostle of God Paul, wrote, as all admitted, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I would also like to point out that there were many Bibles, mostly the NT that were in the vernacular. The only reason why the Church frowned upon the vernacular was that so many were filled with errors in translations.

 

[JonNC]

=spina1953;11996443]In some presumptuous way, Luther, among others, poured contempt and doubt upon some of the inspired writings which had been acknowledged and cherished and venerated for till the Reformation would be scarcely credible were it not that we have Luther’s words in cold print, which cannot lie and may be read in his biography or seen quoted in such books as Dr. Westcott’s The Bible in the Church.

Hi spina,
Here are Luther’s own words.

Why did Luther impugn such books as James etc. because they did not suit his new doctrines and opinions.

Here is the full preface to James and Jude.

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works 2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Although it would be possible to “save” the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses’ words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham’s works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham’s works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15:27], “You shall bear witness to me.? All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.”

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty” [1:25], though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.

Whenever any book such as Maccabees, taught a doctrine that was repugnant to his individual taste, toss it overboard, was his sentence ad overboard it went. it was the same for passages and texts in those books which Luther allowed to remain and pronounced to b worthy t find a place within the boards of the new reformed Bible. Luther not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated some that were left.

 

[JonNC]

Luther’s preface to 1 Maccabees

This is another book not to be found in the Hebrew Bible. Yet its words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred Scripture. This book would not have been unworthy of a place among them, because it is very necessary and helpful for an understanding of chapter 11 of the prophet Daniel. For the fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy in that chapter, about the abomination and misfortune which was going to befall the people of Israel, is here described—namely, Antiochus Epiphanes—and in much the same way that Daniel [11:29–35] speaks of it: a little help and great persecution by the Gentiles and by false Jews, which is what took place at the time of the Maccabees. This is why the book is good for us Christians to read and to know.
In the first place, since Antiochus is regarded as a figure or image of the Antichrist who perpetrated the abomination and desolation of the worship of God in Jerusalem and in Judea not long before the birth and first coming of Christ, we learn from this to recognize the real Antichrist who is to devastate Christendom and destroy the worship of God [sometime] before the second and final coming of Christ. Therefore we should not be terrified when we experience such things and see them happening before our very eyes. Rather, be the chaos ever so great, and the devil as angry as he knows how, we should hold fast to this and take comfort in it, that we and all Christendom must nevertheless be sustained and finally saved.

For we too see the help, though small and slight, which God the Almighty has begun to grant us. The dear and holy gospel is the sword with which God’s own can nevertheless valiantly attack the Antichrist of our day and actually accomplish something—even though it cost much suffering and bloodshed—just as God aided his people with the sword of the Maccabees in that day. Although it did not happen without persecution and great heartache, they nevertheless cleansed the temple, restored the worship of God [4:36–61], and brought the people together again under their former government. Today, in this same way, the gospel is sweeping out idolatry—as Christ says, that his angels will purge out of his kingdom all causes of offense [Matt. 13:41]—and is bringing the real Christians together again into the old true Christian faith and unto genuine good works and worship of God.

In the second place we should take heart that God helped those people not only against Antiochus and the Gentiles but also against the traitorous and disloyal Jews who had gone over to the Gentiles and were helping to persecute, kill, and torment their own people and brethren. We should be sure of [God’s help] and remain unafraid even when false Christians and rabble-rousers—who have now become our betrayers—turn against us and plague and harm us as much as, if not more than, our Antiochus or Antichrist. For Daniel [11:32–34] has said it, and for our comfort proclaimed it, that things must happen this way; that the children of our people would deal treacherously with us and blithely help to persecute us. Therefore we shall not fare much better than those pious children of Israel did under their Antiochus or Antichrist, at the hands of their false brethren.

However those same enemies and traitors are amply punished by God at the end; their tyranny and treachery does not go undetected. So with a glad eye and good courage we may face our Antichrist, tyrants, and rabble-rousers, and endure their abuse, confident that they will not go on very long, much less bring matters to the point they intend, that instead (like Antiochus and those other traitors) they will soon be getting their due reward. Indeed a good deal of that punishment has already begun and is daily increasing. Hardened and blinded, though, they remain unmoved by all this. However that makes no difference to us: they will get it just as those others did. Since they do not want it any other way, may God the Almighty grant that it be done quickly and soon, that his name be hallowed, his kingdom advanced, and all saddened hearts, now held captive in the kingdom of the devil and of the Antichrist, be comforted. Amen.

Luther’s preface to 2 Maccabees

This book is called, and is supposed to be, the second book of Maccabees, as the title indicates. Yet this cannot be true, because it reports several incidents that happened before those reported in the first book, and it does not proceed any further than Judas Maccabaeus, that is, chapter 7 of the first book. It would be better to call this the first instead of the second book, unless one were to call it simply a second book and not the second book of Maccabees—another or different, certainly, but not second. But we include it anyway, for the sake of the good story of the seven Maccabean martyrs and their mother, and other things as well.
It appears, however, that the book has no single author, but was pieced together out of many books.63 It also presents a knotty problem in chapter 14:41–46] where Razis commits suicide, something which also troubles St. Augustine and the ancient fathers. Such an example is good for nothing and should not be praised, even though it may be tolerated and perhaps explained. So also in chapter 1 this book describes the death of Antiochus quite differently than does First Maccabees [6:1–16].
To sum up: just as it is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out, even though it contains some good things. However the whole thing is left and referred to the pious reader to judge and to decide.

 

[JonNC]

Luther not pleased with Paul’s doctrine “WE are justified by faith”, and fearing lest good works ( Popish superstition) might creep in, Luther added the word “ONLY” after Paul’s words, making the sentence run; We are justified by faith only," and so it reads in Lutheran Bibles to this day. What is amazing is the audacity of Luther that could coolly change by a stroke of the pen, a fundamental doctrine of the Apostle of God Paul, wrote, as all admitted, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

From Luther’s letter on translation.

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add allein in order that nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a completely clear German expression. We do not have to ask the literal Latin how we are to speak German, as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

This is Luther’s reason for the use of “allein” in the German.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Why did Luther impugn such books as James etc. because they did not suit his new doctrines and opinions.

Yes, just as spina said.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

From Luther’s letter on translation.

This is Luther’s reason for the use of “allein” in the German.

Jon

Right. He argues that it “belongs” there.
… according to HIS interpretation.

(His incorrect interpretation, BTW, which flatly contradicts James’ statement in James 2).

 

[JonNC]

Right. He argues that it “belongs” there.
… according to HIS interpretation.

(His incorrect interpretation, BTW, which flatly contradicts James’ statement in James 2).

Belongs there in the German because of the language. Alone does not appear in any English translation because it isn’t needed in the English.

Not contradiction at all.
Jon

 

[marywarfield]

Belongs there in the German because of the language. Alone does not appear in any English translation because it isn’t needed in the English.

Not contradiction at all.
Jon

Again we see the disingenuous nature of Luther.
In GOOD conscience and with a Good will he should
have redone the entire sentence to a proper translation.
Did he? No. What he did do is alter the meaning of
the text and yes today Protestants are still arguing about
good works. It is another indication that the Holy
Spirit was NOT a part of Luther’s work for necessarily
the Spirit would never have allowed that gross error.

And again we see Luther putting the judgement of man
as primary over the Word itself. The reality is Germans who
did not know Latin were pretty much illiterate. Anyone
who could read read Latin. Therefore it was unnecessary
for Luther to make the translation in the first place.
But even though he despised the peasants- yes his own words-
he wanted to give them one MORE translation they
could not read lol!
And if so doing he can sneakily add a word to Romans
to support his good works are sinful platform under the
cover of grammar issues more the better!

Another thing I’d like to point out is many times
referred to on these sola threads is the idea that
Canon can be determined by what is quoted by Jesus
and the Apostles in the NT. So they say see? We can find no
direct quotes from the Deuteros therefore they are
lesser and not canon.
Yet Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations are not quoted by Jesus and
the Apostles but they are accepted by Luther.
Not only that there are no quotes even alluding to these
books while at the same time we have numerous
statements in the NT that very likely straight from
the deuteros.

 

[spina1953]

According to my Catholic Bible. 2 Peter 1: 20 says “First you must understand this: there is no prophecy contained in Scripture which is a personal interpretation.” Now it seems to me from all my reading concerning Luther and the Reformation and also reading many of Luther’s own words, Luther did just that used private interpretation in order to make new doctrines. By Luther’s own private interpretation Luther decided that some books of the Bible were not inspired, and decided that there were only two Sacraments instead of seven. Now it just seems to me being a somewhat intelligent person that Luther decided that his interpretations was the correct one and that the catholic Church had it wrong and that all of the Church Fathers since the beginning of Christianity and all of the theologians were wrong in their understanding of Scripture and what Christ taught and preached that was passed on by the Apostles and their successors. I am not sure how anyone can get around that fact of Luther’s private interpretations in order to decide and make new doctrines which changed what had been taught for some 1500 years.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks, and thanks for your comments. Sometimes I read posts and I am reminded of that old TV ad about “Where’s the Beef?” That is not what I thought when I read yours. There was a LOT of meat there. I don’t want to dash something off in response to something that profound, but would prefer to spend some time reflecting on what you have said before I offer any comments. Until that I have something that was almost ready to go when I read your post. The following does hopefully address your being criticized for mentioning Luther’s ‘mental problems’, a term which does not come close to describing the matter:

(As a monk) “I prescribed special tasks to myself and had my own ways. My superiors fought against this singularity and they did so rightly. I was an infamous persecutor and murderer of my own life because I fasted, prayed, watched, and tortured myself beyond my powers which was nothing but suicide.” Martin Luther

Lutheran PhD Linderman informs us that:

**“He saw in himself nothing but sin, **more sin than he felt he could atone for by any work of penance. Apparently he had strong passions and he tried to subdue them in his own way. ** In all his prayers and fastings the conception of God he placed before him was that of his own stern Father Hans of Mansfield, an avenger of all sin, a punisher of the least misdeeds without mercy and kindness, a gloomy, threatening monster. The fear of the divine wrath made him unnaturally apprehensive and his anxiety grew until wakefulness became the habit. **

The Luther quote in this Linderman text continues:

“From misplaced reliance upon my righteousness my heart became full of distrust, doubt, fear, hatred, and blasphemy of God. I was such an enemy of Christ that whenever I saw an image or picture of Him hanging on the Cross, I loathed the sight, closed my eyes, and felt that I would rather see the devil. My spirit was completely broken and my mind was always in a state of melancholy, for, do what I would, my “righteousness” and my “good works” brought me no help or consolation.” Martin Luther, quoted by Henry Lindemann, (Lutheran), in Martin Luther, Man of God, pg. 32

Mary, can you imagine a Catholic saying that he would rather see the devil than a crucifix? Remember it was from the tortured mind of this monk who admits to having been an ‘enemy of Christ’ that SS+PI and Salvation by Faith Alone were ‘discovered’ in Holy Scripture.

Historian H. W. Crocker III, puts some of this into perspective:

**“He became a monk to escape and affront his abusive parents – both of which beat him severely. **Luther’s father was not a Catholic, but an occultist who believed in darker Germanic witches, hobgoblins, and demons. ** These would haunt the imagination of Martin Luther who had visions, which he believed to be actual physical occurrences, of the devil hurling “s___” (Crocker uses the slang term for feces) at him and his hurling it back. Indeed, in one of his many anal combats with the devil – in which Luther would challenge the devil to ‘lick’ his posterior – Luther thought the best tactic might be to ‘throw him into my anus, where he belongs.’ How one wishes for an exegesis by Dr. Sigmund Freud of that passage. ** Luther’s mind and manner, needless to say, were not those of a noble, polished Renaissance courtier, but those of a rough, gnarled, ham-fisted working class northern German. Being in the words of the historian William Manchester, ‘the most anal of theologians.’……

Initially, he was thoroughly in favor of the papacy that he professed a desire to be ‘the most brutal murderer’ on the pope’s behalf and to ‘kill all who even by syllable refused submission to the pope’. Of course, this was while he was also disregarding the guidance of his confessor, the rules of his monastery, and traditional Catholic teaching in his excessive forms of penance and refusal to believe that he had been absolved of sin. Luther was prone to panic attacks. He could not look upon a crucifix…….His life was one of continual terror of damnation.” H. W. Crocker III, “Triumph, the Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church”, pg. 237

**“Luther developed his theological view out of existentially troubling spiritual trials.” **Lutheran Professor Markus Wriedt, in “Companion”, pg. 86

I would say that Wriedt is the master of the understatement, as it seems are all Lutherans when describing the negative side of Luther. On the other hand, one cannot know of the horrifying terrors that Luther suffered without feeling sorry for him. There is much more in the literature about Luther’s emotional problems and it cannot be read without a certain degree of pity. It is a shame that Luther was not given more effective care in the monastery, but this is not to say that his psychological problems justified his authority to create his own doctrinal solutions to those problems.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

Hopefully tomorrow I will be able to address your comments specifically.

 

[spina1953]

I would like to add concerning good works and that is Matthew 5:14: " You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Men do not light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket. They set it on a stand where it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, your light must shine before men so that they may see goodness in you acts and give praise to your heavenly Father. Which brings the point James was making that faith without good works is no faith at all and good works without faith is meaningless. Both good works and faith do hand in hand. Somehow Luther then generations of Protestants have seem to have decided that somehow one only does good works in order to get into heaven, when in fact God knows us by our deeds and not because we do good works but we do them out of love for God not to get into heaven, which some think is what good works is all about.

 

[steido01]

If I could diagnose mental illnesses across centuries having never been trained in psychology or met the individual in question, I’d make more money than Tetzel and be richer than the Vatican Bank.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

In some presumptuous way, Luther, among others, poured contempt and doubt upon some of the inspired writings which had been acknowledged and cherished and venerated for till the Reformation would be scarcely credible were it not that we have Luther’s words in cold print, which cannot lie and may be read in his biography or seen quoted in such books as Dr. Westcott’s The Bible in the Church. Why did Luther impugn such books as James etc. because they did not suit his new doctrines and opinions. Luther had arrived at the principle of private judgment of picking and choosing religious doctrines. Whenever any book such as Maccabees, taught a doctrine that was repugnant to his individual taste, toss it overboard, was his sentence ad overboard it went. it was the same for passages and texts in those books which Luther allowed to remain and pronounced to b worthy t find a place within the boards of the new reformed Bible. Luther not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated some that were left.

Luther not pleased with Paul’s doctrine “WE are justified by faith”, and fearing lest good works ( Popish superstition) might creep in, Luther added the word “ONLY” after Paul’s words, making the sentence run; We are justified by faith only," and so it reads in Lutheran Bibles to this day. What is amazing is the audacity of Luther that could coolly change by a stroke of the pen, a fundamental doctrine of the Apostle of God Paul, wrote, as all admitted, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I would also like to point out that there were many Bibles, mostly the NT that were in the vernacular. The only reason why the Church frowned upon the vernacular was that so many were filled with errors in translations.

I agree 100%, and not only did Luther replace the teachings of the Church with his own Private Interpretations of Scripture, but he took it upon himself to actually judge Scripture. As we discussed on a previous thread, Luther downgraded 4 books of the NT to the status of books which cannot be used for doctrinal purposes. Of course all of this is a piece of the whole, that whole being Luther’s teaching on Private Interpretation and the disastrous results of that teaching.

The thing we have to remember is that PI is very appealing to the ego. One of the things that Orthodoxy has to battle has had to battle is the fact that it is not ‘sexy’. (The Great) Anglican Theologian Alister McGrath, in one of his better books, points out that:

“We have already noted that contemporary Western culture finds heresy attractive. ** The values of postmodern culture are such that they offer implicit reasons for preferring heresy over orthodoxy – such as the pervasive belief that heresy is less moralistic and authoritarian than orthodoxy, that heresy is more intellectually exiting than its stolid orthodox rival, or that orthodoxy has suppressed the truth about heresy in an attempt to cover up its own intellectual or historical shortcomings**. All of these perceptions are difficult to defend historically; yet they resonate with the cultural mood. ** The history of Western culture suggests that such perceptions become realities.” ** McGrath, “Heresy, a History of Defending the Truth”, pg. 217-8

As an example, there is no force in American culture which does more to battle the Culture of Death. (And still the Church does not do enough IMHO). Individual Catholics know full well where the Church stands on abortion, and they also know that they can defect to a church down the street which is not so ‘judgmental’ on that particular issue (and many others). The Culture absolutely hates the Catholic Church, much more than it does Christianity in general. Whatever the secular media can do to discredit or damage the Church it will do. They are more than happy to portray the Church in a negative light whenever possible.

**“The long history of Christian interpretation of the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that certain texts are interpreted in very different ways by different individuals and groups. **This poses the critically important question, **Who is authorized to adjudicate between such interpretations of the New Testament? ** The growing emphasis upon the Catholic Church as the supreme authority in the interpretation of the New Testament began to proceed apace in the second century and is especially evident in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons.” McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 51

Of course, some Christians (of the Confessional ‘stripe’) will proclaim that they have not fallen victim to this phenomenon, because they believe that the ‘church’ is responsible for the interpretation of Scripture. When you ask – “Which church, and why should we believe that it is YOUR church?”, the response is much less audible. In other words, they really don’t have an answer. But – the Catholic Church does. We can answer that question at the top of our voices and with FULL confidence.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[marywarfield]

If I could diagnose mental illnesses across centuries having never been trained in psychology or met the individual in question, I’d make more money than Tetzel and be richer than the Vatican Bank.

Well actually and unfortunately for you Steido we are
not diagnosing from centuries away. We are only
quoting from Luther’s own friends, Luther’s own statements
about himself and those who knew him best especially
Luther’s own spiritual director.

If these were not the folks sorrowing over Luther’s
“sickness in his soul” your sarcasm would stand.
However your statements simply reflect an obtuse
refusal to admit to the truths from those who knew
him best including himself.

However historically for two thousand years
and today when a Catholic thinks, believes, feels
and agonizes as Luther says he did then, as Luther
very well knew, the Church has ONLY two choices-
is it mental illness or is it possession sickening the
soul? There are NO other choices even today for the
spiritual illness Luther admitted he had.

 

[commenter]

From Luther’s letter on translation.

This is Luther’s reason for the use of “allein” in the German.

Jon

I liked the series of posts giving exactly what Luther did write. We are so used to relying on interpretations or commentaries or “spin”, from both opponents and defenders, on every topic nowadays. We ignore primary sources.

 

[spina1953]

Throughout history there have been those who look to the easy way out of something. Luther struggled with his demons trying to know beyond a doubt whether or not he was saved. This was an all consuming and a intense emotional desire to find anything in Scripture that would assure him one way or the other, but to no avail. When Luther read Paul’s words on justified by faith, Luther then interpreted it mean that one is saved, which in turn caused him believe that he had in fact had the correct understanding and that the Catholic Church was wrong in its interpretations. Because he taught theology he decided that he knew more than anyone else in the Church and that the Church had for been teaching error for hundreds of years if not longer. When the Church did not agree with him he broke away from it. When the Pope called him to explain his actions he refused just as he did with his father who wanted him to do something else then become a priest. Luther was very much scrupulous mortifying and flagellating himself in order to do penance for whatever sins he thought he had. This shows a very unstable person who felt that no matter what he did he was not saved nor would he ever be saved. but when he interpreted justified by faith to mean that he was saved and did not need to do anything like good works that he somehow thought meant that by doing them got one into heaven which he obvious misinterpreted. he felt that he could then reinterpret Scripture to conform to his own private understanding and tried to get others to agree with him. when that did not happen, for example Calvin and others, or the catholic church he went on a rant and never turn back and now we see the folly of what he taught and believed.
Now we see those who say they are catholic Lutheran which makes not sense at all and how can one be both wen Lutherans first of all take their name from a person while the Catholic Church does not even the name Jesus for naming the Church. It seems to me to be confusing to say the least as to me it is either one or the other not both. Either one follows what the Catholic Church teaches or one does not. If one is Lutheran then they are not by any means Catholic as Lutherans have their own doctrines that are no in accord with the Catholic faith, no matter what is said that they do. I do not see the Catholic Church changing any of the doctrines it has been teaching for 2,000 years.

 

[JonNC]

=marywarfield;11997329]Again we see the disingenuous nature of Luther.

In GOOD conscience and with a Good will he should

have redone the entire sentence to a proper translation.

Did he? No. What he did do is alter the meaning of

the text and yes today Protestants are still arguing about

good works. It is another indication that the Holy

Spirit was NOT a part of Luther’s work for necessarily

the Spirit would never have allowed that gross error.

Hi Mary,

In all honesty, I’m not a German speaker, so I don’t know if redoing the entire sentence would have been necessary or even right. You seem sure that you know more about German grammatical and idiomatic expression. If that is the case, I’ll not belabor the point.

As for good works. The Lutherans on this forum, regardless of synod, have represented our view of the great importance of good works, as spelled out in our confessions. We can only defend them. What protestants argue about good works is their decision, based on what they believe, decisions they have made. Those decisions are independent of Lutheranism, and I can only to say that, with some, perhaps many, Lutherans often disagree with them.

Another thing I’d like to point out is many times
referred to on these sola threads is the idea that
Canon can be determined by what is quoted by Jesus
and the Apostles in the NT. So they say see? We can find no
direct quotes from the Deuteros therefore they are
lesser and not canon.

Yet Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations are not quoted by Jesus and
the Apostles but they are accepted by Luther.

Not only that there are no quotes even alluding to these
books while at the same time we have numerous
statements in the NT that very likely straight from
the deuteros.

I personally think that is not the proper way to determine canon, and have made no such claim.

I not sure that Luther framed the issue that way, either, at least not in the prefaces that I have read… For example, in his preface to 2 Macc, he references St. Augustine and the ancient Fathers having concerns about some of the historic accuracy in 2 Macc. So, I’ll allow those who do use that particular measure to defend the practice. I can’t.

As for me, the issue remains not what Luther said or believed about the canon, as I don’t entirely agree with his POV. The issue is his Catholic right and privilege, prior to Trent, to question the canon, as many in history often did.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I liked the series of posts giving exactly what Luther did write. We are so used to relying on interpretations or commentaries or “spin”, from both opponents and defenders, on every topic nowadays. We ignore primary sources.

Thanks, Commenter.

Jon