Good ol' Luther

[Eden]

TertiumQuid:

Now, as to your unanswered questions.No one stopped Luther, but Luther did revise many of his views on the canon (my link above will document this). For instance, Eden posted that Luther called James “an epistle of straw”- true enough, but when he revised his prefaces he deleted that comment. Eden forgot to tell you this.

He detracted the statement but not the sentiment. It was his opinion that James was likely not apostolic. Luther never reconciled his doubts about that. The quote is illustrative of the larger theological implications that Luther’s judgments created. It is disingenuous to say that “Luther revised his prefaces and deleted that comment” as if that erased the damage. He didn’t revise his conclusion that James was dubious!

 

[Eden]

Shibboleth:

Luther constantly spoke of the Spotless Lamb – he used those very words incessantly. He did not think that the Christ had sinned.

No he thought that the work was not actually written by James. He always and forever thought James as an apostle.

1. Yes, he said this at the Table Talks. No one took direct notes during these talks. Luther used to get quite drunk at those Table Talks so it is likely that it would have been difficult to transcribe those ramblings word for word.
2. The “Spotless Lamb” is directly from his education in the Catholic faith. Did you think this was a new concept conceived by Luther? Using the expression “spotless lamb” and then concocting the “adultery” idea are not compatible. I understand that Lutherans explain the adultery quote as “rhetorical”. However, I see nothing in your expanded quote that indicates he was being rhetorical. It appears to me that he believed that Jesus was a sinner, too, but by dying on the cross he saved Himself as well as all of us who are also sinners.
3. No wonder Luther thought James was dubious. He thought that St. James was the brother of John who was martyred by Herod in Jerusalem. That led him to believe that the author of James came long after Peter and Paul. The apostle James was actually the one known as “the brother of the Lord” and became head of the apostolic Church in Jerusalem. How can one decide the importance of James in the bible if you don’t even know who he is?

 

[Eden]

The irony of this entire discussion about Luther’s judgment about James and whether or not it was apostolic is that Luther is judging the works on whether or not they were written with authority. Luther cannot be convinced of its status or credibility unless he can prove that it was written by the* apostle* James. Why? Because the apostle James had authority from Jesus to speak for and from the Holy Spirit. Yet, when I ask Protestants to explain to me how the Holy Spirit conferred the authority on *Luther, *the question remains unanswered. THIS question overrides the importance of James and Luther’s opinion of it. How can I accept Luther’s opinion if I have been given no evidence that he spoke for the Holy Spirit?

 

[Shibboleth]

1) Yes, he said this at the Table Talks. No one took direct notes during these talks. Luther used to get quite drunk at those Table Talks so it is likely that it would have been difficult to transcribe those ramblings word for word.

1. The “Spotless Lamb” is directly from his education in the Catholic faith. Did you think this was a new concept conceived by Luther? Using the expression “spotless lamb” and then concocting the “adultery” idea are not compatible. I understand that Lutherans explain the adultery quote as “rhetorical”. However, I see nothing in your expanded quote that indicates he was being rhetorical. It appears to me that he believed that Jesus was a sinner, too, but by dying on the cross he saved Himself as well as all of us who are also sinners.
2. No wonder Luther thought James was dubious. He thought that St. James was the brother of John who was martyred by Herod in Jerusalem. That led him to believe that the author of James came long after Peter and Paul. The apostle James was actually the one known as “the brother of the Lord” and became head of the apostolic Church in Jerusalem. How can one decide the importance of James in the bible if you don’t even know who he is?

Luther did not think that Jesus sinned - he has a plethora of quotes that speek of Jesus’ sinless nature hence the use of the name Spotless Lamb. No I do not think that Luther invented the name Spottless Lamb went back in time and wrote it into the Orthodox Greek Father’s Writtings. You cannot use the concept of Spottless Lamb without speeking of Jesus’ sinless nature.

In the days before the New Covenant in order to attone for one’s sins a person was required to make a sacrifice. A Levitical Law shows blood scrifices required an animal with no defects or deformities. Of course the lambs used never perfect in all things nor was it atonement for all…

Jesus was perfect in all things, free from any sin or deformity. This made him the perfect sacrifice to atone for all of humanites sins. By doing this he did what Adam was not able to do and thereby erased the sin of Adam.

In the words of Chirst - “He fulfilled the Law” by doing this.

The concept that Chirst became sinless by his scrifice on the cross goes against everything Luther ever taught. Luther even stated himself that upon his death Chirst took all of humainity’s sins upon his shoulders so that only then could he be labled as a sinner by bearing the yoke of our sins.

The quote that I detailed in my first post was not a rehtorical statement by Luther.

What is Luther stating in this quote?

That we are by nature sinners and we need to be aware of that fact. We are not perfect creatures and we will sin. Luther then uses an extreme example that people tend to take out of context with the statement, “even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” First off he is not talking about any one particular person but all of humanity on this earth – as you can see by the previous statements. Irregardless the message is the same.

 

[Eden]

Are you addressing this quote?

**“Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” **

You seem to be addressing this quote:

**“Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin . . . It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day” (WA vol. 2, p. 372; Letters I, Luther’s Works, American ed., vol. 48, p. 282). **

What is your explanation for the first one? Is it not clear that Luther is implying that Jesus was a “bold” sinner?

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

That link is Tertium Quid’s website.

Not quite. My papers are hosted by “New Testament Research Ministries”: ntrmin.org/rccorner.htm

I’m very fond of the work of the two primary writers for the site:
Eris Svendsen and Jason Engwer.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

mark a:

The link provided contains far too much information for me to wade through, and because it’s from mostly a single source, it makes me suspicious right off the bat.

Agreed, it is long, that’s why I hyperlinked it with chapters. I haven’t used a “single source”- you will note I have 132 footnotes, from multiple works and authors. For the most part, Lutheran authors have provided the most in-depth analysis of Luther’s view of the canon.
mark a:

I am too gun-shy to accept this information as objective.

That’s a good trait. Check everything everybody says. We all have bias. But, I don’t even agree with Luther’s view of the canon- i simply think that Catholics don’t understand it in the first place, and make it worse than it is.
mark a:

It’s kinda like a Catholic posting “Catholic Answers” links at an anti-Catholic site. This approach presents no credibility.

Fine by me if a Catholic does this. Provokes me to “research” usually. I will challenge you in this sense: simply dismissing someone’s work is not the same thing as refuting someone’s work. If you disagree with my methodology and conclusions, prove me wrong. Another Catholic poster here challenged this paper, he PM’d me (nice of him) to let me know he did so. I plan on dealing with his points in a few weeks, time allowing.
mark a:

I highly respect Steve Ray’s work partly because he is an ex-Protestant.

Pardon the bluntness. Your own (written) thoughts come across with precision, only to have your links and comments about Steve Ray cast a “here we go again” shadow over them

I was given some links to Steve Ray’s material where he mentions the bit about Melanchthon stopping Luther from removing books, and more than one Catholic has said it to me. So, I went to work and researched it, and came up with nothing. Simply because Ray doesn’t cite his source, doesn’t mean I think he’s the bogeyman. Maybe he read someone say “Maybe Melanchthon stopped him” or something like that. I would really like him to simply document what he’s referring to.

To my knowledge, no such information exists as Ray describes Luther & Melanchthon. The most in depth treatment of Luther’s Bible was done by M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible: An Historical Presentation Together with A Collection of Sources (Ohio: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1934). This book is the most in-depth thurough treatment on this subject. Within 600 pages, Reu makes no mention of such an important discussion between Luther and Melanchthon. Reu does mention though that in 1521 Melanchthon did urge Luther to follow through with his plan of translating the Bible (Reu, 148). Reu notes an intriguing comment from Luther that Melanchthon forced him to do so: “Hence Luther’s remark in Tischreden that Melanchthon had forced him to translate the New Testament (I, 487, 11 f)” (Reu, 351).

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Shibboleth]

Eden:

Are you addressing this quote?

**“Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” **

You seem to be addressing this quote:

“Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin . . . It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day” (WA vol. 2, p. 372; Letters I, Luther’s Works, American ed., vol. 48, p. 282).

What is your explanation for the first one? Is it not clear that Luther is implying that Jesus was a “bold” sinner?

The first quote is being taken out of context as evident by his other remarks made a thousand times over about the sinless nature of Jesus.

However, dogs will hunt and they will take one thing said and make it out to be the whole of a thing.

The second quote states nothing about Jesus being the sinner but us.

 

[Eden]

TertiumQuid:

Not quite. My papers are hosted by “New Testament Research Ministries”: ntrmin.org/rccorner.htm

I’m very fond of the work of the two primary writers for the site:
Eris Svendsen and Jason Engwer.

Regards,
James Swan

Yes. But it links directly to *your *article. I see that “New Testament Research Ministries” is a larger a-C blog for the ex-Catholic Evangelical Protestant Eric Svendsen:

ntrmin.org/

Dave Armstrong vs. James Swan (Tertium Quid) is a nice counter-balance:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ450.HTM#James%20Swan%20(Reformed

 

[Eden]

Shibboleth:

The first quote is being taken out of context as evident by his other remarks made a thousand times over about the sinless nature of Jesus.

However, dogs will hunt and they will take one thing said and make it out to be the whole of a thing.

The second quote states nothing about Jesus being the sinner but us.

The blasphemous suggestion that Jesus committed adultery was taken out of context? Do you have the expanded “Table Talks” for me to see? I’d like to see how a statement like that can be taken out of context.

The second quote is not in my original post about Luther. It is not from the same “Table Talks” session, it was in a letter to Melanchthon dated August 1, 1521 You threw that one in. That’s why I asked which one you were responding to.

“Dogs will hunt and they will take one thing said and make it out to be the whole of a thing.” - This is a confusing, mixed metaphor. As such, I am unclear what the message is.

 

[mark_a]

JohnRef:

But in all the “Luther-bashing”, we must not forget that he did not “go off on his own” like a 20th-century American. He was excommunicated.

Is Luther-bashing psychologically the same as Pope-bashing?

 

[mark_a]

TertiumQuid:

Agreed, it is long, that’s why I hyperlinked it with chapters. I haven’t used a “single source”- you will note I have 132 footnotes, from multiple works and authors. For the most part, Lutheran authors have provided the most in-depth analysis of Luther’s view of the canon.

That’s a good trait. Check everything everybody says. We all have bias. But, I don’t even agree with Luther’s view of the canon- i simply think that Catholics don’t understand it in the first place, and make it worse than it is.

Fine by me if a Catholic does this. Provokes me to “research” usually. I will challenge you in this sense: simply dismissing someone’s work is not the same thing as refuting someone’s work. If you disagree with my methodology and conclusions, prove me wrong. Another Catholic poster here challenged this paper, he PM’d me (nice of him) to let me know he did so. I plan on dealing with his points in a few weeks, time allowing.

I was given some links to Steve Ray’s material where he mentions the bit about Melanchthon stopping Luther from removing books, and more than one Catholic has said it to me. So, I went to work and researched it, and came up with nothing. Simply because Ray doesn’t cite his source, doesn’t mean I think he’s the bogeyman. Maybe he read someone say “Maybe Melanchthon stopped him” or something like that. I would really like him to simply document what he’s referring to.

To my knowledge, no such information exists as Ray describes Luther & Melanchthon. The most in depth treatment of Luther’s Bible was done by M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible: An Historical Presentation Together with A Collection of Sources (Ohio: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1934). This book is the most in-depth thurough treatment on this subject. Within 600 pages, Reu makes no mention of such an important discussion between Luther and Melanchthon. Reu does mention though that in 1521 Melanchthon did urge Luther to follow through with his plan of translating the Bible (Reu, 148). Reu notes an intriguing comment from Luther that Melanchthon forced him to do so: “Hence Luther’s remark in Tischreden that Melanchthon had forced him to translate the New Testament (I, 487, 11 f)” (Reu, 351).

Regards,
James Swan

Yours is another fine post that demonstrates that you are well read on the matter. I would be waaaaay out of my league to debate these issues with you. I am at the baby food stage and you are into the meat and potatoes.

May I ask what drives your interest?

I must admit that much of my own interest and research has been driven by the desire to know that I’m not doomed to hell for being a Catholic, as I have been told by too many “Christians” for too many years.

Have you felt as if you have been backed into a corner by anti-Protestant Christians?

Just curious-

 

[TertiumQuid]

mark a:

Yours is another fine post that demonstrates that you are well read on the matter. I would be waaaaay out of my league to debate these issues with you. I am at the baby food stage and you are into the meat and potatoes.

Thanks for the kind words Mark. I’d say, if you have interest in Luther, read a few good Protestant biographies:

Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil

Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life Of Martin Luther (New York: Mentor Books, 1950).

Also, read a few good Roman Catholic biographies:

John M. Todd, Martin Luther: A Biographical Study (New York: Paulist Press, 1964).

John M. Todd, Luther: A Life (Great Britain: Hamish Hamilton Ltd., 1982).

Joseph Lortz, The Reformation in Germany Vol. 1 and 2 (London: Darton Longman & Todd Ltd, 1968)

Try to stay away from Catholic/Protestant discussions about Luther until you’ve come to grip with him from some good scholars. If you do any web-searchs on Luther, you will find multiple opinions and crazy stuff about him- Everyone has something to say about him- Mormons, Pentacostals, atheists…its incredible actually…i’m always amazed by what I find.

[May I ask what drives your interest?

Certainly. I’m not a regular here at this forum. I actually came here looking for a quote from John Henry Newman, and couldn’t resist some of the “Luther” topics.

A few years back, I began dialoging with Roman Catholics on the CARM boards. These were the best discussions, because Church history comes to life! Anyway, “Luther” came up a lot, and was brought up mostly by Roman Catholics. Fairly common topics included: Luther’s alleged antinomianism, his rejection of certain canonical books, his alleged desire to be a Protestant pope, Luther’s partial responsibility for Nazi Germany, and Luther’s Mariology. Along with this were many Luther quotes. I’m a stickler for footnotes and references, so I started looking up the Luther quotes and charges brought out by Roman Catholics.

This comment of mine from a few years back highlights what I found when I started researching Luther:

“Roman Catholic theologian Joseph Lortz once remarked, “It is a difficult undertaking to attempt a valid and comprehensive interpretation of even the most basic elements of Luther’s thought within the scope of one article. With Luther as with no one else, it is easy to sketch distortedly, a fact that found formulation in Heinrich Boehmer’s well-known statement, “There are as many Luthers as there are books about Luther.” Indeed, the theological landscape is overgrown with Luthers. A quick search for information about Martin Luther on the World Wide Web reveals that polemics against Luther remain frequent and high-pitched, as different groups create the villain they find in his writings. The basic elements of Luther’s thought are generally missing, distorting the man, his theology, and his impact upon post-Reformation society.”
mark a:

Have you felt as if you have been backed into a corner by anti-Protestant Christians?

I consider them “challenges” to think more deeply about my faith. The most incredible theological learning experiences are the one’s that challenge you- the one’s that provoke you to see if what you believe has substance. If it takes me a few minutes to respond to somebody, I probably have not been challenged. If it takes me a few days to respond to a post, it either means i’m bogged down with work, or i’m busy pondering the discussion and doing research.

Take Care and nice talking with you.
James Swan
[/quote]

 

[Shibboleth]

Eden:

The blasphemous suggestion that Jesus committed adultery was taken out of context? Do you have the expanded “Table Talks” for me to see? I’d like to see how a statement like that can be taken out of context.

This is not my burden of proof but even if one did have all of Table Talks it would be impossible to really get the context of what was being said. It would be like having a conversation at a bar, having someone write down 5 to 10 years latter only what one person said, and then having someone 500 years later try to figure out the connotation.

I can think of a few ways that contextually it wouldn’t be much of a problem.

For instance suppose I was at a bar and one of my friends said, “I think our friend Johnny committed adultery with that girl. I mean why else would he have been alone with her for so long. You know everyone is thinking‘ that they are having relations. When that many people think something it usually is true.”

To this I would reply sarcastically in kind of a questioning tone, “Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us? Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly? Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died?”

In other words I would be using reductio ad absurdum to prove that my friends logic was mistaken. I doubt if this was the exact context in which Luther used but I do believe that he was employing reductio ad absurdum as it was absurd compared to his teachings. ← Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that he constantly taught that Jesus was without sin?

Even if he didn’t it would be ridiculous to think that someone who diligently proclaimed the ever virginity of the Theotokis would say that the son was less.

The second quote is not in my original post about Luther. It is not from the same “Table Talks” session, it was in a letter to Melanchthon dated August 1, 1521 You threw that one in. That’s why I asked which one you were responding to.

No my only purpose of bringing it into the discussion was to show that an author from one of your sources was being deceptive and cannot be trusted. I don’t mind having this discussion with you but you need to pay attention, I don’t have time to rehash old topics.

“Dogs will hunt and they will take one thing said and make it out to be the whole of a thing.” - This is a confusing, mixed metaphor. As such, I am unclear what the message is.

This is a common literary tactic used in gonzo style writing. One does it by taking a common phrase that everyone is familiar with and putting a twist on it so that it has a bit of a punch.

For instance in regards to the Iraqi war someone could say, “You can lead a horse to water but that doesn’t mean that he won’t kick you in that nads if you try to make him drink.”

Anyways the point of my statement was that ‘dogs’ in the derogatory sense will hunt down and dig up anything to use fallaciously and maliciously against people.

This quote being used would be as ridiculous as if someone tried to discredit Catholicism by saying stuff like…

“The Pope kissed the Koran. How can that heinous act be taken out of context?”
“Peter rejected Jesus. How can that be taken out of context either he did or did not reject Jesus?”
“Paul reprimanded Peter. Doesn’t seem to me as if he was in charge or infallible in that instance.”

Of course all of these things once properly understood by no way discredit Catholocism but there are those in this world with selective comprehension.

The logic that one can discredit a whole of a thing based on an obscure or bizarre instance is devious at best.

 

[Eden]

Shibboleth:

For instance suppose I was at a bar and one of my friends said, “I think our friend Johnny committed adultery with that girl. I mean why else would he have been alone with her for so long. You know everyone is thinking‘ that they are having relations. When that many people think something it usually is true.”

To this I would reply sarcastically in kind of a questioning tone, “Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us? Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly? Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died?”

In other words I would be using reductio ad absurdum to prove that my friends logic was mistaken. I doubt if this was the exact context in which Luther used but I do believe that he was employing reductio ad absurdum as it was absurd compared to his teachings. ← Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that he constantly taught that Jesus was without sin?

Even if he didn’t it would be ridiculous to think that someone who diligently proclaimed the ever virginity of the Theotokis would say that the son was less.

No my only purpose of bringing it into the discussion was to show that an author from one of your sources was being deceptive and cannot be trusted. I don’t mind having this discussion with you but you need to pay attention, I don’t have time to rehash old topics.

This is a common literary tactic used in gonzo style writing. One does it by taking a common phrase that everyone is familiar with and putting a twist on it so that it has a bit of a punch.

For instance in regards to the Iraqi war someone could say, “You can lead a horse to water but that doesn’t mean that he won’t kick you in that nads if you try to make him drink.”

Anyways the point of my statement was that ‘dogs’ in the derogatory sense will hunt down and dig up anything to use fallaciously and maliciously against people.

This quote being used would be as ridiculous as if someone tried to discredit Catholicism by saying stuff like…

“The Pope kissed the Koran. How can that heinous act be taken out of context?”
“Peter rejected Jesus. How can that be taken out of context either he did or did not reject Jesus?”
“Paul reprimanded Peter. Doesn’t seem to me as if he was in charge or infallible in that instance.”

Of course all of these things once properly understood by no way discredit Catholocism but there are those in this world with selective comprehension.

The logic that one can discredit a whole of a thing based on an obscure or bizarre instance is devious at best.

I was not rehashing anything. In fact, this is the first time that you have addressed the “adultery” quote other than to say that it is taken out of context. In your previous posts you gave me the “sin boldly” quote and an extension that you believe was left out “deceptively”. You refer to this quote as part of the Table Talks and so I readdressed the quote for the purpose of clarifying that not only was that not the quote that I was discussing but it was also not from the Table Talks. It was from a letter to Melanchthon. I would not define clarification as “rehashing”.

“I don’t mind having this discussion with you but you need to pay attention, I don’t have time to rehash old topics.” - This does not add to edifying discussion and is unnecessary.

“Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that he constantly taught that Jesus was without sin?” - No. But but it is possible that he contradicted himself with this statement because he had different opinions at different times. He was not known for being “a particularly systematic thinker.”

The statement itself is blasphemous and whether it was meant to be educational or sarcastic, there is nothing excusable about depicting our Savior as a fornicating with several women.

“Dogs will hunt and they will take one thing said and make it out to be the whole of a thing.” - My understanding of gonzo journalism is that it is intended to shock and excite rather than to inform. I’m neither shocked nor excited.

“You can lead a horse to water but that doesn’t mean that he won’t kick you in that nads if you try to make him drink.”- I can think of many situations in which this quote would be appropriate in the course of apologetic discussion.

“The logic that one can discredit a whole of a thing based on an obscure or bizarre instance is devious at best.” - We both agree, then, that it was bizarre.

 

[TinaK]

quote (Eden):
Do you have the expanded “Table Talks” for me to see? I’d like to see how a statement like that can be taken out of context.

This is what Table Talk records:
No. 1472: Christ Reproached as Adulterer
Between April 7 and May 1, 1532
[Martin Luther said,] “Christ was an adulterer for the first time with the woman at the well, for it was said, ‘Nobody knows what he’s doing with her’ [John 4:27]. Again [he was an adulterer] with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8 :2–11], whom he let off so easily. So the good Christ had to become an adulterer before he died.”100
Luther, M. (1999, c1967). Vol. 54: Luther’s works, vol. 54 : Table Talk (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther’s Works (Vol. 54, Page 154). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

note 100 says, “This entry has been cited against Luther, among others by Arnold Lunn in The Revolt Against Reason (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1951), pp. 45, 257, 258. What Luther meant might have been made clearer if John Schlaginhaufen had indicated the context of the Reformer’s remarks. The probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647) in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer.”

There is no context for the quote.

It seems to me that this is a re-hashing of something at Dave Armstrong’s website : “Did Martin Luther Believe that Jesus had Carnal Relations With Mary Magdalene & Others” I think he does an excellent job with this there.

Table Talk is not a reliable source at all. TG Tappert wrote in the introduction to Table Talk (printed by Fortress Press), "The reader will notice that while most of the conversations were held at Luther’s table, some of them were not. As has been suggested above, many of the reporters who took notes lived in the home of the Reformer. Sometimes they walked with him in the garden and recorded what he said to them there. Sometimes they heard, or overheard, Luther’s conversation with his wife and jotted this down. Sometimes they accompanied him on a journey and reported what was said on the way. The term “Table Talk” has been used more loosely than this, for an early manuscript even included in the Table Talk a recipe for making ink.Luther, M. (1999, c1967). Vol. 54: Luther’s works, vol. 54 : Table Talk (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther’s Works (Vol. 54). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

And yes, it is is very likely that Luther was drunk. One thing I have heard from my grandpa is that the reason that Germans drank so much beer in the past was because the water was no good in Germany. That was something he heard from his grandpa, who came from Brandenburg. That doesn’t excuse a dumb remark, though.

As a side note, to anyone interested, I have 2 reprints of Luther’s German translation of the Bible, ca. 1900. Neither of them have James or Revelation (Apocalypse) apendixed with the “apocryphal” books. Whether that was a decision made by Concordia Publishing House or not, I don’t know.

TinaK

 

[Eden]

Yes, TinaK, I gave the link to Dave Armstrong’s site as my source. Here is a quote from post #19 of mine above:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ29.HTM

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”[57]

If you look back at my original post with this link, it was a full copy of what I posted on another thread. Tertium Quid used “snips” from another thread and so I gave the full post for everyone here to see. I’m glad that you read Dave Armstrong’s page. It’s interesting and it appears that it was common consensus that Luther was drunk.

By the way, could you answer my question about how authority was conferred upon Luther by the Holy Spirit? This is my third thread in which I ask that and my question is still unanswered.

 

[Eden]

Post #15 was my original post responding to the “snip” “snip”. It has links to the two previous threads in which Tertium Quid and I both participated.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

TinaK:

And yes, it is is very likely that Luther was drunk. One thing I have heard from my grandpa is that the reason that Germans drank so much beer in the past was because the water was no good in Germany. That was something he heard from his grandpa, who came from Brandenburg. That doesn’t excuse a dumb remark, though.

lol. my medieval studies teacher was just talking about that being the reason peasants said they drank so much beer!

TinaK:

As a side note, to anyone interested, I have 2 reprints of Luther’s German translation of the Bible, ca. 1900. Neither of them have James or Revelation (Apocalypse) apendixed with the “apocryphal” books. Whether that was a decision made by Concordia Publishing House or not, I don’t know.

TinaK

The bible that Lutherans use now does indeed have James and Revelations in it. I’m not sure when exactly they were added back in or who made the decision, though. I think it’s odd that those who call themselves “Lutherans” usually hold very tightly to the sola scriptura and sola fide belief and most of Luther’s other teachings, yet they arent holding to HIS sola scriptura.

But from your post, it sounds like the Apocrypha was still appendixed in 1900. Do you know if the bibles printed now contain that appendix, or are they without any Apocrypha?

 

[Pax]

I have read some of Luther’s writings I am not generally persuaded by those that defend him. My suggestion to those that are curious about Luther is to simply read his material yourself. There are certainly some well done sermons that are useful to any Christian, but I find some of his material extremely disturbing.

I also find the statements concerning Luther’s “Canon within a Canon” to be, at best, a desperate attempt to gloss over what he attempted to do to scripture. Moreover, there is no excuse for his efforts to add the word “alone” to Romans 3:28. The word was not in the original Greek, and does not linguistically belong in any translation. This was a deliberate addition on Luther’s part that is inseparable from his doctrinal view point. Please notice that modern translations do not include the word “alone”, and that includes respected Protestant translations.