Good ol' Luther

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

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:

Again, it’s not my web site. Eric Svendsen graciously allows some of my work to be available there. I link to the papers i’ve written simply because it’s easier when referring to them. On the other hand, I do think the overall body of work by Svendsen and Engwer on the site is worth reading. You would do well to read their material.

Eden:

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

Yes, i’m guilty of dialoging with DA. In **your case ** Eden, I would suggest you actually read some of Armstrong’s material on Luther. He actually has modified his views of Luther over the years. Armstrong will actually read a context when it’s presented to him. Even with the Luther quote you pulled from his site, you would do well to read what Armstrong actually wrote.

I pointed out to you on the other thread:

Even Armstrong provides pertinent information about (the quote). Dave points out:

The editor’s footnote on the same page reads:

Quote:
“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, . . . in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer.”

So, Luther actually said this, according to a very conservative Lutheran web page. It’s in Table-Talk, just as I suspected. And it is in the English translation of Luther’s Works. Apparently (and unfortunately) the context is not included in that edition. Perhaps it is in the German edition. Until that is clarified, I prefer to err on the side of caution and the benefit of the doubt and charity towards Luther, and agree that the above explanation is probably the correct one.

I think it would be good for you to actually read the material before using it.

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

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!

John Warwick Montgomery points out:

“Few people realize — and liberal Luther interpreters do not particularly advertise the fact — that in all the editions of Luther’s Bible translation after 1522 the—Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end, of his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an “Epistle of straw.” Montgomery finds that Luther showed a “considerable reduction in negative tone in the revised Prefaces to the biblical books later in the Reformer’s career.” For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.

Rarely is Luther accurately quoted on this topic. Luther says James “is really an epistle of straw” **compared to ** “St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle.” Luther wants his readers to see a comparison.

An interesting fact not usually mentioned is that even though Luther had doubts about James, these were not enough to deter him from preaching from the book. For instance, in 1536 Luther preached on James 1:16-21. Sermon for the Fourth Sunday after Easter, “Two things there are which part men from the Gospel: one is angry impatience, and the other evil lust. Of these James speaks in this epistle.”

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

TinaK:

Table Talk is not a reliable source at all. TG Tappert wrote in the introduction to Table Talk (printed by Fortress Press)…

Hi Tina,

Great information, thank you. I likewise attempted to point this out on another thread. Even Roman Catholic scholars understand this. The Catholic Scholar Thomas O’Meara:

“…Catholics are using inaccurately rhetorical arguments when they make the value of Luther’s theology and reform depend upon his table-talk language. Rhetoric appeals to the mind- but it appeals through emotions. It reaches the mind not through a purely intellectual act, examining the case thoroughly and logically, but by leaps and bounds, driven by emotions and will, faculties incapable of a calm judgment of what is true.” (Thomas O’Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966), 5).

The question though, is what motivates people to ignore this information and continue attacking Luther? Is it simply because they don’t want to be fair to Luther?

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.

Armstrong’s article goes in this direction also, but I don’t think it’s neccessary to do so. To my knowledge, there are no source documents that verify Luther ever being “drunk”. The evidence of Luther’s writings suggests he repeatedly preached against drunkenness.

Rather, I echo the words of the Catholic scholar Jared Wicks when he correctly pointed out,

“One needs to be on the lookout for Luther’s rhetorical flights, and to be judicious in discriminating between the substance of his message and the linguistic extremes with which he sometimes made his points”

source:Jared Wicks, Luther and His Spiritual Legacy, (Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983), 29.

Again though Tina, I greatly appreciated your post.

Blessings,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

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.

By all means, folks should read our “dialogs”. I wasn’t the one who resorted to insults and ad hominem.

James Swan

 

[Eden]

It is dubious methodology to cull extracts from one post and paste them into another thread when the passages in question have not been directly answered on the thread of origin.

 

[Mickey]

TertiumQuid:

Again, it’s not my web site. Eric Svendsen graciously allows some of my work to be available there. I link to the papers i’ve written simply because it’s easier when referring to them. On the other hand, I do think the overall body of work by Svendsen and Engwer on the site is worth reading. You would do well to read their material.

These two individuals are avid, dedicated, anti-Catholic writers–and so I ponder the question–why would Catholics desire to read their material?
:nope:

 

[Eden]

TertiumQuid:

Again, it’s not my web site. Eric Svendsen graciously allows some of my work to be available there. I link to the papers i’ve written simply because it’s easier when referring to them. On the other hand, I do think the overall body of work by Svendsen and Engwer on the site is worth reading. You would do well to read their material.

Yes, i’m guilty of dialoging with DA. In **your case **Eden, I would suggest you actually read some of Armstrong’s material on Luther. He actually has modified his views of Luther over the years. Armstrong will actually read a context when it’s presented to him. Even with the Luther quote you pulled from his site, you would do well to read what Armstrong actually wrote.

I pointed out to you on the other thread:

Even Armstrong provides pertinent information about (the quote). Dave points out:

The editor’s footnote on the same page reads:

Quote:
“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, . . . in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer.”

So, Luther actually said this, according to a very conservative Lutheran web page. It’s in Table-Talk, just as I suspected. And it is in the English translation of Luther’s Works. Apparently (and unfortunately) the context is not included in that edition. Perhaps it is in the German edition. Until that is clarified, I prefer to err on the side of caution and the benefit of the doubt and charity towards Luther, and agree that the above explanation is probably the correct one.

I think it would be good for you to actually read the material before using it.

James Swan

Thank you for your suggestion. I have read much of Dave Armstrong’s work on Luther. I provided links in previous posts.

About the webpage from which you quoted above, I read the entire article several times. Right down past the quote you provided, on through to this: “So now three Lutherans are willing to entertain (at least in part, or as a live possibility) the ‘drunk theory.’” You provide an editor’s note but neglect to mention that the dialogue continues beyond that quote:

But I would quickly add that the statement itself is blasphemous and shouldn’t have been uttered or written in *any *context: humorous or sarcastic or not. What is so funny or “educational” or pastorally- or pedagogically necessary or edifying about our Glorious Lord and Savior Jesus fornicating with two or three women?

What’s the point in making such an outrageous statement in any way, shape or form, even if Luther didn’t believe it literally, and was trying to make some point – one that is almost peculiar and unique in Christian history to his own highly individual and frequently contradictory rhetoric?
In that sense, Luther doesn’t “get out of” the sinfulness of his errant tongue, whether it was (in this instance) the tongue of a drunk man or not. I don’t see a very big loophole. Perhaps we can cut Luther a little slack for his filthy mouth in other contexts, but when it comes to our Lord Jesus, that is where any Christian must draw the line and call Luther on his serious error.

For anyone who has *not *read the page, it is from a discussion on the public, Protestant-moderated CARM Catholic Discussion Board. Dave wrote: “BJ Bear’s words will be in green. I believe he is a Lutheran. Martin Luther’s words will be in red. ‘Bonnie’ is a moderator on the CARM board, and is married to a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod pastor. Her words will be in blue. EL Hamilton’s words will be in purple.”

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ29.HTM

 

[TinaK]

quote (Eden): 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, I have never heard anything of the like before, but I know who to ask to find this out. It may take me a couple of days, though, to have an answer.

quote (Rand Al’Thor): Do you know if the bibles printed now contain that appendix, or are they without any Apocrypha?

There are only two types of bibles I’ve seen — with Apocrypha and without. My aunt has a German bible from 1881 done by the American Bible Society that doesn’t have the Apocrypha in it. I’m guessing that the reason it is in the 2 bibles I have is because Concordia published them, and in 1900 Lutherans were still “Lutheran”, not glorified reformed. Concordia Publishing did a study bible here some years ago, but I’d have to ask my mom if the Apocrypha is in it or not. My mom also has a KJV with the apocrypha in it, but it was done by Oxford Press in 1950. Lutherans nowadays pretty well use the main protestant translations (NKJV, NIV, RSV, WFBT --whatever floats your boat translation), and unfortunately none of them have the Apocrypha. (I’m still hoping to find a NKJV with apocrypha one of these days, but I’m not holding my breath.) I would have to do some calling around to find more out.

When I was in (Lutheran) grade school, I was taught (by a teacher) that the Apocrypha were books that were wrongly included in scripture for centuries and were nothing but a bunch of made up lies. It wasn’t until a few years ago when my grandparents had a confessional pastor come to serve at their church that I found out historically, Lutherans believed that the Apocryphal books were to be read in church, that they were useful historical books. (And the closer I come to being a true confessional Lutheran, the closer I come to Rome

As for James and Revelation, I had always heard that Luther didn’t care for them, but to the best of my knowledge they were never removed completely. I still think someone must have talked him out of it.

And not that this has anything to do with this, I decided a while ago that Luther must have been an alcoholic from some of the stuff he’s recorded as saying. I come from a long line of them, and sometimes his “unpolished” works sound like stuff I heard from family members before they sobered up. So maybe we shouldn’t take Luther too seriously

Got to run
Tina

 

[Eden]

TertiumQuid:

For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.

Rarely is Luther accurately quoted on this topic. Luther says James “is really an epistle of straw” **compared to **“St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle.” Luther wants his readers to see a comparison.

An interesting fact not usually mentioned is that even though Luther had doubts about James, these were not enough to deter him from preaching from the book. For instance, in 1536 Luther preached on James 1:16-21. Sermon for the Fourth Sunday after Easter, “Two things there are which part men from the Gospel: one is angry impatience, and the other evil lust. Of these James speaks in this epistle.”

James Swan

 

[Eden]

TertiumQuid:

John Warwick Montgomery points out:

“Few people realize — and liberal Luther interpreters do not particularly advertise the fact — that in all the editions of Luther’s Bible translation after 1522 the—Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end, of his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an “Epistle of straw.” Montgomery finds that Luther showed a “considerable reduction in negative tone in the revised Prefaces to the biblical books later in the Reformer’s career.” For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.

Rarely is Luther accurately quoted on this topic. Luther says James “is really an epistle of straw” **compared to **“St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle.” Luther wants his readers to see a comparison.

An interesting fact not usually mentioned is that even though Luther had doubts about James, these were not enough to deter him from preaching from the book. For instance, in 1536 Luther preached on James 1:16-21. Sermon for the Fourth Sunday after Easter, “Two things there are which part men from the Gospel: one is angry impatience, and the other evil lust. Of these James speaks in this epistle.”

James Swan

This is the same response that I replied to when I said he retracted the sentence and not the sentiment.

You stated in your article: “Luther appears to have held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James.”

The fact that Luther confused two men named James should require more investigation in light of the above fact. While some of his doubt was from other theologians, the “honest mistake” is striking. Here is the reference from your article:

“Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]: “Love covers a multitude of sins” *, and again [in 4:10], “Humble yourselves under the hand of God” *; also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5:17], “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.**”[59]
Luther makes a genuine mistake at this point. The editors of Luther’s Works correctly point out, “Luther overlooks the fact that the James to whom the book is traditionally ascribed is not the brother of John [Matt. 4:21] martyred by Herod [Acts 12:2], but the brother of the Lord [Matt. 13:55] who became head of the apostolic church at Jerusalem [Acts 15:13; Col. 1:19].”[60]

Thank you for your invitation to read anti-Catholic material.
Has Eric Svendsen written anything on Luther’s authority to speak for the Holy Spirit? I’d enjoy reading that!

 

[Eden]

TinaK:

And not that this has anything to do with this, I decided a while ago that Luther must have been an alcoholic from some of the stuff he’s recorded as saying. I come from a long line of them, and sometimes his “unpolished” works sound like stuff I heard from family members before they sobered up. So maybe we shouldn’t take Luther too seriously

Tina

“Brost!”

 

[Shibboleth]

One of the people that also thought that the author of James was the brother of John was St. Jerome which is interesting considering he penned that Vulgate.

 

[Eden]

Yes. It is interesting because Luther was expressing the same doubts about the canonicity of James that St. Jerome had.

Edited because I just realized that you said St. Jerome “penned” the Vulgate. He did not “pen” the words, as such, he translated them into Latin.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax:

Please notice that modern translations do not include the word “alone”, and that includes respected Protestant translations.

all the ones I’ve seen do. They say “only” by faith.

 

[Shibboleth]

Eden in regards to your continuing questions as to Luther and his authority, speaking, and the Holy Spirit… I believe that Luther would reply that he doesn’t have any more authority than anyone else on the matter, including the Pope, other than he is Christian and has had a decent amount of Theological Education. He did not see himself as a Profit that had infallible guidance from God and the Holy Spirit and therefore realized that he could be and was at times in error.

In regards to James, Revelations, and Hebrews he seemed more aware of this fact than with other beliefs that he held because he stated that although he considered these books to not be inspired he understood and would not condemn those that felt otherwise.

One has to realize that most of the doctrines that Catholics abide by were first composed by those that did not have any ‘authority’ by which you speak. It is after having been expressed that either something such as an imprimatur is placed on the item or in extreme cases the Pope infallibly defines it to be so…

This is the case with the vast majority of Biblical Translations. They are composed by those without this ‘authority’ and then ‘sometimes’ reviewed by the Magisterium.

Karl Keating, Jimmy Aiken, and other Catholic Apologists do not have any valid authority granted to them by the Church but we still listen to what they have to say because we know that they are well educated. Certainly they can and do say some things at times that are wrong but as a whole we trust their judgment.

It is true that Luther said and did many things that Lutherans wish he had not but they do not view him as a Pope and have discounted many things that he felt were true.

I for one will readily agree that he had a tendency to throw away certain things because they were detrimental to his battle with Rome.

 

[Eden]

So, Luther had no authority. He said he was not a prophet, an apostle or directed by the Holy Spirit, yet he set about to create an entirely new church apart from the Church established by Jesus.

By putting forward the idea that anyone can speak for the Holy Spirit’s intentions, Luther is in direct contradiction to the design created by Jesus with “apostolic succession”.

 

[Eden]

Here is a copy of my post about this on another thread:

I’ll answer my own question “Why did Luther have the authority to speak for God?”

Lutherans would likely say, "He didn’t have the authority directly from God. Luther tapped into a universal truth."

Please correct me if this is the wrong Lutheran answer.

If it is the correct answer, it leads one to ask, “**Is this not in direct contradiction to Jesus Himself; this idea that one does not need authority to speak for the Holy Spirit but that one may tap into a “universal truth”?” **

---

Why would Luther’s belief in the “universal truth” be contradictory to Jesus Christ’s own teachings?

"The only alternative to organized religion is disorganized religion

It was very important to Jesus that his Church be unified. In fact, that was part of his last prayer in the Gospel of John (see John 17). In order to ensure that His people would believe and work as one Jesus started a structured Church. Right from the first days of Christianity we can see that the Church Jesus founded had structure. It was organized. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are all mentioned in the Bible and in countless writings from the early Church.

Jesus set aside 12 men as Apostles to lead the Church (John 15:16, 20:21, Luke 22:29-30). Those Apostles appointed other men to lead the Church in the same capacity as they as the Church grew, and to replace them as they died. We call these men “bishops”. (See the ordination of Matthias in Acts 1. Bishops are also mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:1, and in Titus 1:5.) Every Bishop today could trace back their authority to one of the 12 apostles.

Over those 12 apostles Jesus appointed one head honcho, Peter, thus giving further structure and unity to His Church. In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives Peter the “keys of the kingdom”. In biblical terms, “keys” = authority (see Isaiah 22:22). Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Peter’s God given authority was passed down to our present day Pope Benedict XVI, the 265th Bishop of Rome. **That passed on authority to govern the Church is called “Apostolic succession.” **

The Magesterium, that is, the Bishops united with the pope – much like the Apostles united with Peter, have the authority to give us the “final word” on matters of Faith and morals. When there is a debate about scripture, the Magesterium has the final word.

We can see this in action in Acts 15. There was a debate among Christians. The apostles (bishops) gathered to discuss it. **Peter (pope) gave the final word, and then “the whole assembly fell silent.” **Acts 15:12

What happens when you deny that Jesus founded a structured Church with people appointed to lead us with His authority? Since Luther started the protestant reformation, Protestants have started a new church almost every time they disagree about some big issue. Today there are almost 30,000 Christian denominations as a result - all disagreeing about certain things and all claiming that they base their beliefs on the Bible. There is no one to give a final word to make “the whole assembly…silent”.

 

[Eden]

(CONT’D)

Is that what Jesus had in mind when he prayed that we would all be one? I think not. Yet that is what you get when you have no organized religion…you get disorganized religion."

**If Luther believed that he had the authority to speak for God from the idea of “universal truth” only; he was in direct conflict with Jesus’ design Himself. **

In the opening of his epistle Peter identifies himself as an apostle, and from the end of the epistle he reveals agreement with Paul’s epistles and teaching (2 Pet. 3:15). Paul is clear that **the authority of the apostles comes from the Lord himself **(1 Cor. 11:23) for the foundation of the Church (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20, 4:11). Peter agrees with Paul that the commands are “given by the Lord himself through your apostles” (2 Pet. 3:2).

Paul links the ministry of the apostles with the ministry of the prophets. As the prophets were divinely inspired and spoke the express word of God (Num. 11:25, Ezek. 1:3), so **Peter and Paul’s inspiration was direct from God through Christ **(Gal.1:1). It was Peter and the apostles who first received the **direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit **at Pentecost (Acts 1:23–2.4), an event prophesied by Joel (Joel 2:28–32).

Peter also sees that the ministry of the apostles succeeds the ministry of the prophets when he says, “I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles” (2 Pet. 3:2). This supports his earlier words in 1 Peter 1:10–12, where he said the message first given by the prophets “has now been told . . . by those who have preached the gospel by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven”—i.e., the apostles.

In fact, the whole point of the second epistle of Peter is to stress the divine teaching authority of the apostles. Second Peter is a long argument against false teachers, whom Peter compares to false prophets (2 Pet. 2:1)*. In the Old Testament it is only false prophets who prophesy what their own minds prompt them to say (Jer. 23:15, Ezek. 13:3).* The genuine prophet only speaks from the Lord** (Jer. 1:4–10). **The false teachers therefore teach stories that they have made up out of their own minds **(2 Pet. 2:3), and Peter condemns them throughout the second chapter.

He does so only after he first establishes his own foundation for speaking with authority. The false teachers might promote cleverly invented stories but not the apostles. Instead they were eyewitnesses of Christ’s life and work (2 Pet. 1:16). Peter speaks with authority because, like Moses and Elijah, he had heard the voice from heaven when he was with Christ on the holy mountain (2 Pet. 1:18). Peter understands his presence at the transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–13) as the time when he inherited the prophetic authority of Moses and Elijah. Just before this transmission of authority Christ commissioned Peter to be the rock on which the Church would be built (Matt. 16:17–19). As a result, Peter claims an even higher authority and a more certain word than the prophets themselves (2 Pet. 1:19).

Because of this it is Peter who has the authority to interpret Scripture. Just as the gospel does not consist of “cleverly invented fables,” so the interpretation of Scripture is not of any private interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20). As the false prophets spoke out of their own imagination,** so the Greek word for “private” in verse 20 of chapter 1 means “out of your own head.” It is the familiar opposite of “authoritative” or “inspired.”** So we can conclude that Peter viewed his own interpretation of Scripture as authoritative and inspired.

CONCLUSION: How can the idea of a “universal truth” be supported theologically? The Catholic Church has protected the “deposit of faith” that was passed down to us from the apostles for 2,000 years. Scripture warned us that false prophets would appear; which ironically Luther quoted to describe the Catholic clergy as the wolves! The burden of proof as to who is the “false prophet” falls on Luther by showing why he had the authority to speak for the Holy Spirit. I’ve given the evidence as to why the Catholic Church has the authority. If Luther had no authority, is he not a false prophet?

(compiled from “This Rock”)

 

[Shibboleth]

I don’t disagree that Apostolic Succession is imperative, this is the reason why I have decided to become Orthodox and not Lutheran. That being said Luther was ordained by a Bishop so he retained a valid holy order. Likewise the Catholic Church readily admits that the Eastern Orthodox Church, although no in communion with Rome also retain Apostolic Succession.

The concept of Universal Truth, although might be used for some, is not the logic by which Luther did what he set about to do. His and most Protestant theology holds that we are all guided by the Holy Spirit - we do not tap into it. If we were perfect creatures with an infinite capacity for knowledge we would follow the Holy Spirit flawlessly and therefore would be free from error. Unfortunately because of our sinful nature and our bodily limitations we will make errors.

The witty statement - Religion that is not organized is disorganized is foolish. The Muslim Religion is organized and they are not in communion with Rome. One of the facts that Catholic individuals like to point out to Protestants is that how can sola scriptura be true if there are 30,000 denominations. However, a denomination is identified by the fact that they have their own organized governmental structure - hence there are 30,000 organized protestant churches. If you wish to say that they are not organized in the manner that is intended by God I am in full agreement but they are organized.

Although you have an OK understanding of Catholicism you do not understand Protestantism very well and this has led you to make some false assumptions about how they view authority amongst other things.

I am correct to assume that you have read the book, “By Who’s Authority?”

 

[Mickey]

Shibboleth:

That being said Luther was ordained by a Bishop so he retained a valid holy order.

Correct me if I’m wrong, because I am very far from being an expert on Luther. But I thought Luther was an Augustinian monk. Monks do not receive priestly Holy Orders. Am I wrong here?