Help from Lutherans

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your post.

I’ve always understood Luther’s lament about his interactions with Eck as a sadness that no reconciliation took place.

Curiously enough, when Eck was used as a scape-goat for the troubles and was a broken and forlorn man, Luther was one of the few people to be kind to him on his death-bed and penned a very kind private letter to him.

I think you are confusing Eck with Tetzel. Please notice that I am not claiming that you have made a ‘grave error’ or that the rest of what you write should be viewed with some kind of suspicion, simply that you are mistaken.

In fact, John Eck’s already considerable reputation was only enhanced by defeating Luther at Leipzig (among Catholics only of course). Protestantism has generally vilified him for centuries. He continued to battle heresy, and as I pointed out earlier, it was Eck who headed the Lutherans off at the pass with regard to their dishonest representation of their beliefs at Augsburg. This took place about a dozen years after the death of Tetzel.

There is another seemingly innocuous event which is emblematic of the False Legend of Luther. It has to do with Luther’s dramatic speech at the Diet of Worms, where he defied the Emperor and the Catholic Church in front of an assembly which contained the Who’s Who of his day. Legend has it that he ended his plea by stating ‘Here I stand…” This is the stuff of Legends, however, in all likelihood, he never uttered these words at all.

“A later printed version issued in Wittenberg (Luther’s home) added the words “Here I stand; I can do no other,” before the words, “God help me, Amen.” They do not appear in the extensive stenographic accounts taken down as Luther spoke. But they express his conviction.” Marius 294

In other words, somebody wished that Luther had said that and so they simply added it to the printed account of speech.

“At worms Luther faced ostracism and death, not for the sake of an established creed or ties of ancestry and tradition; he did so because of personal convictions, derived from inner conflict and still subject to further conflict. The conscience he spoke of was not an inner sediment of a formalized morality; it was the best a single man between heaven, hell, and earth could know. If Luther did not really say the words which became most famous: “Here I stand”, legend again rose to the occasion; for this new credo was for men whose identity was derived from their determination to stand on their own feet, not only spiritually, but politically, economically, and intellectuality. Eric Erickson, “Young Man Luther: A Study in Psychoanalysis and History”, pg. 231

Roland Bainton, who wrote one of the most popular biographies of Luther, and who was always willing to show Luther in a positive light - if at all possible, quotes the last few words of Luther’s statement at Worms as: “I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.” Bainton, pg. 180.

Bainton goes on to state: “The earliest printed version added the words: “’Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.’ The words, though not recorded on the spot, may nevertheless be genuine, because the listeners at the moment may have been too moved to write.” Bainton, pg. 180

Bainton is apparently willing to damage his own credibility to support the Legend of Luther. If I remember correctly, there were four scribes who were recording Luther’s every word at Worms. I guess we are all supposed to believe that all four were simultaneously so completely awestruck by the magnificence of those words as to be unable to do their jobs. In addition, after the fact, they were then still so stunned by the magnificence of Luther’s final words as to be incapable of remembering this supposedly stunning statement and add it to the record to make it complete. How gullible did Bainton think his readers would be? What is amazing is that Bainton was clearly aware of the fact that Luther almost surely did not utter the words “Here I Stand” at Worms – and yet – the title of his book is “Here I Stand, a Life of Martin Luther”. Why would someone use a phrase as the title of their book about Luther after admitting that the phrase “may nevertheless be genuine”?

Richard Marius, who wrote what I consider to be the best and most fair biography of Luther, was critical of Bainton’s “effort to make the best of Luther”. In this particular case, the quote had to do with Bainton’s representation of Luther’s actions against the Jews, but the criticism is valid issue upon issue, with this one being a classic example.

The editors of Luther’s works are generally very reliable and record the last words of Luther at Worms as follows: “I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me, Amen.”

This last sentence though is footnoted with the following: “These words are given in German in the Latin text upon which this translation is based. There is good evidence, however, that Luther actually said only: “May God help me!” Cf. Deutsche Reichstagsakten, Vol. II: Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V (Gotha, 1896), p. 587.” LW, Vol. 32, pg. 112-13

Every movie about Luther includes the ‘nailing’ and the dramatic ‘Here I stand’ speech at Worms. It is very likely that neither of them actually happened. None of these movies though seem to even a hint of his horrific writings against the Jews, the Peasants, the Anabaptists, etc. Those things just don’t fit the Legend, and the goal of the Legend is to make Luther seem plausible as a ‘Reformer’. Of course there are many other aspects of the false Legend of Luther which have a much greater importance in regards to his qualifications to ‘set straight’ so many different aspects of Christianity.

God Bless, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Of course there have been a few ‘notorious popes’, but only a few and in fact, in terms of percentages, there have been fewer ‘notorious popes’ than there were Apostles. After all, 1/12th of the Apostles were ‘notorious’. A far smaller proportion of the popes have been.

That being said, you introduce Leo into this discussion about Luther, and claim that he was ‘notorious’, by comparison to Luther, who was apparently - not ‘notorious’. Luther wrote that the princes should slaughter the peasants “without mercy”. 100,000 of them were slaughtered. Luther wrote that Anabaptists should be put to death, and in fact, in areas dominated by Luther’s theology, some were. Luther of course recommended (among other things) to the secular leaders, that rabbis be put to death: “on pain of loss of life and limb” (LW, Vol. 47, pg. 269) for the crime of teaching the Jewish faith to Jewish people. He also recommended to the ecclesiastical leaders (among other things), that Jews be put to death if caught praising God: “that they be forbidden on pain of death to utter the name of God within our hearing.” (LW, Vol. 47, pg. 285)

In order to claim that Leo was ‘notorious’, by comparison and seemingly giving Luther ‘a pass’, you must think that Leo did some astonishingly horrific things. Could you please list them, specifically and exactly, so that all we can see how they compare with this truncated list of Luther’s actions?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

His blessings also with you.

You miss the point of my post. The issue is not one of comparisons. That’s the polemics of old.
Luther’s faults and peccadillos are not to be defended. I wouldn’t waste my time in the effort. The same is true of popes and others from the Catholic past. In neither case are current day Lutherans and Catholics responsible. And using their faults as a means to beat others about the head and shoulders polemically is of no value.
The history is known, and often debated. It seems to me the Pope Benedict’s approach serves the hope for unity much better. And Lutherans should do the same regarding the CC

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

His blessings also with you.

You miss the point of my post. The issue is not one of comparisons. That’s the polemics of old.
Luther’s faults and peccadillos are not to be defended. I wouldn’t waste my time in the effort. The same is true of popes and others from the Catholic past. In neither case are current day Lutherans and Catholics responsible. And using their faults as a means to beat others about the head and shoulders polemically is of no value.
The history is known, and often debated. It seems to me the Pope Benedict’s approach serves the hope for unity much better. And Lutherans should do the same regarding the CC

Jon

A wiseman once said…

“if we paint the furture with past, the picture becomes to messy to gather anything from it.”

 

[benjohnson]

Every movie about Luther includes the ‘nailing’ and the dramatic ‘Here I stand’ speech at Worms. It is very likely that neither of them actually happened. None of these movies though seem to even a hint of his horrific writings against the Jews, the Peasants, the Anabaptists, etc. Those things just don’t fit the Legend, and the goal of the Legend is to make Luther seem plausible as a ‘Reformer’. Of course there are many other aspects of the false Legend of Luther which have a much greater importance in regards to his qualifications to ‘set straight’ so many different aspects of Christianity.

God Bless, Topper

His blessing on you too!

…

I have no problem with anyone knocking down “Luther the Legend” - he would have preferred it that was so that the view to the cross was unobstructed.

But I would also urge caution - to distill Luther into a mere anti-semite and peasant slaughterer is also a bridge too far to do to any fellow Christian especially given the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s thoughts on Luther’s theology.

The way forward for the Church is in reconciliation, appreciation, and correction - frankly it’s not in picking apart old wounds.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

You miss the point of my post. The issue is not one of comparisons. That’s the polemics of old.

I think I did get the point of your post. I posted facts which are not flattering to Luther. Your response did not deal with those facts at all. Instead you chose to mention ‘notorious’ popes. That is a comparison. Without mentioning Luther, you made a comparison. It is not “the polemics of old” as you stated. It is the polemics you employed yesterday.

We agree though on one thing. There is absolutely no comparison between Luther and the Various Popes, at least in one respect, the way in which they each have influenced their respective traditions.

Lutheran and Protestant theology are directly tied to Martin Luther in a completely different and much more significant manner than the connection between the Pope (or even all the Popes) and Catholic Theology. Luther took far more responsibility for the development of doctrine onto his shoulders than all of the Popes put together. He is directly responsible for the development of the basic doctrinal tenants of Protestantism. Very few Popes have ever made an ex-cathedra statement and the few who have consulted the leadership of the Church before they did. In fact, very few Popes left any lasting mark on the doctrines of the Church. Consultation was not exactly Luther’s ‘style’. He took matters into his own hands and personally and individually, almost totally without any advice from anybody, refuted or denied or rejected or severely altered several dozen important doctrines of the historic Church.

Of course you can argue that he was justified to do so, but that is not the point. The fact is that he did so. Are we Catholics supposed to believe that the tens of thousands of well-trained Catholic Theologians of the first 1500 years were SO inept that, collectively and individually, they did not have a clue what the Scriptures say.

Or does logic and reason point to at least the possibility that Luther might have been only one in a long line of theologians who went off the rails and began believing and teaching heresy, meaning teaching beliefs that were false.

When you claimed that Leo was ‘notorious’, you were inferring that the actual human nature of our ecclesiastical leaders is important. Because Luther challenged so many long held Christian teachings, he, Martin Luther, the man, is hugely important. It is critical to determine whether he was made of the ‘right stuff’ for such an amazingly important job, the job of ‘Reforming’ a doctrinally errant Church. It also makes you wonder what the ‘right stuff’ really is, and then, whether Luther actually had ‘it’.

The general reaction to the above from many Protestants will be that Luther the man doesn’t really matter. They think that what really matters is whether his teachings were ‘Scriptural’, and as such, there is no real benefit to delving into the various ‘qualities’ of the man. I think that if the actual facts of Luther portrayed him to have all of the qualities that we should expect of a “Reformer”, Protestants would be calling for everyone to understand the truth about the man instead attempting to avoid it.

In fact, Protestantism itself has proven that it doesn’t think very much of Luther’s Scriptural interpretations. If it did think highly of those interpretations, it would not have been ‘necessary’ to form an almost uncountable number of sub-traditions which compete directly with the Lutherans and directly refute his teachings.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11420432]Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

I think I did get the point of your post. I posted facts which are not flattering to Luther. Your response did not deal with those facts at all. Instead you chose to mention ‘notorious’ popes. That is a comparison. Without mentioning Luther, you made a comparison. It is not “the polemics of old” as you stated. It is the polemics you employed yesterday.

It is clearly the polemics of old. I used the term notorious popes to show that your arguments are the arguments of old. The fact that you posted unflattering facts about Luther (as if I haven’t come across that before), is your choice.

We agree though on one thing. There is absolutely no comparison between Luther and the Various Popes, at least in one respect, the way in which they each have influenced their respective traditions.

Lutheran and Protestant theology are directly tied to Martin Luther in a completely different and much more significant manner than the connection between the Pope (or even all the Popes) and Catholic Theology. Luther took far more responsibility for the development of doctrine onto his shoulders than all of the Popes put together. He is directly responsible for the development of the basic doctrinal tenants of Protestantism. Very few Popes have ever made an ex-cathedra statement and the few who have consulted the leadership of the Church before they did. In fact, very few Popes left any lasting mark on the doctrines of the Church. Consultation was not exactly Luther’s ‘style’. He took matters into his own hands and personally and individually, almost totally without any advice from anybody, refuted or denied or rejected or severely altered several dozen important doctrines of the historic Church.

You need to be specific here. Use of the term protestant is vague and often misleading. If you wish to talk about Luther’s role in Lutheranism, that is fine. Protestant is far too broad with too many differing movements that are and were independent of the Lutheran Reformation.
The statement that luther took things into his own hands stands in opposition to history. Luther had many allies and colleagues with whom he worked. The standard document of the Lutheran Church, the Augsburg Confession, was not written by Luther.

Of course you can argue that he was justified to do so, but that is not the point. The fact is that he did so. Are we Catholics supposed to believe that the tens of thousands of well-trained Catholic Theologians of the first 1500 years were SO inept that, collectively and individually, they did not have a clue what the Scriptures say.

Or does logic and reason point to at least the possibility that Luther might have been only one in a long line of theologians who went off the rails and began believing and teaching heresy, meaning teaching beliefs that were false.

Your argument goes “off the rails” when you infer that Lutheranism disregards the 1500 years of the Church prior to the Reformation. That is simply and factually not true, and the Lutheran confessions show it. This, again, is the reason one cannot confuse or conflate the various non-Catholic western Christian movement loosely termed “protestant”

When you claimed that Leo was ‘notorious’, you were inferring that the actual human nature of our ecclesiastical leaders is important. Because Luther challenged so many long held Christian teachings, he, Martin Luther, the man, is hugely important. It is critical to determine whether he was made of the ‘right stuff’ for such an amazingly important job, the job of ‘Reforming’ a doctrinally errant Church. It also makes you wonder what the ‘right stuff’ really is, and then, whether Luther actually had ‘it’.

They are important in both, and for many on both side, they didn’t measure up, anymore than we do. Neither Luther nor Leo can be discussed without the understanding of that time. One cannot, for example, point to Luther’s late-in-life tirade against the Jews without understanding the general and active anti-Judaism of the time, evidenced by Eck’s tirades that were equally harsh.

The general reaction to the above from many Protestants will be that Luther the man doesn’t really matter. They think that what really matters is whether his teachings were ‘Scriptural’, and as such, there is no real benefit to delving into the various ‘qualities’ of the man. I think that if the actual facts of Luther portrayed him to have all of the qualities that we should expect of a “Reformer”, Protestants would be calling for everyone to understand the truth about the man instead attempting to avoid it.

Many protestants will say that Luther the theologian doesn’t matter to them. Many will say he was “too Catholic”, or “didn’t go far enough”.
You speak as if you have uncovered some never known before facts about the man, Luther. It would be obvious that Pope Benedict, who speaks so well of Luther (without always agreeing with him) knows of these things. If his faults are of such a nature that you would not dare be a Lutheran, fine. I am not non-Catholic because of Pope Leo or any other Catholic, or because of any scandal or failings of the Catholic Church over the centuries. I am not Catholic because of doctrine, one in particular, not personalities.

continued

 

[JonNC]

In fact, Protestantism itself has proven that it doesn’t think very much of Luther’s Scriptural interpretations. If it did think highly of those interpretations, it would not have been ‘necessary’ to form an almost uncountable number of sub-traditions which compete directly with the Lutherans and directly refute his teachings.

And equally they refute Catholic teachings, and often it is the similarities in our teachings that causes them to refute both.
It seems to me unreasonable to expect that Zwingli, or the anabaptists, or later Calvin would have followed Luther since, from the start, their theologies were quite different than Lutheranism. They were not Lutherans that split off, or part of a monolithic reformation movement that divided. Therefore, the equally important question is why did they not stay Catholic, and one can’t answer that by saying because of Luther because they were never with Luther.
What identified the Lutheran reformers as distinct from the other independent reformation movements is, by and large, what separates them from us today: the sacraments. Sure there are other dramatic differences, but it is the sacramental nature of Lutheranism that Zwingli could not abide, that the anabaptists could not abide, that even the Calvinists could not abide.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

His blessings also with you.

Jon

 

[Tomster]

And equally they refute Catholic teachings, and often it is the similarities in our teachings that causes them to refute both.
It seems to me unreasonable to expect that Zwingli, or the anabaptists, or later Calvin would have followed Luther since, from the start, their theologies were quite different than Lutheranism. They were not Lutherans that split off, or part of a monolithic reformation movement that divided. Therefore, the equally important question is why did they not stay Catholic, and one can’t answer that by saying because of Luther because they were never with Luther.
What identified the Lutheran reformers as distinct from the other independent reformation movements is, by and large, what separates them from us today: the sacraments. Sure there are other dramatic differences, but it is the sacramental nature of Lutheranism that Zwingli could not abide, that the anabaptists could not abide, that even the Calvinists could not abide.

How many sacraments do Lutheran’s recognize today, Jon? How many have they recognized in the past? Has there ever been any uncertainty within Lutheranism over the past 500 years regarding the number of sacraments?

His blessings also with you.

Jon

 

[Tomster]

And equally they refute Catholic teachings, and often it is the similarities in our teachings that causes them to refute both.
It seems to me unreasonable to expect that Zwingli, or the anabaptists, or later Calvin would have followed Luther since, from the start, their theologies were quite different than Lutheranism. They were not Lutherans that split off, or part of a monolithic reformation movement that divided. Therefore, the equally important question is why did they not stay Catholic, and one can’t answer that by saying because of Luther because they were never with Luther.
What identified the Lutheran reformers as distinct from the other independent reformation movements is, by and large, what separates them from us today: the sacraments. Sure there are other dramatic differences, but it is the sacramental nature of Lutheranism that Zwingli could not abide, that the anabaptists could not abide, that even the Calvinists could not abide.

His blessings also with you.

Jon

Since you state that Lutheranism contains a “sacramental nature” which is the dramatic difference between Lutheranism and Calvinism, could you please tell us how many sacraments Lutherans recognize today. Has there even been any doubt or disagreement within Lutheranism over the past 500 years as to the number of sacraments? And finally, Jon, who within Lutheranism determined the exact number of sacraments and by what authority?

 

[steido01]

Since you state that Lutheranism contains a “sacramental nature” which is the dramatic difference between Lutheranism and Calvinism, could you please tell us how many sacraments Lutherans recognize today.

At least three. From the Apologia Confessio Augustana:

bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php

Has there even been any doubt or disagreement within Lutheranism over the past 500 years as to the number of sacraments?

Not within Confessional Lutheranism, which has always adhered to the Book of Concord. That said, I’ll readily admit that you would likely find a plethora of poorly-catechized or downright wrong Lutherans who would teach things outside of the Confessions.

And finally, Jon, who within Lutheranism determined the exact number of sacraments and by what authority?

I’m tempted to quote Luke 20, but I’ll play nice and address the other portion of your question. Tomster, this question assumes that Lutheranism has determined an exact number of sacraments. Please read the link I presented. Lutherans can’t really understand your question as it is phrased.

 

[TertiumQuid]

As for your comment about my wanting to prove Luther to be a sinful man: I have no interest in ‘proving’ Luther to be a sinful man like the rest of us. That is a given and falls into the “so what category”. My position is that the “Luther of Legend” is quite different than the Luther of factual history and there is a reason for the difference. The Luther of actual fact does not come across as being someone who should be trusted to develop radical new ways of interpreting Scripture.

Hi Topper!

Thanks for posting all the interesting quotes and analysis. It’s obvious you’ve really done your homework!

I highlighted this one comment from you above just to ask a point of clarification: Wouldn’t someone that “does not come across as being someone who should be trusted to develop radical new ways of interpreting Scripture” be simply another way of “wanting to prove Luther to be a sinful man”? I don’t really see the difference.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Hi Topper!

Thanks for posting all the interesting quotes and analysis. It’s obvious you’ve really done your homework!

I highlighted this one comment from you above just to ask a point of clarification: Wouldn’t someone that “does not come across as being someone who should be trusted to develop radical new ways of interpreting Scripture” be simply another way of “wanting to prove Luther to be a sinful man”? I don’t really see the difference.

Or we can look at it this way. I am not a fan of Luther. That is a well known fact lol, however, Luther was as sinful as St. Patrick, Paul, Peter, Augustine…and all the ECF.

 

[JonNC]

At least three. From the Apologia Confessio Augustana:

bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php

Not within Confessional Lutheranism, which has always adhered to the Book of Concord. That said, I’ll readily admit that you would likely find a plethora of poorly-catechized or downright wrong Lutherans who would teach things outside of the Confessions.

I’m tempted to quote Luke 20, but I’ll play nice and address the other portion of your question. Tomster, this question assumes that Lutheranism has determined an exact number of sacraments. Please read the link I presented. Lutherans can’t really understand your question as it is phrased.

Thanks, Don.

Jon