Luther and The Protestant's Dilemma

[Topper17]

“Again, when we forbid them to labor and do business and have any human fellowship with us, thereby forcing them into usury, how is that supposed to do them any good?” LW, Vol. 45, pg. 229

“He was unwittingly proposing a return to the condition of the early Middle Ages, when the Jews had been in agriculture. Forced off the land, they had gone into commerce and, having been expelled from commerce, into money lending. Luther wished to reverse the process and thereby inadvertently would accord the Jews a more secure position than they enjoyed in his day.” Roland Bainton, “Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther”, pg. 379

In addition, this sixth recommendation included a proposal to steal the money of the Jews: **“Luther proposed that a specific sum of money should be used for sincere conversions and to maintain family life and the care of the old and feeble.” **Gritsch, pg. 87

**“Better yet, they should be expelled after a portion of their wealth had been confiscated.” **(Edwards LLB. pg 106)

This exhortation to steal the wealth of the Jews is reminiscent of Luther’s recommendation that the belongings of the Catholic Church be stolen, which they were. One has to wonder whom Luther thought should decide what portion or percentage of the wealth of the Jews should be “redistributed” to the Protestants who were converts from Judiasm.
**
“Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3 :19]).** For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.” LW, Vol. 47, pg. 272

Now that all of those horrible recommendations have been revealed we will be able to address, dissect, and compare to the facts all the points that have been made over the last few days. As with everything else, when the arguments of both sides have been revealed, then everyone can make their determination as to which side has the more compelling arguments.

It should be noted again that in this horrific book Martin Luther used Scripture to support his arguments and recommendations more than 150 times. Is anyone willing to suggest that Luther correctly interpreted Scripture on the matter of the Jews? If not, then isn’t “On the Jews and Their Lies” an excellent reason to distrust Luther’s exegetical abilities?

Eru, I read ahead about how you thought that Luther was irrelevant to your Christian conversion. I am very aware that a lot of people today try to distance themselves from him, even including Lutherans, but I would be interested to know if when you first learned about Luther you learned about his actions and writings against the Jews.

God Bless You Eru, Topper

 

[tdgesq]

As promised, the following is the actual text where Luther made his horrendous ‘recommendations’. As you have been reading that Luther’s ‘teaching’ on the Jews is really not all that important, and that (of course) there were Catholics who were ‘just as bad’ or something very close. Neither of those things are true at all and those arguments that we have been reading will be examined in good time. For now though, it is important to note that NOT ONE Catholic Theologian made ANY of the following seven recommendations as to what should physically happen to the Jews. NOT ONE.

Everything you say here is true. Not one Catholic theologian made any of the seven recommendations Luther made, nor were Catholics just as bad or something very close.

There is Lateran IV, an Ecumenical Council of the Church consisting of the extraordinary Magisterium and presided over by Pope Innocent III; but I wouldn’t call that “one Catholic Theologian,” at least not in the conventional sense.

1. Jews and excessive Usury

The more the christian religion is restrained from usurious practices, so much the more does the perfidy of the Jews grow in these matters, so that within a short time they are exhausting the resources of Christians. Wishing therefore to see that Christians are not savagely oppressed by Jews in this matter, we ordain by this synodal decree that if Jews in future, on any pretext, extort oppressive and excessive interest from Christians, then they are to be removed from contact with Christians until they have made adequate satisfaction for the immoderate burden. Christians too, if need be, shall be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, without the possibility of an appeal, to abstain from commerce with them. We enjoin upon princes not to be hostile to Christians on this account, but rather to be zealous in restraining Jews from so great oppression. We decree, under the same penalty, that Jews shall be compelled to make satisfaction to churches for tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the churches were accustomed to receive from Christians for houses and other possessions, before they passed by whatever title to the Jews, so that the churches may thus be preserved from loss.

This just forbids Jews practicing usury from having any contact with Christians, particularly any commerce with them; and of course it requires them to turn over to the Church tithing monies that it would have otherwise received from Christian households as a result of these usurious practices. Not close to what Luther recommended.

1. Jews appearing in public

A difference of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens from Christians in some provinces, but in others a certain confusion has developed so that they are indistinguishable. Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish or Saracen women, and Jews or Saracens with christian women. In order that the offence of such a damnable mixing may not spread further, under the excuse of a mistake of this kind, we decree that such persons of either sex, in every christian province and at all times, are to be distinguished in public from other people by the character of their dress – seeing moreover that this was enjoined upon them by Moses himself, as we read. They shall not appear in public at all on the days of lamentation and on passion Sunday; because some of them on such days, as we have heard, do not blush to parade in very ornate dress and are not afraid to mock Christians who are presenting a memorial of the most sacred passion and are displaying signs of grief. What we most strictly forbid however, is that they dare in any way to break out in derision of the Redeemer. We order secular princes to restrain with condign punishment those who do so presume, lest they dare to blaspheme in any way him who was crucified for us, since we ought not to ignore insults against him who blotted out our wrongdoings.

This just requires that Jews wear a certain clothing at all times in public to distinguish them from Christians, so that the men won’t intermix with Christian women. Moses required this anyway. Those Jews who blaspheme in derision of Jesus are only to receive a “condign punishment”; which isn’t close to what Luther recommended.

1. Jews not to hold public offices

It would be too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over Christians. We therefore renew in this canon, on account of the boldness of the offenders, what the council of Toledo providently decreed in this matter : we forbid Jews to be appointed to public offices, since under cover of them they are very hostile to Christians. If, however, anyone does commit such an office to them let him, after an admonition, be curbed by the provincial council, which we order to be held annually, by means of an appropriate sanction. Any official so appointed shall be denied commerce with Christians in business and in other matters until he has converted to the use of poor Christians, in accordance with the directions of the diocesan bishop, whatever he has obtained from Christians by reason of his office so acquired, and he shall surrender with shame the office which he irreverently assumed. We extend the same thing to pagans.

This forbids Jews from holding public office, and if they do then they are to be removed and denied commerce with Christians until they have repaid any ill-gotten gains. The same thing is extended to pagans though, so it’s not just about the Jews.

So the recommendations of Lateran IV weren’t good, but not nearly as bad as Luther’s recommendations. Point made?

 

[Eruvande]

Eru, I read ahead about how you thought that Luther was irrelevant to your Christian conversion. I am very aware that a lot of people today try to distance themselves from him, even including Lutherans, but I would be interested to know if when you first learned about Luther you learned about his actions and writings against the Jews.

No, I learned nothing of any of these reprehensible writings. I learned of Luther when we started celebrating ‘Reformation Day’ instead of Halloween with our old Reformed church. Come to think of it, he was presented as quite the hero, really, we used to have viewings of the various films about him, and the phrase ‘Here I stand’ had a ring of courageous bravery. But then, I was taught and believed at the time that the Catholic church was all sorts of things it’s not very polite to repeat.

 

[steve_b]

I’ve just read The Protestant’s Dilemma, and found it a helpful, interesting book. But I kind of got a bit lost at the chapter about Luther’s virtue. I’m not particularly interested in the man’s sins, they don’t have a bearing on whether or not he taught true things. The bible is full of men who committed gross sins, but God still used them.

Now, as it happens, I found the rest of the book really convicting and challenging, but honestly, most of the protestants I know would just look at you blankly if you told them about Luther’s sins, and some, like myself would say that David and Moses were murderers but God still gave us scripture through them. To be ultra clear, I’m not saying I think Luther was right, as I’m more and more convinced he wasn’t. but his virtue? Irrelevant to my interests.

Your points are valid. I would just say, the difference between the NT and OT examples you use

• David and Moses weren’t heretics to the faith nor did they cause schism in what God was establishing. AND most importantly, they always repented. I’ve heard it said, no body could repent like David
• Luther otoh, as far as I know, stayed his course till the end. He could have ended his rebellion at any time, and was given that opportunity to do so, but didn’t…unless of course, at the moment of death, he said to God he was sorry. But that’s conjecture and maybe wishful thinking on my part

 

[Topper17]

Hi Eru,

Thanks for your response.

Read in context, yes, it is quite, quite shocking, and scripture comes to mind about the bitter and the sweet not coming forth from the same spring.

To use my own analogy from earlier in the thread, David was not an unrepentant murderer, but Luther seems to be a convinced and determined anti-semite.

Much to think about.

I agree and it is a lot to think about. As for Luther being or not being an anti-semite – a lot of people who will go to great lengths to have us believe that he was not.

**“Luther never became an anti-Semite in the modern, racial sense of the term.” ** (Lutheran Professor) James M. Kittelson, “Luther the Reformer, The Story of the Man and His Career”, pg. 274

On the other hand, his written recommendations about what he wanted to see actually physically happen to the Jews is a matter of historical record. So how is it somehow unfair to charge him with anti-Semitism, that is unless semantics are being used to greatly narrow the definition of the term so as to not somehow include Luther? To me, this is truly a distinction without a difference. If Luther’s actions against and writings against the Jews in his exhortations to secular and ecclesiastical leaders don’t condemn him, calling him a name like ‘anti-Semite’ certainly will not. As a matter of fact, there is a great deal of discussion in the literature about whether Luther was actually an anti-Semite.

Lutheran Professor Eric W. Gritsch provides a rather comprehensive summary of anti-Semitism in which he refers to several scholars and sources:

“The Roman Catholic historian Edward H. Flannery identifies four aspects of anti-Semitism: (1) political and economic, exemplified by the Roman statesman, orator, and writer Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.E.) and American aviator Charles Lindburgh (1902-1974); (2)** theological or religious**, also known as “anti-Judaism”; (3) nationalistic, exemplified by the French Enlightenment thinker Voltaire (1694-1778); and (4)** racial**, exemplified by the Nazi Holocaust.” Flannery, “The Anguish of the Jews”, in Gritsch, “Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism, Against His Better Judgment”, pg. 2

Gritsch continues on with several other sources to assist in an understanding of what “anti-Semitism” really is:

“The U.S. Department of State, in its 2005 Report on Global Anti-Semitism, defines it as a **“hatred toward Jews – individually or at a group – that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and or ethnicity.” **“Report on Global Anti-Semitism”, US State Department, Jan. 5, 2005

“The European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), a body of the European Union, offers an exhaustive description of anti-Semitism:

‘**Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. ** Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institution and religious facilities….Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity; it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong”.….

The EUMC then lists “contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere” They include:

‘Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews; accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real and imagined wrong committed by a single Jewish person or group; denying the Holocaust; and accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to their own nations.” Gritsch, pg. 3

Clearly Luther was not a “Holocaust denier”

If all that isn’t enough to inform us as to whether Martin Luther was actually an Anti-Semite, we have the actual name of Lutheran Professor Eric W. Gritsch’s book: “Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism, Against His Better Judgment”

As we can see, Luther clearly meets the ‘standard’ of anti-Semitism.

God Bless You Eru, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Eru,

Thanks for your response.

No, I learned nothing of any of these reprehensible writings. I learned of Luther when we started celebrating ‘Reformation Day’ instead of Halloween with our old Reformed church. Come to think of it, he was presented as quite the hero, really, we used to have viewings of the various films about him, and the phrase ‘Here I stand’ had a ring of courageous bravery. But then, I was taught and believed at the time that the Catholic church was all sorts of things it’s not very polite to repeat.

First of all, you have to be very careful about the statements made about the Catholic Church (and Luther for that matter) by anti-Catholics, and by that I mean those who believe that Catholics are not Christians. This ‘category’ does not include Lutherans. Despite their depiction of the Pope as the antichrist, Lutherans generally believe that we Catholics are their brethren, although possibly brethren who have separated from THEM.

I am speaking of the kinds of people that you referred to in your post, and I agree, it would probably be ‘impolite’ to repeat their claims here. It would also be wise to ‘consider the source’ in regards to their statements about the Church.

From my experience, including my experience growing up as a Protestant, it appears that your former understanding of the ‘career’ of Martin Luther is far too common. You mention Luther being represented as a hero and so I have to ask you Eru:

Do you now think Luther was unfairly presented as ‘quite the hero’?

You also mentioned the phrase “Here I stand” as having had a ‘ring of courageous bravery’, and yet you obviously were not informed that it is almost a 100% certainty that Luther did NOT utter those words at Worms. In addition, it is likely almost just as certain that Luther never actually nailed his Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg. (Detailed texts and references available on request – as always). What you and I both learned sounds like what I call the “Legend of Martin Luther”. That Legend has very little to do with the historical facts of the man.

The man described by the “Legend” sounds very much like a man who could be trusted to correctly interpret Holy Scripture and lead a Reformation of the Church which had lost its way doctrinally. The Martin Luther of actual history – not so much.

The problem that I have with the “Legend” is quite simple. Martin Luther rebelled against the Catholic Church. It is very much in the best interest of Protestantism to present him in as ‘positive a light’ as possible. Whatever makes Luther ‘look better’ though automatically makes the Church ‘look worse’ because of the fact of their conflict. If Luther is made to look ‘better’ then it makes it SEEM more likely that Luther was right to rebel against the Church and the Church was wrong not to accept his doctrinal teachings and change theirs.

People make mistakes all the time in their representation of history, but in the at least a thousand times that I have seen Luther, or the facts of his career, ‘misunderstood’, I have NEVER seen him portrayed mistakenly in a way that makes him look ‘worse’ than history would suggest is correct. All of these various inadvertent misrepresentations always make Luther look better than he deserves to look based on actual history.

In fact, the “Legend” and all of those mistaken representations are actually ALSO unfair to the Catholic Church in that it tends to make people conclude that Luther was right in his rebellion.

The Martin Luther of actual fact is nowhere near as credible as a Christian ‘Reformer’ as is the Martin Luther of the “Legend”. In addition, the ‘standing’ of Luther as a Christian Theologian suffers when his actual teachings, those which are rather “under-reported”, are revealed. Luther’s teachings on the Jews, which he supported by quoting more than 150 passages from Holy Scripture are only one example of those actual teachings which are not a part of the popular reputation of the man.

None of this is to blame people (like me a few years ago) who simply believe exactly what they were taught about the man. There is though some responsibility somewhere back down the line for those who created the “Legend” knowing that it was false. There is also a certain responsibility today as Richard Marius points out:

“…….Luther’s expressions about the Jews varied over his lifetime, but **it seems foolish and even immoral to seek to mitigate or explain away or cover over his prevailing hatred for the Jewish people.” **Marius, “Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death”, pg. 372

Note the terms "mitigate’, “explain away”, and “cover over”. The ‘comparison’ to the actions and writings of Catholics of the same period when no such comparison exists falls into this category.

Eru – as you have seen, not everyone agrees with my stand on this issue, but I would like to ask you if you think I am taking an unreasonable position.

God Bless You Eru, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi td,

Thanks for your post.

Everything you say here is true. Not one Catholic theologian made any of the seven recommendations Luther made, nor were Catholics just as bad or something very close.

There is Lateran IV, an Ecumenical Council of the Church consisting of the extraordinary Magisterium and presided over by Pope Innocent III; but I wouldn’t call that “one Catholic Theologian,” at least not in the conventional sense.

1. Jews and excessive Usury

The more the christian religion is restrained from usurious practices, so much the more does the perfidy of the Jews grow in these matters, so that within a short time they are exhausting the resources of Christians. Wishing therefore to see that Christians are not savagely oppressed by Jews in this matter, we ordain by this synodal decree that if Jews in future, on any pretext, extort oppressive and excessive interest from Christians, then they are to be removed from contact with Christians until they have made adequate satisfaction for the immoderate burden. Christians too, if need be, shall be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, without the possibility of an appeal, to abstain from commerce with them. We enjoin upon princes not to be hostile to Christians on this account, but rather to be zealous in restraining Jews from so great oppression. We decree, under the same penalty, that Jews shall be compelled to make satisfaction to churches for tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the churches were accustomed to receive from Christians for houses and other possessions, before they passed by whatever title to the Jews, so that the churches may thus be preserved from loss.

This just forbids Jews practicing usury from having any contact with Christians, particularly any commerce with them; and of course it requires them to turn over to the Church tithing monies that it would have otherwise received from Christian households as a result of these usurious practices. Not close to what Luther recommended.

1. Jews appearing in public

A difference of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens from Christians in some provinces, but in others a certain confusion has developed so that they are indistinguishable. Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish or Saracen women, and Jews or Saracens with christian women. In order that the offence of such a damnable mixing may not spread further, under the excuse of a mistake of this kind, we decree that such persons of either sex, in every christian province and at all times, are to be distinguished in public from other people by the character of their dress – seeing moreover that this was enjoined upon them by Moses himself, as we read. They shall not appear in public at all on the days of lamentation and on passion Sunday; because some of them on such days, as we have heard, do not blush to parade in very ornate dress and are not afraid to mock Christians who are presenting a memorial of the most sacred passion and are displaying signs of grief. What we most strictly forbid however, is that they dare in any way to break out in derision of the Redeemer. We order secular princes to restrain with condign punishment those who do so presume, lest they dare to blaspheme in any way him who was crucified for us, since we ought not to ignore insults against him who blotted out our wrongdoings.

This just requires that Jews wear a certain clothing at all times in public to distinguish them from Christians, so that the men won’t intermix with Christian women. Moses required this anyway. Those Jews who blaspheme in derision of Jesus are only to receive a “condign punishment”; which isn’t close to what Luther recommended.

1. Jews not to hold public offices

It would be too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over Christians. We therefore renew in this canon, on account of the boldness of the offenders, what the council of Toledo providently decreed in this matter : we forbid Jews to be appointed to public offices, since under cover of them they are very hostile to Christians. If, however, anyone does commit such an office to them let him, after an admonition, be curbed by the provincial council, which we order to be held annually, by means of an appropriate sanction. Any official so appointed shall be denied commerce with Christians in business and in other matters until he has converted to the use of poor Christians, in accordance with the directions of the diocesan bishop, whatever he has obtained from Christians by reason of his office so acquired, and he shall surrender with shame the office which he irreverently assumed. We extend the same thing to pagans.

This forbids Jews from holding public office, and if they do then they are to be removed and denied commerce with Christians until they have repaid any ill-gotten gains. The same thing is extended to pagans though, so it’s not just about the Jews.

So the recommendations of Lateran IV weren’t good, but not nearly as bad as Luther’s recommendations. Point made?

I very much appreciate your doing the research. It substantiates the claim that what Luther did against the Jews was in a whole new league of its own.

 

[Eruvande]

Hi Eru,

Thanks for your response.

First of all, you have to be very careful about the statements made about the Catholic Church (and Luther for that matter) by anti-Catholics, and by that I mean those who believe that Catholics are not Christians. This ‘category’ does not include Lutherans. Despite their depiction of the Pope as the antichrist, Lutherans generally believe that we Catholics are their brethren, although possibly brethren who have separated from THEM.

I am speaking of the kinds of people that you referred to in your post, and I agree, it would probably be ‘impolite’ to repeat their claims here. It would also be wise to ‘consider the source’ in regards to their statements about the Church.

From my experience, including my experience growing up as a Protestant, it appears that your former understanding of the ‘career’ of Martin Luther is far too common. You mention Luther being represented as a hero and so I have to ask you Eru:

Do you now think Luther was unfairly presented as ‘quite the hero’?

You also mentioned the phrase “Here I stand” as having had a ‘ring of courageous bravery’, and yet you obviously were not informed that it is almost a 100% certainty that Luther did NOT utter those words at Worms. In addition, it is likely almost just as certain that Luther never actually nailed his Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg. (Detailed texts and references available on request – as always). What you and I both learned sounds like what I call the “Legend of Martin Luther”. That Legend has very little to do with the historical facts of the man.

The man described by the “Legend” sounds very much like a man who could be trusted to correctly interpret Holy Scripture and lead a Reformation of the Church which had lost its way doctrinally. The Martin Luther of actual history – not so much.

The problem that I have with the “Legend” is quite simple. Martin Luther rebelled against the Catholic Church. It is very much in the best interest of Protestantism to present him in as ‘positive a light’ as possible. Whatever makes Luther ‘look better’ though automatically makes the Church ‘look worse’ because of the fact of their conflict. If Luther is made to look ‘better’ then it makes it SEEM more likely that Luther was right to rebel against the Church and the Church was wrong not to accept his doctrinal teachings and change theirs.

People make mistakes all the time in their representation of history, but in the at least a thousand times that I have seen Luther, or the facts of his career, ‘misunderstood’, I have NEVER seen him portrayed mistakenly in a way that makes him look ‘worse’ than history would suggest is correct. All of these various inadvertent misrepresentations always make Luther look better than he deserves to look based on actual history.

In fact, the “Legend” and all of those mistaken representations are actually ALSO unfair to the Catholic Church in that it tends to make people conclude that Luther was right in his rebellion.

The Martin Luther of actual fact is nowhere near as credible as a Christian ‘Reformer’ as is the Martin Luther of the “Legend”. In addition, the ‘standing’ of Luther as a Christian Theologian suffers when his actual teachings, those which are rather “under-reported”, are revealed. Luther’s teachings on the Jews, which he supported by quoting more than 150 passages from Holy Scripture are only one example of those actual teachings which are not a part of the popular reputation of the man.

None of this is to blame people (like me a few years ago) who simply believe exactly what they were taught about the man. There is though some responsibility somewhere back down the line for those who created the “Legend” knowing that it was false. There is also a certain responsibility today as Richard Marius points out:

“…….Luther’s expressions about the Jews varied over his lifetime, but **it seems foolish and even immoral to seek to mitigate or explain away or cover over his prevailing hatred for the Jewish people.” **Marius, “Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death”, pg. 372

Note the terms "mitigate’, “explain away”, and “cover over”. The ‘comparison’ to the actions and writings of Catholics of the same period when no such comparison exists falls into this category.

Eru – as you have seen, not everyone agrees with my stand on this issue, but I would like to ask you if you think I am taking an unreasonable position.

God Bless You Eru, Topper

No, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable position at all. I’m having to rethink much of what I have been taught - about Luther, certainly, but also the early church fathers and the real presence actually, but that’s for another thread. Luther’s own stated views about Jews are horrid and nothing I care to defend.

I thought I was doing well in terms of learning about Catholicism, but I still have a number things holding me back in protestantism. Understanding the position that Luther is not a very reliable guide is helpful in terms of loosening the hold that the protestant position has on me.

 

[JonNC]

Anti-semitism is not merely racial bigotry. It is also ethnic. So even if Luther didn’t write against the Jews on account of the shape and size of their noses, he advocated genocide against them on account of their religion. I would say that advocating genocide against the Jewish people on account of the religion particular to the Jewish people is antisemitic by any commonly understood standard. That is in addition to things like the practice of usury and the charge that Jews were lazy and didn’t want to do any real work. And it is not clear from On the Jews and Their Lies that he advocates equal treatment for Jews and gentiles as long as the Jews convert to Christianity. It comes across from my reading as though they are still second-class citizens. At least they don’t have to live in a stable anymore.

I agree with your point that Luther’s antisemitism and all his other personal faults are beside the issue. His writings should be primarily rejected because of their errors and secondly because of his rhetorical excesses. His writings that reflect the Gospel ought to be ignored in favor of better authors who don’t have so much baggage.

And you are welcome to choose that route. I, OTOH, was raised with those good writings, and could not ignore them even on the off chance that I wanted to. I would not choose to ignore his great hymns:
youtube.com/watch?v=m4VkWpYwOnI

youtube.com/watch?v=DBVYzrCpYdA

I would further not choose to ignore those words that reflect the Gospel upon which most Lutherans are catechized:
bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php

These, and many other good, great things he wrote are not overpowered by those hideous
things all Lutherans reject.

Jon

 

[BrassAnkles]

Luther was a sinner. Moses was a sinner. st. Paul was a sinner.

However, Luther promoted sin whereas Moses and St. Paul didn’t.

There is a big difference between being a sinner and resisting it and being a sinner and promoting it. Many people don’t understand this concept but it is dangerous because it leads people into sin. A good example of this in the present day is promoting homosexuality as good based on the pretext that everyone commits sins.

 

[JonNC]

Luther was a sinner. Moses was a sinner. st. Paul was a sinner.

However, Luther promoted sin whereas Moses and St. Paul didn’t.

There is a big difference between being a sinner and resisting it and being a sinner and promoting it. Many people don’t understand this concept but it is dangerous because it leads people into sin. A good example of this in the present day is promoting homosexuality as good based on the pretext that everyone commits sins.

I can’t comment on the idea that Luther somehow “promoted” sin, nor will I ask the question in reverse, since that then would make it the contest that I deplore.
I will say this; not of my upbringing as the son of a Lutheran pastor, nor my attendance of a Lutheran college, nor my years as a Christian in the Lutheran tradition, have I ever been taught to promote sin.
To the extent that Luther may or may not have, or to the extent that Catholic leaders in history may or may not have done so, I am hard-pressed to believe that these things influence the teachings of either tradition.

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JonNC:

I am hard-pressed to believe that these things influence the teachings of either tradition.

You are very blessed in both your upbringing, and in your devotion to the cause of Lutheranism.

However, the Reformation had major unintended consequences that are reverberating even now in the 21st c.

One consequence was the splintering and fracturing (thus the terrible weakening) of Christianity.

Anther consequence was the rise of individualism and decline in a shared culture and morality; in short: modern secularism.

Like it or not Luther was a huge promoter of this liberal movement away from God and toward the individual. Sure Luther was just a link in a chain that started many centuries earlier, but he was an important catalyst, no denying that.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Sorry it took me so long to respond to your post.

I think that the most disturbing part of Luther’s anti-Jewish writings was that he already knew better. He wrote in “That Jesus Was Born a Jew” in 1523

I don’t think that the historical record supports your contention that Luther ever ‘knew better’ – at all. The evidence suggests that Luther’s ‘attitude’ towards the Jews was consistent throughout his ‘career’, and while he got worse in his later years, he never really ‘knew better’. Even when Luther’s extreme ‘attitude’ towards the Jews is dealt with straight up, he is still often represented as being ‘negative’ towards the Jews for only a short period of time at the end of his life. In fact, there is general agreement, including among Lutheran Scholars that Luther’s beliefs about the Jews, while worse at the end of his life, were consistent even from the beginning of his career. Lutheran Professors Schramm and Stjerna fully support this fact:

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

In fact, in one of this earliest known letters, to his friend George Spalatin in 1514, Luther demonstrates that his views of the Jews were very negative, even this early in his career:

**“’I have come to the conclusion that the Jews will always curse and blaspheme God and his King Christ, **as all the prophets have predicted. He who neither reads nor understands this, as yet knows no theology, in my opinion. And I also presume the men of Cologne cannot understand the Scripture……**If they are trying to stop the Jews blaspheming they are working to prove the Bible and God liars…’ **
**
Luther concluded the letter with the observation that the wrath of God has made the Jews incorrigible; such people become worse when others are trying to make them better.” **Eric Gritsch, “Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism, Against His Better Judgment’, pg. 50-1

Lutheran Professor Eric Gritsch here suggests that it Luther’s early attitudes towards the Jews were relatively negative over the course of his career.

The editors of Luther’s Works, who are of course Lutheran, also agree:

“It may be, however, that there was not so great a change in Luther’s attitude toward the Jews (over time) as has commonly been thought. A closer inspection of his utterances on the question throughout his career reveals that he was never so unambiguously positive toward them as a reading of his 1523 treatise in isolation would suggest. Wilhelm Maurer has demonstrated, in fact, that** Luther’s earliest lectures—those on the Psalms, delivered in 1513–1515—already contained in essence the whole burden of his later charges against the Jews…… **

In short, the evidence indicates that the Luther of these earlier years shared to the full in the medieval prejudices against the Jews. From this perspective, his more favorable attitude toward the Jews as expressed in the early 1520’s is to be understood as a temporary modification of the underlying negative stereotype which characterized his earliest statements, and to which he returned in his later treatises. That underlying stereotype, in turn, can be understood only in terms of the medieval background.” Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 47: Luther’s works, vol. 47: The Christian in Society IV (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (126–127). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

**“Luther’s career as a professor of Bible and the University of Wittenberg began with lectures on the Psalter, which he delivered over the years 1513-1515. These first lectures by the young professor are saturated with anti-Jewish references and allusions.” **Schramm and Stjerna, pg. 129

In regards to Luther’s early lectures (1513-1515) Schramm and Stjerna also note that Luther was uniformly opposed to the Jews:

“The reader of these lectures in toto will note how pervasive is the polemic directed against either the Jews or the synagogue, so pervasive in fact that it rises to the level of a central characteristic of the lectures.” Schramm and Stjerna, pg. 41

“That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew” is often portrayed as being representative of Luther’s ‘feelings towards’ the Jews throughout the whole of his ‘career’. It is not.

Jon, if you don’t think the above is compelling there are various opinions, including opinions about the actual text of Luther’s “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew” that will provide more food for thought.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Indeed there is, and let me add a few things.

It still seems apparent that Luther was not anti-semitic. Anti-semitism is a racial bigotry. Luther’s rants against the Jews were against their faith, and more specifically, their unwillingness to convert.

1. There are anti-Luther polemicists who are intent on blaming only Luther, implying that he was worse than his Catholic contemporaries, and therefore deserves greater criticism, to the point of saying that because of this, his other teachings are to be rejected. The fact that Luther “repeated” them, means he heard them elsewhere, and sometimes that elsewhere was from members of the Catholic Church.

I respectfully disagree with your statement. As a matter of historical fact, Luther was FAR worse than his Catholic contemporaries, and therefore he DOES deserves greater criticism”. And yes, I happen to think that his teaching on things like the Jews, the Peasants, the Pope as the Antichrist, etc. actually should cause us to question (but not necessarily reject) his teachings overall, and specifically because so many of them were SO radical.

In addition, Luther did FAR MORE than simply ‘repeat’ (your term) the various ‘attitudes’ of his time towards the Jews. He seized those already horrible enough ‘attitudes’ and took them to an entirely new level, including those 7 horrific recommendations, which again, no Catholic Theologian ever made. Not a one.

As we have seen, anti-Semitism is not simply racial bigotry, but then that isn’t really even the point. There are a LOT of anti-Semites whose Christian consciences are well developed enough that they would NEVER think to make those recommendations to the secular and ecclesiastical leaders. In reality this is more than anything, an issue which should cause us to question Luther’s basic understanding of the Christian Gospel and Christian morals.

You say that Luther” “repeated” them, means he heard them elsewhere, and sometimes that elsewhere was from members of the Catholic Church.” That is not at all true. If you can substantiate your charge that ANY Catholic EVER made any one of those 7 recommendations then please post the actual quotes and references. Unless you actually can, then your accusation is unfair to the Church of Luther’s time.

Jon, what do you think Christ thinks about Luther’s ‘recommendations’? I ask because Luther certainly seemed to believe that Christ supported him. Additionally, do you think, as Luther did, that Scripture supported those 7 ‘recommendations’? If not, how would you suggest that the man who is supposed to be such a great Scriptural exegete could get this particular matter SO wrong?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Q,

Thanks for your response.

It would be a fallacy to reject all of Protestantism because Martin Luther was an antisemite.

Agreed and that is why nobody here has done that. On the other hand Luther’s horrendous recommendations SHOULD make us question as to whether this was a Christian Theologian who understood the Christian Gospel. We know that within Protestantism Luther is normally simply PRESUMED to have been right in his revolt against the Church. Things like the Jews and those other issues should cause people to be a little less ‘certain’.

But it is not as if he had no other flaws. In view of his writings as a whole, he comes across as a lunatic. And most Protestants (at least the ones that I know apparently) do not have a very nuanced view of him. He is the saintly monk who read the Bible for the first time in history, discovered sola fide, and freed the masses from having to buy their way out of hell from the wicked Tetzel. He is an abstract icon of anti-Catholicism, and not the actual man who lived and wrote.

Exactly. The “Legend” is far different from the historical person of Luther, out of necessity by the way.

On the other hand, I agree that Protestantism would exist without Luther.

Europe was ripe for a rebellion and not just against the Church. All the stars had come into alignment and pointed to revolt. As is typical of these situations, the leadership of the disseters could not have been much worse.

Wycliffe seems like he would have fit in pretty well with the Reformers. When you deny the authority of the Church and the efficacy of the sacraments, it is natural that you will fall back on Scripture alone (what’s left of the Scriptures anyway), which you can insist says whatever you want it to say, and your faith alone (or whatever you now say the faith is). St. Francis de Sales has a section in his book, The Catholic Controversy, in which he shows similarities in doctrine between the Reformers and ancient heretics.

Precisely, and who was it that promulgated Sola Scriptura at the beginning of the Reformation?

Anti-semitism is not merely racial bigotry. It is also ethnic. So even if Luther didn’t write against the Jews on account of the shape and size of their noses, he advocated genocide against them on account of their religion. I would say that advocating genocide against the Jewish people on account of the religion particular to the Jewish people is antisemitic by any commonly understood standard. That is in addition to things like the practice of usury and the charge that Jews were lazy and didn’t want to do any real work. And it is not clear from On the Jews and Their Lies that he advocates equal treatment for Jews and gentiles as long as the Jews convert to Christianity. It comes across from my reading as though they are still second-class citizens. At least they don’t have to live in a stable anymore.

I agree with your point that Luther’s antisemitism and all his other personal faults are beside the issue. His writings should be primarily rejected because of their errors and secondly because of his rhetorical excesses. His writings that reflect the Gospel ought to be ignored in favor of better authors who don’t have so much baggage.

I agree that the obvious major errors in Luther’s teaching expose him to us far more than any analysis of the man Luther we could offer. But why not allow his own words to identify him for what he was? After all, when we see him interpret Holy Scripture and interpret in a way that we ALL know has greatly missed the mark, how can we avoid the conclusion that he was not really a very good Christian Theologian.

God Bless You Q, Topper

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi Jon, I respectfully disagree with your statement. As a matter of historical fact, Luther was FAR worse than his Catholic contemporaries, and therefore he DOES deserves greater criticism”

I find the idea that “Luther was worse therefore we’re OK” to be an argument of desperation.

“The early Roman pontiffs of the sixteenth century had Jewish physicians and were favorable to the Jews and the Maranos of their states. Time soon came, however, when the Sephardic Jews of Italy fared differently. As early as 1532, the accusation of child murder nearly entailed the extermination of the Jews of Rome. In 1555, Paul IV revived the ancient canons against the Jews which forbade them the practice of medicine, the pursuit of high commerce, and the ownership of real estate. He also consigned them to a Ghetto, and compelled them to wear a Jew badge. In 1569, Pius IV expelled all the Jews from the Pontifical States, except Rome and Ancona. Sixtus V (1585-1590) recalled them; but, soon after him, Clement VIII (1592-1605) banished them again partially, at the very moment when the Maranos of Italy lost their last place of refuge in Ferrara. Similar misfortunes befell the Jewish race in other states of Italy as the Spanish domination extended there: Naples banished the Jews in 1541; Genoa, in 1550; Milan, in 1597. Hence-forward, most Sephardic fugitives simply passed through Italy when on their way to the Turkish Empire.” source]

Do any of you really think this sort of blatant hardship actually enforced on an entire group of people is acceptable in comparison to a treatise from Luther that none of Luther’s supporters took seriously? If yes, well… that’s sad.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)