Greetings Eden,
I’m still not understanding why what you see as a presumption has you in knots. If it’s not in Church teaching that we KNOW FOR CERTAIN where Luther is today, what is the issue?
I elaborated on my concern about the topic earlier, but the remark has become burried in the increased number of replies to this thread. This is what I wrote:
“What particularly bothers me about this whole matter is that what was actually done in the sixteenth century appears to have been reinterpreted or muddied in more recent times in order to serve the purposes of, for example, the ecumenical movement.”
It is interesting to me that many today are strenuously pressing the claim that there has never been any presumption about Luther’s fate. My guess, which may or may not be right, is that this is in large part motivated by modern ecumenical sensibilities.
The only counterargument that I have seen so far to the first argument in post #26 is that we don’t know that Luther did not repent immediately before his death.
Speaking candidly, this response strikes me as a very unstable basis for the modern claim, even if it renders it technically correct (which I am willing to concede for the sake of argument).
As I pointed out, Luther expressly reaffirmed his teachings shortly before his death. To be specific, this happened at some time after 1:00 am on Feb. 18, 1546. He died at 2:45 am.
That, to me, is rather persuasive evidence against the idea that he might have repented before his passing. And so the whole counterargument against presumption then relies on the premise that in literally the last few seconds of his life, Luther might suddenly have reversed a position that he had vigorously held for two and a half decades, and which he had again confirmed just moments before.
The premise may be sufficient to neutralize the case for presumption. But the practical outcome would not be much different. I doubt any protestant would be relieved to hear that there is no presumption about Luther’s fate, if he is also informed that the reason there is no presumption is that ‘an unrepentant Luther would be presumed to be damned; but we cannot, in fact, presume that Luther was finally unrepentant.’
Ultimately, this matter is for me one of honesty. I would sincerely hope that there is some other more secure foundation for the modern claim that Luther was never officially presumed to be damned. If there’s not, simply telling the world that there neither is nor ever has been a presumption seems improper, since it omits a detail that would put the reality in a whole other light.
Please do not take offense to what I have said. I am just trying to show why I am troubled by the way I have seen this topic approached. I don’t at all mean to be disrespectful.
J
