Martin Luther

[Drawmack]

Secondly, Luther was a coward. Seeing corrupt practices by some bishops and priests his faith was not strong enough to trust in God for him to stay and help change things. He ran away.

Can you please cite a credible historic resource that says Luther “ran away” from the Catholic Church because the way I understand it is he tried to reform the Catholic Church from the inside until he was excommunicated.

Then he decided to chop out some books of the Old Testament and New Testament because they contradicted what he preached.

Can you please show me one Bible, translated by Luther, that does not have all the books of the New Testament in order and all the books of the Old Testament in it somewhere?

In short I have no respect for Luther, a man whose impact on history was to endanger the immortal souls of many by deceiving them into following his ways.

In short you are spreading half-truths and should stop.

 

[RedBert]

Here is the biggest point of concern that I have with Father Martin Luther. With full knowledge of his error he added the word “alone” in the German translation, “saved by faith alone”, which led in turn to Sola Scriptura, which led in turn to generations being led to 1/2 truths and missed sacraments, which to this day still holds sway over the truth as taught by Jesus and His apostles. I hope that upon his death, He returned to and accepted Jesus as His salvation and forgiveness.

Pope quotes Luther:

Sola Fide. Luther, the pope had told his audience, had been right to insist in sola fide, that a believer was justified by faith alone!

Luther had correctly translated Paul’s words as ‘justified by faith alone’, the well-known sola fide, Benedict affirmed, as reported in the newspaper
au.christiantoday.com/article/luther-rome-and-the-bible/5255.htm

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I am currently studying Martin Luther for a history class that covers the Reformation. I just finished reading Young Man Luther by Eric Erickson and am now reading Here I Stand by Roland Bainton. I would like to hear from Catholics and non Catholics alike as to what they make of the monk from Wittenberg who brought the Catholic Church to its knees with the power of his pen, aided by the printing press of course. I am Catholic myself and remain a Catholic, but what your opinions of this man who made such an impact on history?

As a Lutheran…

I think you might be surprised to learn that most Lutherans know (and care) little about him. He is generally regarded by Lutherans has a brave man, an often wise scholar of Scripture and especially biblical languages. But that’s it. He’s very rarely quoted in sermons or Bible studies. He is not regarded as infallible/unaccountable or as the “Vicar of Christ” or that whatever he says, Jesus says. He’s seen as a mere mortal, fallible, sinful, accountable. He put his pants on, one leg at a time. Our authority is God and God’s Scripture, our norm is the inscripturated words of God in Scripture.

You have probably read and studied more than I have. MY impressions are that Luther found himself in the epicenter of a 10.0 earthquake - the tensions for such had been building for centuries. He was ill prepared and equipped for such. He was no leader, and his polemic (common in that day) often got in the way. My study of the Reformation (by no means extensive) suggest that while the “earthquake” was unpreventable - both “sides” acted badly and regretfully. It complicated things that there was lots of civil politics involved - again, on both ‘sides.’ And obviously, no one was listening.

I “fault” Luther MOSTLY for his thought that The Catholic Church COULD be reformed. I honestly doubt he originally intended that (again, history PLACED him at the epicenter; there’s no way the 95 Theses can be seen as causing all this!!!), but not long after, he is placed by others into this role, and it seems to me, he accepted that. THINKING the CC could be reformed. This was his flaw. A denomination that insists that it is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error (under certain conditions), that itself alone demands that whatever itself alone says just must be accept with docility - that CANNOT be reformed. Oh, it itself can twick minor things - things not doctrines - if it chooses to do so, but reformation was/is simply not possible. It seems to ME, this guy in Germany was a threat to be loudly condemned, excommunication, nipped in the bud, was because Luther suggested The Catholic Church is accountable. Even the Pope! This was not tolerable for the whole foundation of The Catholic Church is based on this: Whatever it officially/formally says in matters of faith and morals is INFALLIBLE, incapable of error, unaccountable - and thus unreformable. Luther eventually realized this, as all did. 1521 came as no surprise to anyone. Luther had some major flaws, but he was a smart, educated man. That he did not realize that from day one is the most major thing for which I fault him.

Thank you.

Blessings to you on your research and paper.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The Church was NOT brought to its knees. Jesus told us that would never happen.

Honestly goes a LONG way in interdenominational discussions… We all know Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything. He promised THE CHURCH some things (infalliblity was never one of them, btw). Your denomination claims that “the church” was/is IT - and clearly we disagree with the insistence of itself alone on that point. But the reality is Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything. He promised the church.

.

 

[Biggie]

I think the irony of Martin Luther is that the unintended consequence of his reformation was the net reduction of the influence of religion on the state. Shifting the focus of religion to the more subjective arena of the individual created a political vacuum kings and princes were more than willing to exploit. Political power was seized as the sole domain of the political class. Church property was seized and converted to secular uses or liquidated to enrich state coffers. Society was realigned. The reformation, I think, can be seen as a movement of the enlightenment in a similar though more expansive way that Vatican II was a child of the sixties. Because of the enlightenment, Luther caught on.

It is useless to bemoan the inevitable loss of religion’s political role, although five hundred years later we are still trying to define the point of intersection between religion and politics. From our vantage point, we can clearly say this is the direction God walked us. As Pope Benedict has pointed out, whenever the Church has attempted to wield political power, it has not worked out well. So while Luther’s intended consequence was deplorable, the unintended result was, if painful, an apt correction.

And of Luther? Erasmus was able to take a more tolerant view of Luther’s theology, typical of his own status as a child of the enlightenment. His friend, St. Thomas More, however, was somewhat less kind and willing to stake his life on his view. St. Thomas is said to have viewed Luther as the ancestor of the anti-Christ, viewing his marriage to a nun likely to produce him. St. Thomas wrote that he was tired of cleaning his hands from wiping the excrement from Luther’s mouth.

 

[edjco]

Honestly goes a LONG way in interdenominational discussions… We all know Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything. He promised THE CHURCHsome things (infalliblity was never one of them, btw). Your denomination claims that “the church” was/is IT - and clearly we disagree with the insistence of itself alone on that point. But the reality is Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything. He promised the church

Well, then, WHICH Church? The Catholic Church was the only one around then. Following your logic, Scripture is flawed. Jesus instead should have said "the churches.

By the way, the Catholic Church is not a “denomination”. “Denominations” were started 1,500 years after Christ established His Church.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

As a Lutheran…

I think you might be surprised to learn that most Lutherans know (and care) little about him. He is generally regarded by Lutherans has a brave man, an often wise scholar of Scripture and especially biblical languages. But that’s it. He’s very rarely quoted in sermons or Bible studies. He is not regarded as infallible/unaccountable or as the “Vicar of Christ” or that whatever he says, Jesus says. He’s seen as a mere mortal, fallible, sinful, accountable. He put his pants on, one leg at a time. Our authority is God and God’s Scripture, our norm is the inscripturated words of God in Scripture.

You have probably read and studied more than I have. MY impressions are that Luther found himself in the epicenter of a 10.0 earthquake - the tensions for such had been building for centuries. He was ill prepared and equipped for such. He was no leader, and his polemic (common in that day) often got in the way. My study of the Reformation (by no means extensive) suggest that while the “earthquake” was unpreventable - both “sides” acted badly and regretfully. It complicated things that there was lots of civil politics involved - again, on both ‘sides.’ And obviously, no one was listening.

I “fault” Luther MOSTLY for his thought that The Catholic Church COULD be reformed. I honestly doubt he originally intended that (again, history PLACED him at the epicenter; there’s no way the 95 Theses can be seen as causing all this!!!), but not long after, he is placed by others into this role, and it seems to me, he accepted that. THINKING the CC could be reformed. This was his flaw. A denomination that insists that it is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error (under certain conditions), that itself alone demands that whatever itself alone says just must be accept with docility - that CANNOT be reformed. Oh, it itself can twick minor things - things not doctrines - if it chooses to do so, but reformation was/is simply not possible. It seems to ME, this guy in Germany was a threat to be loudly condemned, excommunication, nipped in the bud, was because Luther suggested The Catholic Church is accountable. Even the Pope! This was not tolerable for the whole foundation of The Catholic Church is based on this: Whatever it officially/formally says in matters of faith and morals is INFALLIBLE, incapable of error, unaccountable - and thus unreformable. Luther eventually realized this, as all did. 1521 came as no surprise to anyone. Luther had some major flaws, but he was a smart, educated man. That he did not realize that from day one is the most major thing for which I fault him.

Thank you.

Blessings to you on your research and paper.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Well, then, WHICH Church? The Catholic Church was the only one around then. Following your logic, Scripture is flawed. Jesus instead should have said "the churches.

… THAT would imply an institutionalism that is foreign to Scripture.

Obviously, Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything, about anything, concerning anything, for anything, at any time. He never authorized The Catholic Church anything, about anything, concerning anything, at any time. He never so much as mentioned it - we all know that. You are simply imposing an institutional paradigm, and then capitolizing “church” so as to give the impression in modern English grammar that a proper name is being used, and then inserting “Catholic” so that it’s YOUR proper name. Friend, any can do the same with any denominational name, but a little honesty goes a long way - Jesus said "church.’ He never said, “The Catholic Church.” The Catholic Church says that, Jesus never did.

But you are responding predictably to what I posted. And I agree - from the prespective of The Catholic Church, the “problem” with Luther was clear and singular: He regarded The Catholic Church as accountable. This it could not permit, and it did not. It MUST exempt itself from accountability for what it teaches, replacing that with the demand of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.” THAT was the crux of the issue. THAT is what made the Reformation - any reformation - impossible from the persepective of The Catholic Church.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Biggie]

But you are responding predictably to what I posted. And I agree - from the prespective of The Catholic Church, the “problem” with Luther was clear and singular: He regarded The Catholic Church as accountable. This it could not permit, and it did not. It MUST exempt itself from accountability for what it teaches, replacing that with the demand of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.” THAT was the crux of the issue. THAT is what made the Reformation - any reformation - impossible from the persepective of The Catholic Church.

I would offer this is a reduction to absurdity. Luther denied the sacraments, opposed the Catholic exegesis of scripture, rejected the Church Triumphant and the saints, denied ecclesiastical authority, renounced his vows, encouraged others to renounce their vows, established his own followers in rebellion against the Magisterium of the Church, and caused the expulsion and persecution of Catholics throughout Germany. To say this is “holding the Church accountable” and that the Church “could not permit” it is simply a reduction to absurdity. Luther rejected the Catholic Church in favor of nothing that existed at that time or before.

 

[JoeT777]

Pope quotes Luther:

Sola Fide. Luther, the pope had told his audience, had been right to insist in sola fide, that a believer was justified by faith alone!

Luther had correctly translated Paul’s words as ‘justified by faith alone’, the well-known sola fide, Benedict affirmed, as reported in the newspaper

au.christiantoday.com/article/luther-rome-and-the-bible/5255.htm

Let me suggest to that the author of the article you submitted was wrong. Not entirely, but wrong enough to distort what His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI had said and what the Pope had meant. It’s my estimation of Protestantism (or Evangelical) that there is an element of rationalism mixed with relativism and naturalism which seems to compel Protestants to ‘re-define’ Catholicism to their liking. All of which was said to explain that what the author of the Christian Today article by Jeff Fountain titled *Luther, Rome and the Bible *was a distorted view of Catholicism.

Let me try to explain; which is something Mr. Fountain didn’t do – I’ll leave it to you to decide whether or not it was intentional. The distinction between what Pope Benedict said and what Mr. Fountain wants you think he said are two different things.

Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, **if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. **Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14). (A catechism given by His Holiness Pope Benedict during a general audience on St. Peter’s Square, Wednesday, 19 November 2008 –emphasis is mine) vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

Notice that the Pope is making a reference to our general state of perfection. More specifically, the discussion is whether perfection can be obtained in observing the commandments of scripture.

The answer came almost verbatim from St. Thomas,

Perfection is said to consist in a thing in two ways: in one way, primarily and essentially; in another, secondarily and accidentally. Primarily and essentially the perfection of the Christian life consists in charity, principally as to the love of God, secondarily as to the love of our neighbor, both of which are the matter of the chief commandments of the Divine law, as stated above. Now the love of God and of our neighbor is not commanded according to a measure, so that what is in excess of the measure be a matter of counsel. This is evident from the very form of the commandment, pointing, as it does, to perfection–for instance in the words, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart”: since “the whole” is the same as “the perfect,” according to the Philosopher (Phys. iii, 6), and in the words, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” since every one loves himself most. The reason of this is that “the end of the commandment is charity,” according to the Apostle (1 Timothy 1:5); and the end is not subject to a measure, but only such things as are directed to the end, as the Philosopher observes (Polit. i, 3); thus a physician does not measure the amount of his healing, but how much medicine or diet he shall employ for the purpose of healing. Consequently it is evident that perfection consists essentially in the observance of the commandments; wherefore Augustine says (De Perf. Justit. viii): “Why then should not this perfection be prescribed to man, although no man has it in this life?” newadvent.org/summa/3184.htm#article3

His Holiness the Pope gave a perfectly sound Catholic response in his explanation for striving for a **“twofold love of God and neighbor”. **

What can’t be read in the Pope’s catechesis is a ‘solo’ anything, that includes, ‘solo’ scripture, or solo grace, or solo faith (or for that matter any one of the five ‘solos’ – one day I’ll figure out how you can have five of ONE THING, but for now this stumps me). Rather, I see all three. In 1) all glory and praise belong to God, we are to love God for our salvation – very Catholic as it is Protestant. 2.) The grace of sanctification is through the Holy Spirit which is EFFICIENT. Not sufficient, but efficient. In order for something to be efficient faith needs to work on the object being discussed. Faith works with the cooperation of the will. Works or deeds in and of themselves do not save unless they are **done with the pure heart **that is to say unless they are of virtuous charity. Charity is the most exceptional of the virtues.

"The greater of these is charity.” (1 Corinthians 13:13)

Since good, in human acts, depends on their being regulated by the due rule, it must needs be that human virtue, which is a principle of good acts, consists in attaining the rule of human acts. Now the rule of human acts is twofold, as stated above (Article 3), namely, human reason and God: yet God is the first rule, whereby, even human reason must be regulated. Consequently the theological virtues, which consist in attaining this first rule, since their object is God, are more excellent than the moral, or the intellectual virtues, which consist in attaining human reason: and it follows that among the theological virtues themselves, the first place belongs to that which attains God most. newadvent.org/summa/3023.htm#article5

JoeT

 

[Nita]

Pope quotes Luther:

Sola Fide. Luther, the pope had told his audience, had been right to insist in sola fide, that a believer was justified by faith alone!

Luther had correctly translated Paul’s words as ‘justified by faith alone’, the well-known sola fide, Benedict affirmed, as reported in the newspaper
au.christiantoday.com/article/luther-rome-and-the-bible/5255.htm

The article you link refers to the Pope’s November 19, 2008, General Audience talk. (Bookcat provided a link to that talk twice on this thread, his posts #25 and #62. Also a link to the Pope’s subsequent talk which was a continuation.) Here is the section you are referring to.

From the November 19th talk. The "[Paul} added by me.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

And to the Christians of Rome he [Paul] reasserts that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rm 3: 23-24). And he adds “we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (ibid., v. 28). At this point Luther translated: “justified by faith alone”. I shall return to this point at the end of the Catechesis.……………………

The wall as he says in his Letter to the Ephesians between Israel and the Gentiles, was no longer necessary: it is Christ who protects us from polytheism and all of its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity within the diversity of cultures. The wall is no longer necessary; our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. **For this reason **Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love.

As you can see, nowhere does the Pope say Luther was right to insist on sola fide.
It really is important to read the whole speech, and his subsequent one. An example from the Nov. 26th speech:
We are often induced to fall into the same misunderstandings that characterized the community of Corinth; those Christians thought that since they had been freely justified in Christ through faith, “they could do as they pleased”.
…… The consequences of a faith that is not manifested in love are disastrous, because it reduces itself to the arbitrariness and subjectivism that is most harmful to us and to our brothers.

 

[JoeT777]

I think the irony of Martin Luther is that the unintended consequence of his reformation was the net reduction of the influence of religion on the state. Shifting the focus of religion to the more subjective arena of the individual created a political vacuum kings and princes were more than willing to exploit. Political power was seized as the sole domain of the political class. Church property was seized and converted to secular uses or liquidated to enrich state coffers. Society was realigned. The reformation, I think, can be seen as a movement of the enlightenment in a similar though more expansive way that Vatican II was a child of the sixties. Because of the enlightenment, Luther caught on.

It is useless to bemoan the inevitable loss of religion’s political role, although five hundred years later we are still trying to define the point of intersection between religion and politics. From our vantage point, we can clearly say this is the direction God walked us. As Pope Benedict has pointed out, whenever the Church has attempted to wield political power, it has not worked out well. So while Luther’s intended consequence was deplorable, the unintended result was, if painful, an apt correction.

And of Luther? Erasmus was able to take a more tolerant view of Luther’s theology, typical of his own status as a child of the enlightenment. His friend, St. Thomas More, however, was somewhat less kind and willing to stake his life on his view. St. Thomas is said to have viewed Luther as the ancestor of the anti-Christ, viewing his marriage to a nun likely to produce him. St. Thomas wrote that he was tired of cleaning his hands from wiping the excrement from Luther’s mouth.

Add me to your cheering section, well said.

I’ve come to view the Protestant movement (Luther’s schism) as an intentional movement, as opposed to the happenstance of ‘unintended consequences’. The ‘schism’ movement can be viewed as the first step in a more secular government, granting inalienable rights to those who should already have them; as opposed to governing to protect and respect God’s inalienable rights. It seems that all power in the Christian world by the 1500’s was wrapped up in the Church. I’ve come to view the movement as little more than political in nature using a crippled (redefined by Luther) Christianity as a tool by the aristocracy to pry political power in revolt. It’s my opinion that this is the general sense of the schismatic history in England and the Germanic states. Since that time, being without the moral and ethical rule of Catholic faith, it’s turned into a secular humanist movement to maintain and wield control over the populace – i.e., hold the power.

JoeT

 

[GeorgeSword]

Can you please cite a credible historic resource that says Luther “ran away” from the Catholic Church because the way I understand it is he tried to reform the Catholic Church from the inside until he was excommunicated.

Can you please show me one Bible, translated by Luther, that does not have all the books of the New Testament in order and all the books of the Old Testament in it somewhere?

In short you are spreading half-truths and should stop.

I think that the problem is that Luther tried to reform the wrong things. Sure, he tried to reform the actions of the corrupt priests and bishops at first, but he ended up going against the Church’s doctrines as well. That is when he ceased to be Catholic.

 

[Biggie]

Add me to your cheering section, well said.

I’ve come to view the Protestant movement (Luther’s schism) as an intentional movement, as opposed to the happenstance of ‘unintended consequences’. The ‘schism’ movement can be viewed as the first step in a more secular government, granting inalienable rights to those who should already have them; as opposed to governing to protect and respect God’s inalienable rights. It seems that all power in the Christian world by the 1500’s was wrapped up in the Church. I’ve come to view the movement as little more than political in nature using a crippled (redefined by Luther) Christianity as a tool by the aristocracy to pry political power in revolt. It’s my opinion that this is the general sense of the schismatic history in England and the Germanic states. Since that time, being without the moral and ethical rule of Catholic faith, it’s turned into a secular humanist movement to maintain and wield control over the populace – i.e., hold the power.

JoeT

One could take the view, I suppose, that Luther either protected his life against the punishment for then capital crimes or sought his own glorification by owning a theology that without a doubt empowered the state over religion. I prefer to think Luther’s beliefs and willingness to expound them result from his own pathology and the rationality of the enlightenment. The enlightenment also explains why his beliefs became popular. The recognition of opportunity explains why states adopted and propounded them. I am not doubting Luther created his theology out of sincerely held beliefs. I am doubting that he could foresee a time when all religion has been expelled from the public square. And yet without a doubt he set in motion the present condition. I do not believe, as you wrote, this was unforeseen by God, but effectively used by him.

Bigs.

 

[JoeT777]

One could take the view, I suppose, that Luther either protected his life against the punishment for then capital crimes or sought his own glorification by owning a theology that without a doubt empowered the state over religion. I prefer to think Luther’s beliefs and willingness to expound them result from his own pathology and the rationality of the enlightenment. The enlightenment also explains why his beliefs became popular. The recognition of opportunity explains why states adopted and propounded them. I am not doubting Luther created his theology out of sincerely held beliefs. I am doubting that he could foresee a time when all religion has been expelled from the public square. And yet without a doubt he set in motion the present condition. I do not believe, as you wrote, this was unforeseen by God, but effectively used by him.

Bigs.

Bigs;

I didn’t mean to imply that Luther was ‘reacting’ to the social and economic situation of the time. Quite the contrary, he was leading it, and doing so passionately. I think he was quite mad. His actions seem to be the product of his pathological ‘illnesses’. His beliefs may have been sincere, but our sincerity doesn’t always coincide with right reasoning in the faith. I’m more inclined to think Luther lost a spiritual battle in an ongoing war waged against the Church.

Maybe I don’t understand you properly, but I see Luther somewhat like Judas. After all is said and done, you never seem to grasp the motivation, you’re left with the ‘what ifs’ and you’re always in a morass wondering what the ‘could-da-beens’ were - and yet faith tells you that it was all God’s Will. Was Luther a puppet acting out some play – to what end – what good came of it? Did Luther conspire with the Divine Will to be the ‘Judas’ of his day, and for what purpose, ‘reformation’? What was really changed in the Church, none of its theological teachings? You’ll have to excuse me but I’ve just about settled on the conclusion that Luther lost his battle in his white washed cell tossing his “scheiss” at the devil (or black ink as some would tell us).

JoeT

 

[Biggie]

Bigs;

I didn’t mean to imply that Luther was ‘reacting’ to the social and economic situation of the time. Quite the contrary, he was leading it, and doing so passionately. I think he was quite mad. His actions seem to be the product of his pathological ‘illnesses’. His beliefs may have been sincere, but our sincerity doesn’t always coincide with right reasoning in the faith. I’m more inclined to think Luther lost a spiritual battle in an ongoing war waged against the Church.

Maybe I don’t understand you properly, but I see Luther somewhat like Judas. After all is said and done, you never seem to grasp the motivation, you’re left with the ‘what ifs’ and you’re always in a morass wondering what the ‘could-da-beens’ were - and yet faith tells you that it was all God’s Will. Was Luther a puppet acting out some play – to what end – what good came of it? Did Luther conspire with the Divine Will to be the ‘Judas’ of his day, and for what purpose, ‘reformation’? What was really changed in the Church, none of its theological teachings? You’ll have to excuse me but I’ve just about settled on the conclusion that Luther lost his battle in his white washed cell tossing his “scheiss” at the devil (or black ink as some would tell us).

JoeT

I essentially agree with you, Joe. I have recently understood completely the irony of Luther’s rebellion, that what he ostensibly sought to promote, a “purer” religion, in the end produced the political impotence of religion in general. The subjectivity of religion ala Luther, for example, made possible the English breach under Henry VIII who originally opposed the reformation. The non-establishment clause in America, and the anti-clericalism of the French revolution could all be traced to the Reformation. And under today’s interpretation of non-establishment, we are not even sure we can mention God in a public setting and do no know if religion should have any influence on public life. It is difficult to conceive how these events would have acted out without Luther first making the breach.

If the world is to decay into the kind of anarchy Revelations would indicate, the devolution of the role of religion in political life should be no surprise. There is where I see the hand of providence. For if Luther effectively caused the Church to be set aside from the public square as a by product of his deplorable rebellion, then perhaps it is good for the Church to be well apart from that part of the world that descends into madness. I don’t mean to be dramatic, but perhaps in this way More was right, that Luther will spawn the anti-Christ in creating politics that do not recognize moral authority.

Bigs.

 

[JoeT777]

I essentially agree with you, Joe.

Well then -I win don’t I? The prize looks like a kindred thinker.

I have recently understood completely the irony of Luther’s rebellion that ostensibly sought to promote, a “purer” religion, in the end produced the political impotence of religion in general. The subjectivity of religion ala Luther, for example, made possible the English breach under Henry VIII who originally opposed the reformation.

Agreed.

The non-establishment clause in America and the anti-clericalism of the French revolution could all be traced to the Reformation. And under today’s interpretation of non-establishment, we are not even sure we can mention God in a public setting and do not know if religion should have any influence on public life. It is difficult to conceive how these events would have acted out without Luther first making the breach.

Right, except I don’t think Luther was the real focus of the change (more of a symptom) it was the change in Inductive reasoning from ‘right reasoning’ in faith and morals to subjective reasoning in rationalism and moral relativism.

If the world is to decay into the kind of anarchy Revelations would indicate, the devolution of the role of religion in political life should be no surprise. There is where I see the hand of providence. For if Luther effectively caused the Church to be set aside from the public square as a by product of his deplorable rebellion, then perhaps it is good for the Church to be well apart from that part of the world that descends into madness. I don’t mean to be dramatic, but perhaps in this way More was right, that Luther will spawn the anti-Christ in creating politics that do not recognize moral authority. Bigs.

While we may be equally discerning of the future, I’m not so pessimistic. I do think we’re on the cusp – and like most there might be dramatic changes. To the chagrin of the LaHays-end-of-time Evangelicals the movement in the future I’m looking for a movement toward the Church, not away. At least in the US I think we’ll see a dramatic change that will, with little doubt, cause conflict. I could be wrong, but I think I’ll hold out the same hope for mankind that Christ seemed to extend. But, time will tell whether your pessimism or my optimism wins out – and maybe soon – sooner still if we don’t get the economy up and running again. Just now thought of it, maybe my optimism is really Pollyannaism! No difference.

JoeT

 

[Contarini]

I am currently studying Martin Luther for a history class that covers the Reformation. I just finished reading Young Man Luther by Eric Erickson and am now reading Here I Stand by Roland Bainton. I would like to hear from Catholics and non Catholics alike as to what they make of the monk from Wittenberg who brought the Catholic Church to its knees with the power of his pen, aided by the printing press of course. I am Catholic myself and remain a Catholic, but what your opinions of this man who made such an impact on history?

Interesting that your professor makes you read Erikson. I hope he/she told you that Erikson’s theories are not in favor among Reformation scholars. But it’s certainly a very influential interpretation.

Bainton is a good place to start. Martin Brecht’s three-volume biography is the most detailed and is good for the facts, but highly biased in a Lutheran direction in its interpretations. Heiko Oberman’s *Man Between God and the Devil *is the best biography in my opinion (my opinion is biased because I studied with one of Oberman’s students), but shouldn’t be tackled until you’ve read a more basic book such as Bainton’s.

As for what I think about Luther (and he didn’t bring the Catholic Church to its knees–maybe made it totter a little bit), I think he was a brilliant theologian who made the fatal mistake of confusing his opinions with the Word of God. But the Church owes him a great deal nonetheless.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Luther was not quite the hero history has made him out to be.

What “history” would that be? Protestant hagiography, sure. But scholars of various religious traditions have been pointing out Luther’s flaws for a very long time.

He was anti-Semitic…

Anachronistic and not exactly fair, since like most premodern Christians he opposed the *religion *of Judaism. His views were not particularly unusual for his time, though his way of expressing them was very forceful, to say the least. (Note: I agree that a good case can be made that if he was really chosen by God to renew the Church, he wouldn’t have continued to adhere to one of the most reprehensible aspects of pre-Reformation Christianity. But that is really to beg the question. Defenders of Luther see the teaching of justification by faith alone as not only true but the most important thing there is. Just as Catholics can accept that God protected the Church from doctrinal error while allowing its leaders to commit evil actions, so Lutherans can accept that Luther helped restore the true understanding of the Gospel while holding many mistaken and even immoral opinions, as a sinful human being part of a particular human culture. And anyway, you need to make this argument to the relatively few Protestants who do in some sense base their faith on Luther. Most Anglicans certainly do not do this.)

He was not the freedom speaker people make him out to be

Agreed, though again, I don’t know who those “people” are.

He urged the death of 100,000 people during the peasant uprisings.

Misleading syntax. He urged the death of people who were engaged in acts of rebellion and violence. Again, this was hardly an unusual opinion. Think about how Americans regard Islamic terrorists–that’s how sixteenth-century people (at least those from the middle and upper rungs of society) regarded rebels. But I’ll grant you that he could be as vicious as Ann Coulter at times.

He was distrustful of Jews and much of the Old Testament…he called Moses a heretic and said he was as evil as the devil.

Misinterpretation. Luther was speaking metaphorically of the Law as something people trust in for salvation.

In his personal writings, he claimed the devil visited him 100 times a day and laughed at him for breaking up the body of Christ.

He may well have said something like that–Luther does indeed seem to have struggled with what he regarded as the Satanic temptation to question his actions on the grounds that he was causing division in the Church. He fought off these “temptations” and ascribed them to the devil, as you note. I’m not quite sure why you are so happy to have the devil on your side

No surprise, Hitler later cited him as his greatest singular inspiration.

When talking to Lutherans. When talking to Catholics, he claimed the Catholic Church as his inspiration. Smart guy, Hitler (in some very limited ways, that is).

He did not make the bible widely available as many claim…the Catholic Church did. By the time Luther was born, the bible had a handful of translations in German already….by the time he broke away there were hundreds – all carefully provided by the Church.

Only if you are using “Church” in the Protestant sense to mean all Christians rather than just the hierarchy. I’m not denying that there were many *Catholic *translations, but your phrase “carefully provided by the Church” does not match what I know. Admittedly I don’t know the details of these translations, and am willing to be taught better. But as far as I know most of them were produced without any kind of official Church initiative. It’s certainly true that outside England, the Catholic Church at the turn of the sixteenth century was fine with vernacular translations (in England they were banned because the existing translations were produced by the Lollards, though one has to ask why the Catholic Church didn’t produce a more “orthodox” alternative!).

 

[Contarini]

I think he was probably very mentally ill (he was abused heavily by his father

That’s a silly bit of anachronism for which we have Erikson to thank. Nothing Luther says about the way his father treated him sounds unusual by the standards of that time. (Actually his mother beat him too, but it doesn’t suit a Freudian interpretation to emphasize this.) That’s not to say that sixteenth-century treatment of children isn’t open to serious criticism, but like so much else that people single out with regard to Luther, the criticism should go to the society as a whole rather than to Luther personally. It’s just that Luther had such a vivid personality, wrote so prolifically (and sometimes quite personally), and has been studied so intensely, that it’s easy to think he was more unusual than he was.

his when he was a priest, the other brothers were fearful he might harm himself )

I actually think a case can be made that Luther did have some serious psychological problems by our standards. But again, so much of what we know about him comes from his own writings and is filtered through his extremely lively and hyperbolic style. Anything Luther says about himself should be used with care, whether by his admirers or his opponents.

….and if you read his writings, you will wonder how he got anyone to follow him

That is not my reaction or that of many who have read his writings. When I read Luther, I want to follow him too. Then I step back and think about his arguments, and I realize taht they have flaws.

It was a perfect storm…there was corruption in the Church (though it was already getting fixed from within by the time Luther broke away).

There were reform efforts. There are always reform efforts, just as there is always corruption. These efforts are never entirely successful. That’s just the reality of a Church made up of fallen people in a fallen world. The whole “corruption” argument is misused by both sides. Luther himself said that he differed from previous reformers in *not *primarily taking aim at moral corruption, but rather at what he regarded as *doctrinal *corruption.

Also, people liked the message of being able to sin all they want and still be saved.

People did. That was not in fact Luther’s message (one hyperbolic remark in a letter to a scrupulous friend notwithstanding), but Luther’s opponents are probably not the only ones who have misinterpreted him in that direction. However, on the whole the Reformation was characterized by a good deal of moral fervor.

Unfortunately, this led to a sharp moral decline in Europe

Janssen’s arguments have indeed never been refuted as far as I know, though they apply *only *to Germany, not to Europe as a whole. However, it’s not entirely clear to me that this was due to Luther’s theology so much as to the chaos produced by division within Christendom. But as I said, Luther’s teachings could easily be misinterpreted.

and eventually Luther wanting people following his teachings to be squashed, hence him urging for the death of those 100,000 that were slaughtered in the peasant uprisings.

Some confusion here. The peasants were not exactly following Luther’s teachings, and the writings we have from their leaders do not indicate that they believed that you could sin all you like and be saved. They were “antinomian” only in the sense that they interpreted Luther’s message of freedom politically as a mandate to reject worldly hierarchies. They seem to have had a good deal of moral earnestness, and in fact one theologian who allied himself with the revolution (Thomas Muntzer) criticized Luther’s teachings as too “soft” and easy.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

He didn’t bring the catholic church to its knees? He caused more people to leave the church than anyone I can think of. He nearly caused the Church to disintegrate.

It’s probably unwise to argue about metaphors. But in Spain he seems to have had almost no effect (there were some Protestants, but the Inquisition didn’t have to work very hard to stamp them out). Ignatius Loyola hardly seems to have bothered his head about Luther, at least in his earlier years (according to John O’Malley, the Jesuits didn’t start focusing on Protestantism until about 1550). You could read the writings of the Spanish mystics and hardly know that Luther existed.

Admittedly, Spain is the best example for my argument–the place where Luther probably had the least impact, and even there he had some. So as I said, I shouldn’t argue with your metaphor. But I think it is easy to overlook the extent to which many sixteenth-century Catholics just kept on being late medieval Catholics, at least until the Council of Trent’s decrees began to be implemented, which didn’t happen in some areas until decades after the Council had closed.

Edwin