Martin Luther

[PbloPicasso]

**GENERAL WARNING

Okay…I’m going to assume that some of you are having a bad day…
I reeeaaly don’t like giving out so many infractions.
So, how about we police ourselves?

RESPECT AND CHARITY PLEASE.**

I concur. Natural inclinations to defend oneself here is self-defeating. My apologies for allowing this thread to get off track.

Now, back to Martin Luther. I see many factions within Catholicism, however, the larger body of Christ [those in communion with Pope Benedict XVI] continues to hold truth. The factions which have been condoning SSA, ordination of women, etc. have set themselves apart from the body of Christ by their actions. I see something similar happening in the other mainstream Protestant communities. So, with that observation, which of the 3 branches of Lutheran are, if at all, considered the original? Or am I thinking too Catholic to understand it?

 

[Contarini]

Could God have allowed Martin Luther’s scandal be a catalyst for change in the Catholic Church? It seems to me that any clergy, not matter how high, that condones or even ordered, as in this case, the death penalty for Lutherans, would seem to be seriously theologically and morally wrong. This contradicts teachings today. Even Jesus condemned retaliation, even to those that teach about Him yet are not part of the His disciples.

Patience is a virtue. So is charity.

I agree that burning heretics was wrong, but the major difference between Luther and the Catholic Church wasn’t over whether heretics should be burned (that was a minor item on the list of things for which Luther was condemned, and while Luther never endorsed burning heretics, he did come to endorse some pretty harsh treatment of people he considered dangerous to church and society).

Luther certainly was a catalyst for change in Catholicism, but not all of that change was good.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Right, but one correction.

The Lutheran Church is the church of the followers of Martin Luther. Luther did not intend to create a new church. He just ended up following his followers. That’s my assessment from what I know so far. The book is not closed on this opinion yet. I’m researching his story a little deeper.

What makes you say this? Certainly some of Luther’s colleagues, such as Melanchthon, were more systematic than he. But Luther’s tendency to condemn as evil and Satanic anyone who disagreed with him was one of the factors that led to the formation of “a new church.”

Bear in mind that not only did Luther not want to found a new church, he would never have said that he did so. Nor, generally, would Lutherans. See hn160’s posts.

The Lutheran claim is not that they reluctantly founded a new church, but that they were brought by God’s grace to a clearer understanding of the Gospel within the one Church that has always existed, and that this meant separation from people claiming to speak for the Church who opposed the Gospel.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Catholics on this blog can’t resist taking potshots at Lutherans, the head of the Lutheran Church is Christ. At the time of Martin Luther, the Catholic Church/Western Church was broken.

Broken how?

The Church needed to be reformed

How?

but Rome would not listen

To which proposals and why?

You speak as if “reform” were a monolithic, self-evident entity. There were many versions of reform, and the church has not been found yet that could not be viewed as in need of reform. This is extremely vague language.

Would you say that the key Lutheran teaching is justification by faith alone? If you would, then why this general language of “reform”? Justification by faith alone wasn’t a reform, it was a theological innovation.

up to Luther, they burned earlier reformers. Some of the Catholics on this blog should contact Pope Benedict and get some (name removed by moderator)ut on Luther from him. Remember as it has been said of Tetzel " As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs."

I think you have been told before now that the authenticity of this quote is highly disputed.

Are you suggesting that if the abuse of “selling” indulgences had been corrected, there would have been no need for the Reformation?

Edwin

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

As far as continuing to use the name “Lutheran,” I imagine it was a case of people turning what was intended to be a slur into a badge of honor.

This is what Catholics have done as well, actually. Protestants called us (And still call us) Papists, Roman Catholics, and all the like, originally as an insult. We didn’t take any of these things as an insult. We took these intended insults as a compliment, much to many Catholic-hating Protestants’ displeasure.

 

[Contarini]

I’m inclined to think that hn160 is merely joking, because his/her statements are ludicrous because they do not gibe with the real documented historical evidence of the Church…

In what sense?

I would tend to agree, but hn160 is not joking–there are many learned persons who hold this view.

The claim that the RCC didn’t exist until the Council of Trent is not a ridiculous claim–it’s a matter of definition.

The claim that Lutheranism is in line with historic Catholic Christianity is historically problematic, especially with regard to justification. However, if you are willing to grant a good deal of doctrinal ups and downs while still claiming continuity, the claim isn’t self-evidently absurd. I couldn’t accept it myself–but again, there are sincere and learned persons (far more learned than I) who do so.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I often wonder what made Luther cross the line between wanting to reform the RCC and changing the doctrine.

What makes you think he crossed such a line?

As I read him, his interest in practical reform came out of his theological agenda, not the other way round.

His theological views certainly became more and more radical during the late 1510s and early 20s. But what drove him early on was a deep disagreement with what he took to be dominant scholastic theology. As the Catholic hierarchy, in his view, lined up in support of this erroneous theology, and as he came to see links between this flawed theology and the practical abuses everyone was complaining about, his position indeed became more extreme.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And do you really believe that the Catholic Church came into existence after the Council of Trent? I hope you are not simply referring to the term Roman Catholic.

No, he’s talking about Trent’s dogmatic rejection of Protestant ideas.

Look at the way many pre-Nicene orthodox theologians held ideas that look almost Arian to us today. I’m not aware of any orthodox theologian before Nicea who used “homoousios” to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. But Trinitarian Christians do not thereby reject pre-Nicene Christianity. Even a writer who used Arian language would not be exactly a heretic, because the issue hadn’t yet become clear. But once the issue was clearly put, those who dogmatically rejected the orthodox understanding were heretics, and orthodox Christians regard those heretics as something quite different from “undeveloped” pre-Nicene Christianity.

The classical Protestant view of the Reformation is similar. Protestants would typically argue that the doctrine of justification was in an undeveloped form before the Reformation, but that the Council of Trent committed itself to heresy by rejecting the orthodox view once it had been formulated.

I myself do not find this parallel convincing. But I take this to be essentially hn160’s argument. I invite correction if I am wrong!

Luther simply invented much of his theology. He took out seven books of the Old Testament and put into doubt a quarter of the New Testament.

It’s funny that this is where you start, when this was in fact one of Luther’s less innovative ideas–the books in question had been questioned since the early Church, and the issue had been reopened by Renaissance scholars, including orthodox ones such as Cardinal Cajetan. Yes, Luther’s approach was rather cavalier, but he certainly didn’t invent the idea that some books of the traditional canon were dubious.

He added words to the New Testament to fit his doctrines.

No, he translated one Greek word with two German words. Anyone who knows anything about translation knows that you often have to do such things. Whether it was justified in this instance is a separate question.

He made significant errors regarding original sin and the state of original justice.

Such as? I don’t necessarily disagree. I’d just like to hear exactly what you mean.

The polemical and hateful nature of many of his letters is the opposite of the Christian gospel.

I don’t think any Christian group can get very far leveling this criticism against any other. Nasty polemic has been a feature of Christianity for as long as there have been Christians, I’m afraid. Certainly Luther was a master of that unfortunate art

He rejected 5 sacraments of the Church

In the strict sense. Of course, the seven-sacrament formulation is fairly late–one could argue that the trajectory of sacramental development is toward a narrower definition of sacrament, resulting in a smaller number of “official” sacraments.

and altered the doctrine of the Eucharist.

He rejected some of the high/late medieval developments in that doctrine. Whether one could fairly say that he rejected the metabolic view found in Ambrose and Cyril of Jerusalem is more dubious. But I would agree that his way of formulating Eucharistic doctrine was certainly idiosyncratic.

Add to this his many psychological problems.

Surely not relevant here.

It is distressing to me that, with so many substantive things to criticize in Luther, Catholics so often wish to waffle on about his “psychological problems”–a highly dubious method of historical/theological critique.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I concur. Natural inclinations to defend oneself here is self-defeating. My apologies for allowing this thread to get off track.

Now, back to Martin Luther. I see many factions within Catholicism, however, the larger body of Christ [those in communion with Pope Benedict XVI] continues to hold truth. The factions which have been condoning SSA, ordination of women, etc. have set themselves apart from the body of Christ by their actions. I see something similar happening in the other mainstream Protestant communities. So, with that observation, which of the 3 branches of Lutheran are, if at all, considered the original? Or am I thinking too Catholic to understand it?

If you’re talking about actual “factions within Catholicism” (i.e., people who are in outward communion with Rome but hold to views you consider unorthodox, or even views that openly differ with Rome), then I would say that you are thinking too Protestant.

The idea that the “true Church” is to be identified with a faction (even though you claim that in this case it’s a majority) within the “visible” Church is one of the more unfortunate Protestant ideas.

The difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is that in Catholicism institutional power is held (at least at the worldwide level) by conservatives, whereas institutional Protestant denominations tend to become more liberal over time (the Southern Baptists being the major example of a denomination that has reversed this drift–the LCMS also did so, and some say that the UMC is heading toward a conservative “takeover” as well, so the pattern may turn out to be a temporary one). That means that typically you have a large “mainline” denomination which is in institutional continuity with the original structures of the tradition (ELCA in the case of Lutheranism), some smaller groups that embody a thoughtful, conservative alternative, and a host of tiny splinter groups on the fringe. Doctrinally, the LCMS and the WELS would hold more strictly to traditional Lutheran faith and practice than ELCA. I will not try to judge between them, and I should point out that conservative reaffirmation often produces something that looks subtly different than past expressions. You really can’t turn back the clock in the sense of reversing historical change and returning to some past ideal, which is why I’m always surprised by the anxiety liberals seem to feel lest someone try to do what they say is impossible!

One other point specific to Lutherans: American Lutheran denominations are formed from “synods” that originated with some specific group of immigrants. These synods gradually coalesced to form the ELCA (which has now once again split, over homosexuality). The LCMS and the WELS never joined the ELCA. So they differ from conservative groups in other Protestant traditions inasmuch as they are not breakaways but stayaways! Arguably that gives them a better right to be the “originals.” But probably it’s fairest to say that none of the three are more “original” than the others.

Edwin

 

[PbloPicasso]

**Contarini,

Thank you for being “polite” with your responses - so many responses. It sounds like you’ve appointed yourself expert. I agree with much of what you’ve said, however, some of your information is distorted, e.g., Luther’s translation of the New Testament. Luther added, not translated the word “faith” to emphasize his own believes. There was not botched attempt to translate this. I’m not saying he did it in malice, but he did what he did. Stop making excuses for both sides. People do what they do, and not always with good intentions. However, I do believe that many of these men did what they did with welling meaning intentions. But it still doesn’t justify their actions. It merely means their culpability MAY have been low.
**

 

[GKC]

Contarini,

Thank you for being “polite” with your responses - so many responses. It sounds like you’ve appointed yourself expert. I agree with much of what you’ve said, however, some of your information is distorted, e.g., Luther’s translation of the New Testament. Luther added, not translated the word “faith” to emphasize his own believes. There was not botched attempt to translate this. I’m not saying he did it in malice, but he did what he did. Stop making excuses for both sides. People do what they do, and not always with good intentions. However, I do believe that many of these men did what they did with welling meaning intentions. But it still doesn’t justify their actions. It merely means their culpability MAY have been low.

In my experience, and with respect to this general subject area, I’ve found Contarini is an expert.

GKC

 

[hn160]

Broken how?

How?

To which proposals and why?

You speak as if “reform” were a monolithic, self-evident entity. There were many versions of reform, and the church has not been found yet that could not be viewed as in need of reform. This is extremely vague language.

Would you say that the key Lutheran teaching is justification by faith alone? If you would, then why this general language of “reform”? Justification by faith alone wasn’t a reform, it was a theological innovation.

I think you have been told before now that the authenticity of this quote is highly disputed.

Are you suggesting that if the abuse of “selling” indulgences had been corrected, there would have been no need for the Reformation?

Edwin

Probably Some of the questions that you asked can be answered buy Luther’s first 30 of his 95 Theses especially the Broken and How.
THE 95 THESES
by Martin Luther

1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.
4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.
7. God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.
11. Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory were evidently sown while the bishops slept (Mt 13:25).
12. In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.
14. Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.
15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation.
17. It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase.
18. Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love.
19. Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it.
20. Therefore the pope, when he uses the words “plenary remission of all penalties,” does not actually mean “all penalties,” but only those imposed by himself.
21. Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.
22. As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.
23. If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very few.
24. For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.
25. That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish.
26. The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them.
27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.
28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.
29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend.
30. No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of having received plenary remission.

 

[hn160]

Broken how?

How?

To which proposals and why?

You speak as if “reform” were a monolithic, self-evident entity. There were many versions of reform, and the church has not been found yet that could not be viewed as in need of reform. This is extremely vague language.

Would you say that the key Lutheran teaching is justification by faith alone? If you would, then why this general language of “reform”? Justification by faith alone wasn’t a reform, it was a theological innovation.

I think you have been told before now that the authenticity of this quote is highly disputed.

Are you suggesting that if the abuse of “selling” indulgences had been corrected, there would have been no need for the Reformation?

Edwin

You said that the Doctrine on Justification was an innovation, this is from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
72 Augustine says very clearly, “All the commandments of God are kept when what is not kept is forgiven.”1 Therefore even in good works he requires our faith that for Christ’s sake we please God and that the works in themselves do not have the value to please God. 173 Against the Pelagians, Jerome writes, “We are righteous, therefore, when we confess that we are sinners; and our righteousness does not consist in our own merit, but in God’s mercy.”2 174 In the incipient keeping of the law, therefore, we need a faith which is sure that for Christ’s sake we have a gracious God. For mercy can be grasped only by faith, as we have said so often. 175 When Paul says, therefore, that the law is established through faith (Rom. 3:31), this should not be taken to mean only that those who have been regenerated by faith receive the Holy Spirit and that their impulses agree with God’s law. Even more important, it must be added that we should realize how far we are from the perfection of the law. 176 Therefore we dare not believe that we are accounted righteous before God on account of our keeping of the law; for our conscience to be at peace we must seek justification elsewhere. As long as we flee God’s judgment and are angry at him, we are not righteous before him.
1 Augustine, Retractions, I, 19:3.
2 Jerome, Dialog against the Pelagians, I, 5.
Tappert, Theodore G.: The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 2000, c1959, S. 130

 

[hn160]

No, he’s talking about Trent’s dogmatic rejection of Protestant ideas.

Look at the way many pre-Nicene orthodox theologians held ideas that look almost Arian to us today. I’m not aware of any orthodox theologian before Nicea who used “homoousios” to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. But Trinitarian Christians do not thereby reject pre-Nicene Christianity. Even a writer who used Arian language would not be exactly a heretic, because the issue hadn’t yet become clear. But once the issue was clearly put, those who dogmatically rejected the orthodox understanding were heretics, and orthodox Christians regard those heretics as something quite different from “undeveloped” pre-Nicene Christianity.

The classical Protestant view of the Reformation is similar. Protestants would typically argue that the doctrine of justification was in an undeveloped form before the Reformation, but that the Council of Trent committed itself to heresy by rejecting the orthodox view once it had been formulated.

I myself do not find this parallel convincing. But I take this to be essentially hn160’s argument. I invite correction if I am wrong!

It’s funny that this is where you start, when this was in fact one of Luther’s less innovative ideas–the books in question had been questioned since the early Church, and the issue had been reopened by Renaissance scholars, including orthodox ones such as Cardinal Cajetan. Yes, Luther’s approach was rather cavalier, but he certainly didn’t invent the idea that some books of the traditional canon were dubious.

No, he translated one Greek word with two German words. Anyone who knows anything about translation knows that you often have to do such things. Whether it was justified in this instance is a separate question.

Such as? I don’t necessarily disagree. I’d just like to hear exactly what you mean.

I don’t think any Christian group can get very far leveling this criticism against any other. Nasty polemic has been a feature of Christianity for as long as there have been Christians, I’m afraid. Certainly Luther was a master of that unfortunate art

In the strict sense. Of course, the seven-sacrament formulation is fairly late–one could argue that the trajectory of sacramental development is toward a narrower definition of sacrament, resulting in a smaller number of “official” sacraments.

He rejected some of the high/late medieval developments in that doctrine. Whether one could fairly say that he rejected the metabolic view found in Ambrose and Cyril of Jerusalem is more dubious. But I would agree that his way of formulating Eucharistic doctrine was certainly idiosyncratic.

Surely not relevant here.

It is distressing to me that, with so many substantive things to criticize in Luther, Catholics so often wish to waffle on about his “psychological problems”–a highly dubious method of historical/theological critique.

Edwin

Lutherans have three Sacraments - Confession and Absolution ( Private and Corporate ), Holy Baptism, and Holy Communion. The remainder of the original are considered as a Rite. Lutherans have a definition for a Sacrament:
Note: The Pontifical Confutation demanded that Lutherans teach that there are exactly seven Sacraments. Melanchthon’s approach was to emphasize that the word sacrament is somewhat fluid in its meaning. The term is not strictly biblical (though it does appear in the Latin Vulgate as a translation for the Greek term mysterion; e.g., 1 Corinthians 4:1). As such, the term is capable of different uses in the Church. If the Church chooses to consider the Sacraments rites that God has commanded, to which the promise of grace is added, then there would be three: Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution or Repentance. Martin Luther generally spoke of Holy Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar as Sacraments and regarded Confession and Absolution to be an extension of Baptism. Quibbling over the number of the Sacraments is unproductive and is to be avoided. It is better to focus on the gifts of God given in and through the Sacraments. Melanchthon is even willing in this article to regard ordination to the Church’s ministry as a Sacrament, but only in relation to the ministry of the Word. Melanchthon makes the number of Sacraments an issue only because Rome did. He was forced to respond in more detail. What is important is receiving God’s gracious gifts through faith, making sure that we never regard Sacraments as works to appease God or to merit His favor. (See AC XIII.)
Concordia : The Lutheran Confessions. Edited by Paul Timothy McCain. St. Louis, MO : Concordia Publishing House, 2005, S. 184

 

[hn160]

No, he’s talking about Trent’s dogmatic rejection of Protestant ideas.

Look at the way many pre-Nicene orthodox theologians held ideas that look almost Arian to us today. I’m not aware of any orthodox theologian before Nicea who used “homoousios” to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. But Trinitarian Christians do not thereby reject pre-Nicene Christianity. Even a writer who used Arian language would not be exactly a heretic, because the issue hadn’t yet become clear. But once the issue was clearly put, those who dogmatically rejected the orthodox understanding were heretics, and orthodox Christians regard those heretics as something quite different from “undeveloped” pre-Nicene Christianity.

The classical Protestant view of the Reformation is similar. Protestants would typically argue that the doctrine of justification was in an undeveloped form before the Reformation, but that the Council of Trent committed itself to heresy by rejecting the orthodox view once it had been formulated.

I myself do not find this parallel convincing. But I take this to be essentially hn160’s argument. I invite correction if I am wrong!

It’s funny that this is where you start, when this was in fact one of Luther’s less innovative ideas–the books in question had been questioned since the early Church, and the issue had been reopened by Renaissance scholars, including orthodox ones such as Cardinal Cajetan. Yes, Luther’s approach was rather cavalier, but he certainly didn’t invent the idea that some books of the traditional canon were dubious.

No, he translated one Greek word with two German words. Anyone who knows anything about translation knows that you often have to do such things. Whether it was justified in this instance is a separate question.

Such as? I don’t necessarily disagree. I’d just like to hear exactly what you mean.

I don’t think any Christian group can get very far leveling this criticism against any other. Nasty polemic has been a feature of Christianity for as long as there have been Christians, I’m afraid. Certainly Luther was a master of that unfortunate art

In the strict sense. Of course, the seven-sacrament formulation is fairly late–one could argue that the trajectory of sacramental development is toward a narrower definition of sacrament, resulting in a smaller number of “official” sacraments.

He rejected some of the high/late medieval developments in that doctrine. Whether one could fairly say that he rejected the metabolic view found in Ambrose and Cyril of Jerusalem is more dubious. But I would agree that his way of formulating Eucharistic doctrine was certainly idiosyncratic.

Surely not relevant here.

It is distressing to me that, with so many substantive things to criticize in Luther, Catholics so often wish to waffle on about his “psychological problems”–a highly dubious method of historical/theological critique.

Edwin

Before we get into an argument about the Lutheran Sacrament of Holy Communion, We do not explain how Christ’s Body and Blood is in the bread and wine, it is a mystery. We take Christ at His Word when He said “is”. An no it is not Consubstantiation.

Luther did have a temper, but he was no different from anybody else in his time or even today, And before anything can be said about the Jews, what he said was no different from anybody else at that time.

 

[PbloPicasso]

In my experience, and with respect to this general subject area, I’ve found Contarini is an expert.

GKC

:bowdown:Oh great one. We honor you and pay homage to you.

 

[Contarini]

some of your information is distorted, e.g., Luther’s translation of the New Testament. Luther added, not translated the word “faith” to emphasize his own believes. There was not botched attempt to translate this.

Please explain the difference between “adding” and “translating.” Luther explains in On Translationthe rationale behind his choice to translate the Greek word pistei by the four German words allein durch den glauben instead of the three durch den glauben which his Catholic opponents considered sufficient:

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add allein in order that nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a completely clear German expression. We do not have to ask the literal Latin how we are to speak German, as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

I hope you can see from this lengthy extract that Luther was in fact making a translation choice, guided by what we would now call a theory of “dynamic equivalence” (the form of translation generally favored by modern linguists). Of course, such an approach allows for the translator’s bias to be inserted into the text more overtly than does a theory of “formal equivalence.” But nonetheless, the proper way to describe what he did is that he translated one Greek word by four German words. No one disputes that he needed at least three to translate the one Greek word, since German uses a definite article there and Greek (like English) does not, and since German (like English) uses a preposition to express what Greek expresses by the ablative case.

**

Stop making excuses for both sides.

**

I am trying to correct erroneous misunderstandings and to keep the historical record as clear as possible. I see no reason whatever to stop doing this.

God bless,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You said that the Doctrine on Justification was an innovation, this is from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
72 Augustine says very clearly, “All the commandments of God are kept when what is not kept is forgiven.”1

I think that it’s a huge leap to get forensic imputation from this. “Negative” imputation–that God forgives our sins and thus our failure to keep God’s commandments is no longer held against us when we repent–is certainly not an innovation, nor was it a controversial idea in the 16th century.

Melanchthon seems to have recognized privately that his use of Augustine was highly selective. In a letter to Brenz which you can read here (unfortunately only after wading through a lot of back-and-forth between myself and Dave Armstrong, though that may be helpful too), he rebukes Brenz for teaching Augustine’s soteriology and lays out clearly how different Lutheran soteriology is from Augustine’s. He further admits that he and other Wittenberg theologians cite Augustine in public controversy because of Augustine’s authority and because they think he is more on their side than on that of the Papists, not because they approve of Augustine’s soteriology in its entirety.

Therefore even in good works he requires our faith that for Christ’s sake we please God and that the works in themselves do not have the value to please God.

Melanchthon doesn’t cite the specific passage where Augustine says this. If he means that Augustine believes that “when God rewards our merits He is crowning His own gifts,” then of course he’s right–but the problem is that this is a Catholic principle rejected by the Lutherans, who insisted that the good works God works in us must still be seen as “our” good works. This is/was the basic issue between Lutherans and Catholics, and on it Augustine is solidly on the Catholic side.

173 Against the Pelagians, Jerome writes, “We are righteous, therefore, when we confess that we are sinners; and our righteousness does not consist in our own merit, but in God’s mercy.”2

Again, if Melanchthon is suggesting that Jerome held anything like the Lutheran view of justification, he’s being disingenuous. This kind of selective proof-texting does not do the Fathers justice. (Jerome, of all people, certainly believed that ascetic actions by believers, in the context of recognizing one’s sinfulness and dependence on God, contribute to one’s final salvation.)

174 In the incipient keeping of the law, therefore, we need a faith which is sure that for Christ’s sake we have a gracious God. For mercy can be grasped only by faith, as we have said so often.

But this rather peculiar (though powerful and compelling) understanding of faith is not, as far as I can see, found in the Fathers.

175 When Paul says, therefore, that the law is established through faith (Rom. 3:31), this should not be taken to mean only that those who have been regenerated by faith receive the Holy Spirit and that their impulses agree with God’s law.

Which is the patristic view.

Even more important, it must be added that we should realize how far we are from the perfection of the law.

Obviously true–and the traditional answer is that we repent and ask for forgiveness. If that were all the Lutherans were saying, there would be no serious controversy.

176 Therefore we dare not believe that we are accounted righteous before God on account of our keeping of the law; for our conscience to be at peace we must seek justification elsewhere. As long as we flee God’s judgment and are angry at him, we are not righteous before him.

The problem with this claim is the hidden assumption that doing anything to avert God’s judgment (such as works of penance) consists of “fleeing it” and must involve being angry at God. Again, this assumption really is an innovation, and goes against the grain of most previous Christian piety.

I have a lot of sympathy with the Lutheran position inasmuch as it sought to get people away from a fear-filled approach to God. As a corrective within the Catholic tradition, it was of great potential value. But the forensic “machinery” really is innovative and, in my opinion, was never necessary. It was shaped by the very fearfulness and merit-centered thinking that Luther was trying to escape.

Before we get into an argument about the Lutheran Sacrament of Holy Communion, We do not explain how Christ’s Body and Blood is in the bread and wine, it is a mystery. We take Christ at His Word when He said “is”. An no it is not Consubstantiation.

I understand that you don’t use the word, but am I correct in thinking that this is because of your hostility to philosophical explanations? Certainly no one has yet explained to me what about consubstantiation contradicts the Lutheran position. It appears to me that the Lutheran view relates to consubstantiation much as the Orthodox view relates to transubstantiation. And of course one can’t ignore Luther’s debt to the late medieval nominalists, some of whom did propose some form of consubstantiation as a philosophical alternative.

Luther did have a temper, but he was no different from anybody else in his time or even today, And before anything can be said about the Jews, what he said was no different from anybody else at that time.

I would hesitate to say that Luther was no different–other Protestants on occasion rebuked Luther for the violence of his language and his tendency to attack people over even relatively minor differences–but I agree that Catholics often ignore the cultural and rhetorical context of Luther’s writings.

Edwin

 

[PbloPicasso]

Before we get into an argument about the Lutheran Sacrament of Holy Communion, We do not explain how Christ’s Body and Blood is in the bread and wine,** it is a mystery.** We take Christ at His Word when He said “is”. An no it is not Consubstantiation.

Luther did have a temper, but he was no different from anybody else in his time or even today, And before anything can be said about the Jews, what he said was no different from anybody else at that time.

Christ’s presence in the form of bread and wine, are indeed a mystery.

I find many “experts” to have a well formed temper and will stop at nothing to be heard. I’ve had my own experiences with “experts.” Many of them convinced me what I’ve said to be true. And one person that doesn’t understand what I’m saying is nor reason to derail the topic.

My real issue is merely that when one researches history during the reformation, sin exuded from what we like to believe are “unlikely” places. Unfortunately, in recent years I’ve heard far to many respectable priests and laity, admit that many of the leaders made grave mistakes. However, the “excuses” made by “experts” really irritate me because it is merely a red herring to a real issue.

Now, to get back to my Star Trek, relive… Voyager.

 

[Contarini]

My real issue is merely that when one researches history during the reformation, sin exuded from what we like to believe are “unlikely” places. Unfortunately, in recent years I’ve heard far to many respectable priests and laity, admit that many of the leaders made grave mistakes. However, the “excuses” made by “experts” really irritate me because it is merely a red herring to a real issue.

It is not my intention to irritate you. It is my intention to have a substantive discussion based on evidence. I regret that you do not share my interest in such a discussion.

That Luther was a sinner has never been questioned by anyone–least of all by Luther

Edwin