Martin Luther's CHARACTER?

[mgrfin]

I

Edwin

I don’t think I misunderstood the example of David. God moved David by actual grace to repentance. He repentance was real, and felt true sorrow for his sins. He had fallen a long way from Grace, and he felt the pain of his loss on his conversion. During his sinfulness he still believed; he cooperated witht the actual grace God sent him.

As for Galatians, there seems to be a grammatical error in your quote, and honestly, I don’t want to get into Galatians, Romans, and the whole question of justification in St. Paul.

You ignore my comments about “Catholic justification by faith”, and Luther’s misunderstanding of it (along with modern Protestants).

As far as your Fundamentalism, Evangelicism, and not knowing where you are coming from, well, you may be right. You are from some type of Methodist Wesleyian branch of Evangelism. We Catholics are so ignorant on the matter, we don’t know what is the noun, and what is the adjective. It is hard to know. When I say I’m a Catholic, then you know right away. You may feel strongly about your faith, but there are shades of it which are not known to us. Don’t blame us for that.

There is no reason to discuss much more since you feel my whole post is an ‘argumentum ad hominem’. Of course it is not.

peace

 

[rr1213]

Oh, really?

As a Protestant, you are hanging on desperately to the Reformation; that Fr. Martin was really a good guy, just misunderstood; that he wasn’t a rude, crude, boar, but truly a saint.

How is this at all relevant to whether Luther’s theological insights are correct or not? Is a Pope’s theological pronouncements subject to challenge on the basis that our hypothetical Pope is “rude, crude [and a] boar”? Of course not…you’d say that the Pope’s character doesn’t undercut his theological pronouncements. Catholics would be the first to trumpet that a Pope is not impeccable. Protestants do the same with Luther…and we don’t even hold Luther infallable.

 

[rr1213]

I kind of think I just push you over the edge, and you make all these ‘ad hominem’ arguments against me. I can’t help it if you don’t like Catholics like me, but to quote you, “I don’t really care”.Like Luther, you think we are all stupid dolts.

Edwin came at you pretty strong, but none of his post was ad hominem.

 

[mgrfin]

How is this at all relevant to whether Luther’s theological insights are correct or not? Is a Pope’s theological pronouncements subject to challenge on the basis that our hypothetical Pope is “rude, crude [and a] boar”? Of course not…you’d say that the Pope’s character doesn’t undercut his theological pronouncements. Catholics would be the first to trumpet that a Pope is not impeccable. Protestants do the same with Luther…and we don’t even hold Luther infallable.

The emphasis is on “he was truly a saint”.

The Lutherans have canonized him. Really? A man who held the Doctors and Fathers of the Church as *****.

I am sure that some of our Popes were 'rude, crude, and a boar". I don’t know if any of them were issuing infallible statements, and were noted for they learning but not their manners. Manners have nothing to do with it.

I don’t think Luther understood Catholicism. There is plenty of room in our theology for ‘justification by faith’. He refused to see it, and set us up as little ants doing ‘good works’ earning our salvation. He couldn’t be more wrong.

But what do I know?

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Edwin came at you pretty strong, but none of his post was ad hominem.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

All you Episcopalians have to stick together.

peace

 

[rr1213]

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

All you Episcopalians have to stick together.

peace

I think that you need to look a little closer at my tagline.

 

[rr1213]

The emphasis is on “he was truly a saint”.

The Lutherans have canonized him.

Pretty much, if not literally. Perhaps literally in some Lutheran Churches.

 

[mgrfin]

I think that you need to look a little closer at my tagline.

Oh, I just thought you were a wandering Episcopalian.

As Edwin has pointed out to me, I don’t understand these ‘taglines’ and where everyone is coming from.

So, what are you now?

peace

 

[mgrfin]

It seems you didn’t read my link, so I’ll post it:

The issue here is that Luther added the word ‘alone’ to his translation.

Your references? Do they refer to people who translated the passage from Romans as 'faith only"; or, are we talking about people who commented on Romans, using the word ‘only’.

There is quite a difference. The Council of Trent made plenty of room for the doctrine of ‘justification by faith’ but not justification by faith only. For justification by faith we mean man’s free will cooperates with God’s call and action disposing and preparing to the grace of sanctification, and that he has the free will to cooperate, and certainly is not inanimate to this action of God’s grace.

Yes, there is God’s actual grace inspiriing a man to repentance, but the eventual cooperation via his free will.

peace

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think I misunderstood the example of David.

I didn’t say that you did. I meant to say that you misunderstood what Luther meant by “believer.” Sorry for not being clearer about that. I was not getting into the question of which view is theologically correct.

As for Galatians, there seems to be a grammatical error in your quote,

I’m not sure what you are talking about, but the version I own is an early modern translation and thus is going to sound rather odd.

and honestly, I don’t want to get into Galatians, Romans, and the whole question of justification in St. Paul.

I’m not asking you to debate the truth or falsehood of it. But if you want to talk about what Luther taught, this is one of the best places to start, because it’s a lengthy manifesto containing his mature thoughts on soteriology.

I’m afraid that it really looks as if you are determined to avoid a substantive discussion of what Luther thought.

You ignore my comments about “Catholic justification by faith”, and Luther’s misunderstanding of it (along with modern Protestants).

Because it’s irrelevant to our current discussion. I am pretty confident that Luther understood the version of Catholic theology he was taught, at least at the time–when people reject ideas they almost always seem to become incapable of describing those ideas correctly, so I’m not going to defend all his later descriptions of what he had been taught. The more relevant point is that what Luther was taught is not necessarily what you believe. Nor was it necessarily what other late medieval Catholics were being taught. Catholicism is not monolithic.

Anyway, the point I am disputing is whether Luther thought the pursuit of holiness was in any sense necessary. You keep introducing extraneous, irrelevant considerations. I am quite prepared to defend my interpretation of Luther if you would actually deign to talk about the texts. If you won’t do that, then please refrain from making irresponsible claims about Luther in future.

As far as your Fundamentalism, Evangelicism, and not knowing where you are coming from, well, you may be right. You are from some type of Methodist Wesleyian branch of Evangelism. We Catholics are so ignorant on the matter, we don’t know what is the noun, and what is the adjective. It is hard to know. When I say I’m a Catholic, then you know right away.

Well actually no, I don’t have a very precise idea of what people believe just from the fact that they say they are Catholics!

You may feel strongly about your faith, but there are shades of it which are not known to us. Don’t blame us for that.

Again, I don’t blame you for not knowing–I blame you for making ad hominem assertions on the basis of ignorance, such as your claim that I am somehow obligated to defend Luther because I’m a Protestant. Folks from my [Wesleyan] background do often defend Luther without understanding him simply because he’s a Protestant symbol, but they have no particular need to do so. And Anglicans (my current affiliation) frequently look down their noses at Luther and distance themselves from him.

I also can’t blame you for being confused by my ecclesiastical affiliations–I’m confused by them myself!

There is no reason to discuss much more since you feel my whole post is an ‘argumentum ad hominem’. Of course it is not.

Any argument of the sort “you say that because” is an argumentum ad hominem (of the subspecies that Lewis called “Bulverism”). I admit that as Teflon has pointed out to me on occasion, I have a tendency to do this myself (in an attempt to get to grips with what seems to be the presupposition behind the post), and it’s a bad, lazy habit for which Teflon has rightly rebuked me.

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

I

Edwin

Gal 5:17
For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would.

Okay, the following is Luther’s commentary, cleaned up of paranthentical expressions for our own understanding:

Quote
If believers obey the flesh in fulfilling the lusts thereof, then do they lose faith and the Holy Ghost. And if they do not abhor their sin and return unto Christ, they die in their sins. Wherefore we speak not of them which dream that they have faith, and yet continue still in their sins.
Unquote

And further:
Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:17 quote
“the Apostle writes in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans: “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into the captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”

"The scholastics are at a loss to understand this confession of Paul and feel obliged to save his honor. That the chosen vessel of Christ should have had the law of sin in his members seems to them incredible and absurd. They circumvent the plain-spoken statement of the Aostle by saying that he was speaking for the wicked.” Unquote.

Is Luther serious? That the writers on Paul, for 1500 years never believed that Paul had the same sins, lusts and temptations as the rest of us. Luther seems to be discovering something in Paul that no Catholic had ever seen or believed. He was overwhelmed by his own brilliance.

I say that Luther taught: The more that a man strives for good, the more he sins. And you say: “If that “striving” is directed toward earning salvation, yes.” Of course, our theology on grace would deny this teaching out of hand. I don’t know where to begin to answer this heresy.

You say: He believed that truly good (though still flawed) works were possibly only on the basis of faith–i.e., the confidence that one has been accepted by God on the basis of Christ’s saving work.

Good works are possible by someone confirmed in their sin. The Good Samaritan was good because of his work, yet we know nothing of the state of his soul. The man who lays down his life for his friend can be steeped in sin, yet performs a perfectly meritorious act of charity.

Thank God for the good deeds of our fellow men. We don’t question the state of their soul when they perform these deeds. We just say ‘thank you’.

You say: “Well actually no, I don’t have a very precise idea of what people believe just from the fact that they say they are Catholics!” I forgot that your current affliation is Anglican, and you would like me to be part of that “Roman communion”. Anglicans refer to themselves as Catholic so I understand your confusion. I am a Roman Catholic, and we are pretty monolithic.

You say: I’m not asking you to debate the truth or falsehood of it . But if you want to talk about what Luther taught, this is one of the best places to start, because it’s a lengthy manifesto containing his mature thoughts on soteriology. I’m afraid that it really looks as if you are determined to avoid a substantive discussion of what Luther thought.

Soteriology: so on this thread you would like to discuss Justification, the Sacraments, Sola Fides, Sola Gratia, the Church and predestination, all in one thread, even in one post?. I would love to review Luther’s heresies with anyone, but to find out what I believe, all you have to do is go to the Canons of the Council of Trent. I don’t think that this is the place for such a ‘lengthy manifesto’.

“I blame you for making ad hominem assertions on the basis of ignorance”. I think that is a disgraceful statement that is unworthy of you.
I may not have an S.T.D. or a Ph.D. like you, but I hardly think of myself as ignorant, both of my faith and in what Luther taught. I have as much education as Luther had, and I fully understand where to draw the line. For someone (rr1213) to come to your defense that you never used ‘argumenta ad hominem”, calling someone ‘ignorant’ is what? Calling someone ‘ignorant’ is an argumentum ad hominem’ where I come from.

peace

 

[po18guy]

He stated “I, Dr. Luther WILL IT, and my will is enough.”

Ego lead Lucifer to disobedience. Ego lead Luther to disobedience. It’s easy to tell a Lutheran church-it has his name on it.

Jeremiah 23:1

“Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD. Therefore this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says to the shepherds who tend my people: “Because you have scattered my flock and driven them away and have not bestowed care on them, I will bestow punishment on you for the evil you have done,” declares the LORD.

Lord, have mercy.

 

[mgrfin]

Luther added “by faith ALONE” - look up Luther’s Open Letter on Translating online and read it. The one on the Wittenburg Project is from a Lutheran source. The Catholic Church sent word to Luther that what he had done in his translation of the book of Romans into German was not acceptable. In Romans 3:28 he ADDED THE WORD “ALONE”.

Luther wrote back and said, “You go back and tell your papist that a papist and an *** are the same thing.” He stated that NO, the word ALONE/ SOLA was not there and that YES, he had added it. He stated “I, Dr. Luther WILL IT, and my will is enough.” He went on to say that he was a Doctor above all the papal doctors and “my opinion is just as good as the Thomists.” (he hated Thomas Aquinas).

Ask yourself what would happen if a Catholic Pope added a doctrine on these grounds. Every Protestant in the world would know it and yell bloody murder and yet they follow a man who did this without even investigating it. How better can we spread this to the Protestant masses? Thanks.

Luther’s defender(s) on this site will say that the word ‘alone’ in German was necessary for understanding, that it had nothing to do with the concept of FIDES SOLA.

Of course, if you argued in such a vein, you daresay would be called ignorant, that you don’t understand theology, and that Fr. Martin was a learned theologian, and all these criticisms were against a dead man who is not in a position to defend himself. Characterize such a defense as you will.

peace

 

[Contarini]

Luther’s defender(s) on this site will say that the word ‘alone’ in German was necessary for understanding, that it had nothing to do with the concept of FIDES SOLA.

I don’t know what “Luther defenders” you have in mind. Certainly I have not said either of these things. I do not know if the word “allein” was justified as a translation–I suspect not, but I’m in no position to be sure, since I am ill acquainted with the nuances of sixteenth-century colloquial German. I certainly have never claimed that Luther’s use of the word has nothing to do with the concept of sola fide. On the contrary, I have said over and over that it was a theologically influenced translation–but further that all translations of the Bible are theologically influenced to some extent. Luther thought that “allein” was necessary to convey the meaning of the Greek, but obviously his understanding of the meaning of the Greek was influenced by his theological presuppositions.

Of course, if you argued in such a vein, you daresay would be called ignorant, that you don’t understand theology, and that Fr. Martin was a learned theologian, and all these criticisms were against a dead man who is not in a position to defend himself.

You are ignorant, not so much of theology, of which we are all ignorant to some extent (so there’s no shame in that, since no one can understand God), but of what you might be expected to know–what I and other “defenders” of Luther have actually said.

You repeatedly argue against a straw man, and if you want to have anything remotely approaching a decent conversation you need to stop doing this.

I have said that one should be no less charitable to the dead than to the living–maybe more. And Luther was a brilliant theologian in my judgment, true, but that’s neither here nor there. It’s something that you keep coming up with because you seem to think that it’s somehow the underpinning of my argument. I have not used the word “learned” as a defense of him–he was certainly pretty learned as the average run of human beings goes, but he never had anywhere near enough learning to match his imaginative genius, which was part of his tragedy. He was a kind of crude barbarian genius, and he had a disastrous effect on the history of Christianity in many respects. I’m nowhere near as much a fan of him as you think. But I will not stand by and hear him slandered.

Now, how about addressing the actual points at issue–with regard to the translation event, how about refuting Luther’s actual argument about sixteenth-century German usage. I don’t have the linguistic expertise to do so, but perhaps you do!

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

I don’t know what “Luther defenders” you have in mind. Certainly I have not said either of these things. I do not know if the word “allein” was justified as a translation–I suspect not, but I’m in no position to be sure, since I am ill acquainted with the nuances of sixteenth-century colloquial German. I certainly have never claimed that Luther’s use of the word has nothing to do with the concept of sola fide. On the contrary, I have said over and over that it was a theologically influenced translation–but further that all translations of the Bible are theologically influenced to some extent. Luther thought that “allein” was necessary to convey the meaning of the Greek, but obviously his understanding of the meaning of the Greek was influenced by his theological presuppositions.

You are ignorant, not so much of theology, of which we are all ignorant to some extent (so there’s no shame in that, since no one can understand God), but of what you might be expected to know–what I and other “defenders” of Luther have actually said.

You repeatedly argue against a straw man, and if you want to have anything remotely approaching a decent conversation you need to stop doing this.

I have said that one should be no less charitable to the dead than to the living–maybe more. And Luther was a brilliant theologian in my judgment, true, but that’s neither here nor there. It’s something that you keep coming up with because you seem to think that it’s somehow the underpinning of my argument. I have not used the word “learned” as a defense of him–he was certainly pretty learned as the average run of human beings goes, but he never had anywhere near enough learning to match his imaginative genius, which was part of his tragedy. He was a kind of crude barbarian genius, and he had a disastrous effect on the history of Christianity in many respects. I’m nowhere near as much a fan of him as you think. But I will not stand by and hear him slandered.

Now, how about addressing the actual points at issue–with regard to the translation event, how about refuting Luther’s actual argument about sixteenth-century German usage. I don’t have the linguistic expertise to do so, but perhaps you do!

Edwin

Such humility, Edwin. I am overwhelmed.

In the past, you defended his addition of the word ‘alone’ to Romans.

You still call me ignorant.

You say Luther was a brillant theologian, but he was not learned.
Some nuance here that is unclear.

Where do you get off telling me what I need to do? You talk to me as though I was one of your H.S. sophmores.

Luther could not stand up against a decent theologian of his day. Caejetan would have made minced meat of him. He lacked systematic theological training. He was a hypocrite. One day he writes to the Pope that he is loyal and faithful servant to the Church, the next he writes to his friend that “now at last we have to act seriously against Roman authority and Roman arrogance”.

It was Luther who set up the ‘straw man’, not I. He accused the Church (‘the papists’) of not teaching justification by faith according to Romans and Galatians. But, in fact, he didn’t understand or know Catholic theology. His error was ‘faith alone’, but he never saw the distinction, because he didn’t know, or admit to the Church’s teaching on justification, grace and salvation.

He constantly accused the Church of teaching that we attain heaven by our good works, not by faith, which, is the basis of his heresy. Salvation by good works is heretical within the Catholic Church. Protestants, to this day, are surprised to hear this.

Catholicism teaches that 'the just man lives by faith". But his ‘faith only’ meant a personal assurance of personal salvation (which is heretical), and ‘justification’ to mean a mere (name removed by moderator)utation of justice, and not an infustion of justice into the soul, making it perfect in the eyes of God.

“Simul justus et peccator”, defines further Luther’s heresy. I prefer that God have more charity (as in the Catholic sense) to men that he completely wash us of our sins, rather than just covering them over. Luther stole fake diamonds when he set up his Church. He became anxious when he saw others ‘refining’ his theology and teaching another gospel. If he saw the damage he did to the Christian church today he might feel shame. He might, but he was so arrogant, who knows.

Finally, you may not be able to enter into a conversation with me without decending into an arrogant, condescending preaching about what I don’t know, and what I need to do.

peace