First of all, Luther did not think that Catholicism needed to be reformed because of moral corruption. He thought it needed to be reformed because it had gotten the Gospel wrong. And secondly, obviously Luther didn’t think that his views on Jews were wicked. So no inconsistency. The inconsistency would lie in those Protestants who would claim that Catholicism was intolerably bad while Luther and his followers were pure and holy. When you find such Protestants, please smite them (metaphorically and rhetorically) with my blessing. Shucks, let me know and I’ll join in.
But this is not a general argument against Protestantism. To discredit Protestantism, you have to show more than that Luther was as bad in certain regards as many of his Catholic contemporaries. You have to show that the specific doctrines you condemn us for holding are wrong, and that the specific practices we would have to give up in order to become Catholic are incompatible with the Gospel. Bashing people who lived 500 years ago is a fun diversion, but it doesn’t help resolve the real issues.
When you find someone saying “this must be true because Luther said it,” then by all means question this.
I don’t. I hold traditional Catholicism–and more broadly traditional cultural Christianity–responsible. My point was that Williamson is a holdover who voices (with perhaps a bit more bitterness and anger precisely because there aren’t many who agree with him any ore) things that would have been fairly common opinions among Catholic clergy about 100 years ago–maybe even 50 years ago. Not universal, mind you; not necessarily official. But common.
So I repeat: those who live in glass houses (i.e., a Catholic tradition characterized by bitter hostility toward and persecution of Jews) shouldn’t throw stones at Luther.
Edwin
By their fruits you shall know them, isn’t that correct Edwin? Luther who sees himself has some prophet of God had this to say about himself and his doctrines:
“When I am angry, I am not expressing my own wrath, but the wrath of God”. Luther knew that he was superior to any man or saint. “St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.” “They shall respect our teaching which is the word of God, spoken by the Holy Ghost, through our lips”. “Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He as on me” (E61, 422). “God has appointed me for the whole German land, and I boldly vouch and declare that when you obey me you are without a doubt obeying not me but Christ” (W15, 27). “Whoever obeys me not, despises not me but Christ.” “I believe that we are the last trump that sounds before Christ is coming”. “What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it.” (W18, 401). “Whoever rejects my doctrine cannot be saved.” “Nobody should rise up against me”.
In the references given, E refers to the Erlangen edition of Luther’s works, W to the Weimar edition. The first figure indicates the volume, the second the page.
He thought pretty highly of himself did our Luther, I have to wonder, that has a prophet of God shouldn’t he exude humbleness and/or holiness, say like the apostles/disciples after Pentecost.
Because he was a man far from being holy (did and said many a thing vile and nasty), such a man likewise, may not have been led by the Holy Spirit when interpreting the Word of God.
“The evangelical Reformation of the sixteenth century is unthinkable without Luther. It owed its origin directly to him and it bears the stamp of his personality.” “No German has ever influenced so powerfully as Luther the religious life, and through it, the whole history of his people; none has ever reflected so faithfully, in his whole personal character and conduct, the peculiar features of that life and history.” “Lutheranism is not a system worked out by Luther; it is the overflow of Luther’s individuality. . . . It is that which explains the `reformer’s’ immense influence.”
I would question a system of beliefs based on such a man as he.
I will end with these words taken from a volume written by Peter Weiner on Martin Luther(who wrote German with Tears and German for the Scientist):
"It is curious to notice how Luther’s biographers, or rather his apologists, treat this dark episode. Few are so hypocritical as the Lutheran pastor referred to above to make out Luther as a Jew-loving Christian. Most of them ignore his antisemitism completely. Only a very few are honest enough to admit that Luther’s behaviour is unparalleled among people who call themselves Christian. Professor MacKinnon in his great work—usually so full of admiration for Luther—frankly admits that in his antisemitic writings “vitriolic fury boils over in this wild polemic.” But then comes a sentence so typical of the way Luther is portrayed by English scholars: “It is difficult to believe that he (Luther) soberly contemplated the literal application of such monstrous proposals.”
Why? One would like to ask Professor MacKinnon. He does not say so. Why make allowances and mental reservations for a man who said repeatedly “I am not cruel enough,” who could in cold blood watch and command that hundreds of thousands of his opponents—papists, peasants, Anabaptists, and Jews should be and were slaughtered tortured, and otherwise persecuted. Why on earth is this difficult to believe? Merely in order to maintain a myth, a legend?"
