Sin boldly?

[TertiumQuid]

But men always raged against the One Church in order to assuage their guilty consciences! Fr. Denifle, who also saw through the pretense, wrote:
Quote:Nevertheless those runaway monks and fallen priest, who had annihilated their own and other’s decency, modesty, and honor, had the effrontery to come forward as preachers of morality, even to call themselves the Evangelicals and, by their malevolent exaggeration of the evil condition of the Church, to cover their own infamy.
Luther himself, some years earlier, had already said:
“Heretics cannot themselves appear good unless they depict the Church as evil, false, and mendacious. They alone wish to be esteemed as the good, but the Church must be made to appear evil in every respect.” {44}
“The close their eyes to the good,” said St. Augustine {45} in his day, “and exaggerate only the evil, real or imagined.”
Luther and Lutherdom, from original sources, 1917, by Heinrich Denifle; translated from the 2d revised edition of the German by Raymund Volz, pp. 14-15.

Denifle was a 19th Catholic scholar who held Luther was a fallen-away monk with unbridled lust, a theological ignoramus, an evil man, and used immorality to begin the the Reformation. Denifle accuses Luther of buffoonery, hypocrisy, pride, ignorance, forgery, slander, pornography, vice, debauchery, drunkenness, seduction, corruption, and more: he is a lecher, knave, liar, blackguard, sot, and worse: he was infected with the venereal disease syphilis.

Serious Protestant and Catholic scholars have long rejected Denifle’s work. See: The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther (Part One).

If I had to guess, I would say you’ve never read Denifle’s work, but cut and pasted this information from elsewhere. If you have read Denifle’s book… why? I don’t see the point of posting the opinions of a Catholic scholar that has more or less been rejected by serious Catholic scholars. With such a wealth of information available about Luther, using a work thar very few could track down seems futile.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Whether Luther eventually signed off on it or not (as a political move) is irrelevant. He voiced his opposition to the practice;

Why do you think its “irrelevant”?

If Luther really was so opposed to the polygamy (as you keep insisting), why then did he not simply explain to the Landgrave Philip that such behavior was entirely unchristian and therefore unacceptable? After all, were he really a prophet sent by God to thunder against the “Antichrist” Pope and call the people back to repentance, why was he not also sent to thunder against the immorality of a German Prince? Why, instead, did he give him written permission to, in effect, “sin boldly?”

and frankly if you want to tread down this road, I could easily start talking about the famously syphilitic Pope Alexander VI, whose sexual indiscretions (and habitual robbery of the church treasury) are well documented (having a multitude of children with mistresses … and all sorts of other fun stuff).

Yes, I heard all this stuff a thousand times! So what? Why even Luther himself was, at one time, suspected of having had a mild case of syphilis.

Besides, no one’s denying there were bad Popes. But neither does the Church consider such immoral popes as “reformers"!
And let us not forget, there have been far more saintly Popes than bad.

In any event, immoral churchmen are not a valid justification for leaving the Church. In fact, there is no valid reason whatsoever for leaving the Church! For where does one go?

Of course Alexander wasn’t the only corrupt pope in CC history … while Luther remained loyal to his wife, did stand against bigamy (though he obviously became politically savvy after a while, and perhaps made some expedient decisions that more or less detracted from his theology), and so on.

a. How do you know he remained loyal to his wife??
b. The fact is, he did not stand against bigamy; rather, he caved!

But before you canonize Luther, allow me to quote his own words from his Table Talk.

Cases of Conscience Pertaining to Marriage.

December, 1532. No. 414

Cases for the consolation of consciences belong in confession and not in books. A certain man took a wife, and after bearing several children she contracted syphilis 229 and was unable to fulfill her marital obligation. Thereupon the husband, troubled by the flesh, denied himself beyond his ability to sustain the burden of chastity.

It is asked, Ought he to be allowed a second wife? I reply that one or the other of two things must happen: either he commits adultery or he takes a second wife. It is my advice that he take a second wife; however, he should not abandon his first wife but should provided for her sufficiently to enable to her to support her life….

In such cases in which the conscience was troubled I have often offered counsel not according to the pope but according to my office, according to the gospel. Nevertheless, I warned the persons involved not to make this judgment of mine public.

I said to them, “Keep this to yourselves. If you can’t keep it secret, take the consequences.”

Note 229. Latin: morbum Gallicum, “French disease.”

Luther’s Works, Volume 54: Table Talk (Tischreden), Theodore G. Tappert, ed., Helmut T. Lehmann, ed., Fortress Press, Philadelphia, ISBN 0800603540, pp. 65-66.

With advice like that, is it any wonder that Luther complained often about the worsening of morals under his “gospel,” or that he would eventually say of his own town of Wittenberg, “Nur weg, und aus diesen Sodoma,” “Only away, and from this Sodom!”

---

Luther’s letter to the Philip of Hesse giving him permission to take a second wife is reprinted in its entirety in Latin and English here:

The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches, 1842, Jacques Bénigne Bossuet, vol. 1, pp. 205-214
books.google.com/books?id=P60qAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA205&dq=%22To+the+most+Serene+Prince+and+Lord+Philip+Landgrave+of+Hesse%22&lr=&client=firefox

An original source for the Latin letter, with the German heading, An den Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen, gemeinschaftlich mit den andern Theologen, and dated December 10, 1539, is here:

Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken: vollständig aus den verschiedenen Ausgaben…, edited by W. M. L. De Wette, vol. 5, pp. 236-242.
books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04844417&id=KvwQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR5&lpg=PR5&dq=Dr.+Martin+Luthers+Briefe,+Sendschreiben#PPR1,M1

 

[JonNC]

=raumzeitmc2;5134339]With advice like that, is it any wonder that Luther complained often about the worsening of morals under his “gospel,” or that he would eventually say of his own town of Wittenberg, “Nur weg, und aus diesen Sodoma,” “Only away, and from this Sodom!”

Perhaps it reminded him of Rome in his day.

Jon

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Yes, I heard all this stuff a thousand times! So what? Why even Luther himself was, at one time, suspected of having had a mild case of syphilis.

there’s no documented evidence of Luther having an STD … why so fixated on this idea (you sound very strange).

Besides, no one’s denying there were bad Popes. But neither does the Church consider such immoral popes as “reformers"!

No … just infallible in areas of faith and morals (so applying a label like “reformer” in the mold of Luther to a Pope who unilaterally has the power to change whatever doctrine he pleases is a little absurd don’t you think)?

And let us not forget, there have been far more saintly Popes than bad.

it seems like you really miss the point of your own religion … but frankly not something I care to dig into any deeper.

In any event, immoral churchmen are not a valid justification for leaving the Church. In fact, there is no valid reason whatsoever for leaving the Church! For where does one go?

I’m healthy, never had two wives (or even one for that matter), and I left the church.

a. How do you know he remained loyal to his wife??

Hint – asking someone to prove a negative is absurd. How do you know John Paul didn’t entertain the playboy girls over at the Vatican every night while he was pope? In fact you don’t with an absolute degree of certainty. Now do you see how dumb you sound?

But before you canonize Luther, allow me to quote his own words from his Table Talk.

I guess this didn’t sink in before … I’m an atheist buddy. I think the CC, Luther, Calvin, and all the rest were just quibbling over who can interpret a fairy tale better than the other guy. In my view, who cares. The only reason why I appreciate Luther is because he rebelled against your church and set the western world free from its theocratic grip.

With advice like that, is it any wonder that Luther complained often about the worsening of morals under his “gospel,” or that he would eventually say of his own town of Wittenberg, “Nur weg, und aus diesen Sodoma,” “Only away, and from this Sodom!”

Well, Rome was quite the sewer during Luther’s time as well (it sort of still is). Prostitution, thievery, drunkenness, indeed Rome was perhaps the most swine filled city during that period. So what does that say about your church?

I guess perhaps none of what I’m saying will impress upon you how convoluted your logic is. Here you’re among those equally brainwashed (perhaps with a few exceptions); so sadly you’ll go on along this line of thinking perhaps indefinitely (well, until you die that is). Honestly … it’s your life pal, live it how you choose! If you want to live it like an enraged fool I sure can’t stop you.

The only thing I can do for you is give you my honest assessment (which I have). Take it or leave it …

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Perhaps it reminded him of Rome in his day.

Jon

Perhaps it did!

And what was that he said…?

And I myself, in Rome, heard it said openly in the streets, “If there is a hell, then Rome is built on it.” That is, “After the devil himself, there is no worse folk than the pope and his followers.”

*Against the Roman Papacy, An Institution of the Devil *(Wider das Papstum zu Rom vom Teuffel Gestifft, A. D. 1545).

Luther’s Works, Church and Ministry III, American Ed., Helmut T. Lehman, Eric W. Gritsch, eds., Augsburg Fortress Press, 1966, Vol. 41:279. ISBN 0800603419 ISBN 9780800603410.

From Wikiquote:
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Btw, regarding this statement in Luther’s letter to his wife: To Catherine Luther at Wittenberg, July 28, 1545,

"Nur weg, und aus diesen Sodoma,” “Only away, and from this Sodom!”

I made a slight grammatical mistake; “diesen” should have been “dieser.”

“Nur weg, und aus dieser Sodoma”

Anyone interested in wrestling with the German grammar can check this out.
vistawide.com/german/grammar/german_cases.htm

The German letter is here:

Dr. Martin Luthers Sämmtliche Schriften, Johann Georg Walch, St. Louis, Concordia, 1904, vol. 21, part II, section II, p. 3125. Contains letters from 1533 to 1546.
books.google.com/books?id=ernNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA3245&dq=%22Nur+weg,+und+aus+dieser+Sodoma%22&lr=#PPA3245,M1

An English translation is here:

The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Preserved Smith, p. 416. books.google.com/books?id=RBEaAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA416&dq=Luther+1545+%22this+Sodom%22

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Denifle was a 19th Catholic scholar who held Luther was a fallen-away monk with unbridled lust, a theological ignoramus, an evil man, and used immorality to begin the the Reformation. Denifle accuses Luther of buffoonery, hypocrisy, pride, ignorance, forgery, slander, pornography, vice, debauchery, drunkenness, seduction, corruption, and more: he is a lecher, knave, liar, blackguard, sot, and worse: he was infected with the venereal disease syphilis.

And all that on a slow day! LOL!

But seriously, Luther did have some questionable moral problems. I see from your website that you are familiar with the writings of, if not Denifle, certainly Hartmann Grisar’s. And would you not agree that some of the things Grisar quotes Luther as saying are a bit, well, unorthodox?!

Serious Protestant and Catholic scholars have long rejected Denifle’s work. See: The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther (Part One).

My guess is, if certain “scholars” have rejected Denilfe, it’s probably due to his tone rather than his scholarship.

If I had to guess, I would say you’ve never read Denifle’s work, but cut and pasted this information from elsewhere.

Matter of fact, I have read Denifle! Have you?

If you have read Denifle’s book… why?

Well, I didn’t purpose to read it; I just happened upon it one day. And despite the polemical tone, the work does contain a lot of interesting information.

I don’t see the point of posting the opinions of a Catholic scholar that has more or less been rejected by serious Catholic scholars.

What, you mean like this?:

As early as 1524, a former Wittenberg student, the Rottenburg German grammarian, Valentine Ickelsamer, wrote to Luther: "What Rome had to hear for a long time, we say of you: “The nearer to Wittenberg, the worse the Christians.” 78

Luther and Lutherdom, vol.1, part 1, p. 24.

Note 78 bottom of p. 24 reads:

Klag etlicher Brüder an alle Christen. Bl. A4; and in Jäger, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstedt (1856) p. 488. Further details will be given below.

Since I don’t have Denifle handy, I’ll let Johannes Janssen provide us with some background to this saying. He writes:

Carlstadt went as a fugitive to Strasburg, and then to Basle, and gained over many of the new preachers, notably Zwingli and Oecolampadius, to his doctrine of the Eucharist. Towards the end of the year 1524 he came to Rotenburg on the Tauber, and ingratiated himself there with the common people by his preaching on the removal of popular grievances. The Latin teacher at the school of Rotenburg, Valentine Ickelshauer, who had studied at Wittenberg, wrote for the benefit of Carlstadt a complaint,

‘to all Christians of the great injustice and tyranny which Endressen Bodenstein von Carlstadt was now suffering from Luther of Wittenberg.’

‘I know a good deal about your goings on,’ he says of Luther in this document. ‘I was a student at Wittenberg for a time. But I will not speak of the gold ring on your finger that made many people angry, nor will I tell of the elegant apartment, over the water, where one used to drink and make merry with other “doctors” and fine gentlemen, though I often heard my schoolfellows complain about it, and it did not please me, I can tell you, that you should all sit there over your beer, heedless of so many more important things.

Concerning this trifling matter, by the way, the servant of a Leipzig tradesman complained once in Pirkheimer’s house at Nuremberg that he did not think much of you; you could play the lute very well, and you wore shirts with frills and toggery. For all which I longed to tell him he was a fool, so great was the love I had for you; but I did not yet know that this mad exuberance of spirits in you was the forerunner of all the excesses you now commit.

Well, I was mistaken in you. But it was displeasing to me even at the time that you should excuse the wild, godless life at Wittenberg as you did, saying: “We cannot all be angels;” in spite of the roundabout interpretations with which they explained away the meaning of the verse (Matthew vii. 20): “By their fruits ye shall know them,” just as now, when you boast of your true doctrine of faith and love, crying out that your weak life is alone to be punished. No, we judge no sinners, whatever they may do, but we say, where Christian faith is not followed by works, there the faith has either not been rightly preached or not rightly apprehended, and we say of you what has long been said of Rome: The nearer to Wittenberg the further from Christ.

History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages, 1900, Johannes Janssen, London, Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., vol. 4, pp. 101-102.
archive.org/details/historyofgermanp04jansuoft

The full German title of the above referenced work is:

Clag etlicher brüder: an alle christen von der grossen ungerechtikeyt und Tirannei, so Endressen Bodensteyn von Carolstat jetzo vom Luther zu Wittenbergk geschicht., Valentin Ickelsamer.

In English:

Complaint to all Christians of the great injustice and tyranny which Endressen Bodenstein von Carlstadt was now suffering from Luther of Wittenberg., Valentin Ickelsamer.
worldcat.org/oclc/179814046&referer=brief_results

I should note that Ickelsamer later embraced Luther’s teachings:
books.google.com/books?id=VNTYAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA220&dq=valentin+ickelsamer

With such a wealth of information available about Luther, using a work thar very few could track down seems futile.

Hopefully, Google books and / or the Internet Archive will make this work available online in the near future (it is out of copyright).

Peace.

 

[TertiumQuid]

With advice like that, is it any wonder that Luther complained often about the worsening of morals under his “gospel,” or that he would eventually say of his own town of Wittenberg, “Nur weg, und aus diesen Sodoma,” “Only away, and from this Sodom!” An English translation is here: The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Preserved Smith, p. 416. books.google.com/books?id=RBE…2this+Sodom%22

Perhaps the best summary of Catholic argumentation concerning this quote is found in *Luther’s Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and its Results *(1884) by Henry O’Connor, S.J. on page 50:

Every reasonable person will agree with me, that Luther can only have been a Reformer chosen by Almighty God, if his teaching caused an increase of virtue and a decrease of vice. If, however, it can be plainly shown, that in consequence of his teaching there was, on the contrary, an increase of vice and a decrease of virtue, we must come to the conclusion, that Luther had not the sanction of God for the work which he undertook. Now, under different headings, I quote forty-five passages from his writings, all of which disclose a sad state of morality among the followers of the new Gospel; but in no less than fifteen of these passages, Luther tells us in plain words that people have become worse than they formerly were under the Pope. It is to these passages that I wish to direct the special attention of the careful reader.

O’Connor uses the quote on page 56:

The town of Wittenberg was the principal scene of father’s activity. It was there that he resided. It was there, if anywhere, that the results of his teaching ought to have made themselves felt. Now, about seven months before his death, Luther wrote to his wife, “Away from this Sodom (Wittenberg)… I will wander about, and sooner beg my bread than allow my poor old last days to be martyred and upset with the disorder of Wittenberg” (Luther’s Letter to his Wife, July, 1545, de Wette 753-)

Leaving the context of Luther’s statement aside for a moment, consider a few points. Is O’Connor’s argument biblically true? Were those “chosen by Almighty God” guaranteed the results of “an increase of virtue and a decrease of vice”? Think of the Old Testament prophets. Some came with messages that the people did not heed, and the people faced God’s judgment. If one were to evaluate their calling and ministry based on O’Connor’s paradigm, we could throw out more than a few prophets. Consider some of the early churches in the New Testament as well. Corinth was given a rather pure dose of apostolic teaching, was it not? When one reads 1 and 2 Corinthians, the moral state of the church described by Paul is less than stellar.

It’s important to note also Luther wasn’t like many of the current post-millennial hopefulls. He did not expect the world to get better and better, culminating in a decrease of sin, and an increase in godliness on a mass scale, in order to usher in the kingdom of God. No, for Luther, it was the end of the world. He expected only a remnant to be saved as the world came to its end.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

And all that on a slow day! LOL!

But seriously, Luther did have some questionable moral problems. I see from your website that you are familiar with the writings of, if not Denifle, certainly Hartmann Grisar’s. And would you not agree that some of the things Grisar quotes Luther as saying are a bit, well, unorthodox?! My guess is, if certain “scholars” have rejected Denilfe, it’s probably due to his tone rather than his scholarship.Matter of fact, I have read Denifle! Have you?.

Yes- a library only a few miles near my house has Denifle in English, which I use when needed. Copies of Denifle’s work in english typically range over $100, and in my opinion, it’s not worth my money at this point. I have quite collection of Luther related books in my personal library, including the Grisar set.

You are incorrect as to Denifle’s work being rejected because of “tone.” If you really were familiar with Grisar’s work, you would probably know Grisar corrected important errors put forth by Denifle:

Grisar demolished two major points in the thesis of Denifle. He was not at all disposed to credit the tale of Luther’s moral turpitude. He stated emphatically that ‘the only arguments on which the assertions of great inward corruption could be based, viz. actual texts and facts capable of convincing anyone…simply are not forthcoming’ He admitted that Denifle’s interpretation of ‘concupiscence’ would not bear examination. ‘Nor does the manner in which Luther represents concupiscence prove his inward corruption. He does not make it consist merely in the concupiscence of the flesh.’ He can pay tribute to Luther’s minor virtues, as when he admits that “Of Christian Liberty” “does in fact present his wrong ideas in a mystical garb which appeals strongly to the heart source]

James Swan

 

[raumzeitmc2]

there’s no documented evidence of Luther having an STD … why so fixated on this idea (you sound very strange).

I’m not “fixated” on anything. James Swan, posting just before me, wrote:

Denifle accuses Luther of … [being] infected with the venereal disease syphilis.

I simply made passing reference to this. But that there is “no documented evidence of Luther having an STD” is something everyone may judge for himself. The whole question of the “French disease” in relation to Luther is discussed by the Jesuit Historian, Hartmann Grisar.

Grisar writes:

We cannot, however, avoid dealing here with a matter connected with his pathology, which has been frequently discussed in recent times. The delicate question of his having suffered from syphilis was first broached by the Protestant Physician, Friedrich Küchenmeister, in 1881, and another Protestant, the theologian and historian, Theodore Kolde has brought it into more prominent notice by the has brought it into more prominent notice by the production of a new document, which in 1904 was unfortunately submitted to noisy discussion by polemical writers and apologists in the public press.

Küchenmeister wrote: “As a student Luther was on the whole healthy. From syphilis, the scourge of the students and knights at that time (we have only to think of Ulrich von Hutten), he never suffered, ‘I preserved,’ he says, ‘my chastity.’”

The inference is, however, not conclusive, since syphilis is now looked upon as an illness which can be contracted not merely by sexual intercourse, but also in other ways. There was therefore no real reason to introduce the question of chastity, which the physician here raises.

As regards, however, the question of infection, every unbiased historian will make full allowance for the state of that age.

Owing to the great corruption of morals which prevailed, syphilis, or the “French sickness, malum Francice,” as it was called, raged everywhere, but especially in France and Italy. The danger of infection was, as Luther himself points out, extremely great, so that, as he says, even “boys in the cradle are plagued with this disease.” …

The new material furnished by Theodore Kolde in his “Analecta Lutherana” consists of a medical letter of Wolfgang Rychardus to Johann Magenbuch dated June 11, 1523, taken from the Hamburg Town Library, and is of a character to make one wonder whether Luther did not at one period suffer from syphilis, at any rate in a mild form. 4

The circumstances of the letter are as follows: Luther was recovering from a serious attack of illness which he himself believed to be due to a bath. We learn from Melanchthon that this indisposition was accompanied by high fever. On May 24, however, the patient was able to report that he was better, but that he “was over-burdened with distracting labours.” At that time a certain Apriolus, a renegade Franciscan and zealous disciple of Luther’s (his real name was Johann Eberlin), was staying with Luther at Wittenberg. He forwarded detailed accounts of Luther’s illness to a physician with whom he was intimate, Wolfgang Rychardus, at Ulm. Rychardus was also a great admirer of the Wittenberg professor and at the same time, as it would appear, a devoted friend of Melanchthon’s. In consequence of Apriolus’s reports he wrote the medical letter now in question to another physician then studying at Wittenberg, Johann Magenbuch of Blaubeuren, who also was intimate with the Wittenberg Reformers, had helped Melanchthon in his Greek lexicon with regard to the medical side, and was then in attendance on Luther.

It was Magenbuch who had first brought Rychardus into touch with Luther, and both had already exchanged letters concerning him. Rychardus remained Luther’s friend at a later date. Rychardus wrote to the physician attending Luther, that he had heard of the illness of the new “Elias” (Luther), but now rejoices to learn he is convalescent. It was evident that God was preserving him. In the meantime, out of pity [in a letter not extant], Apriolus had given him various particulars concerning Luther’s illness and his sleeplessness. He points out that it was not sufficient that Luther should only enjoy some sleep every second night, though, of course, his mental exertion explained his sleeplessness, hence, as a careful physician, he recommends his friend Magenbuch to give the patient a certain sleeping-draught, which he also describes, and with which Magenbuch (" qui medicum agis ") must already be acquainted.

“But if,” he says, “the pains of the French sickness disturb his sleep” these must be alleviated by means of a certain plaster, the mysterious components of which, comprising wine, quicksilver (” vinum sublimatum "), and other ingredients he fully describes; this would induce sleep which was absolutely essential for the restoration of health. “For God’s sake take good care of Luther,” he concludes, and adds greetings to Apriolus his informant. Divergent interpretations have naturally been placed upon this letter by Luther’s friends and enemies. It might have sufficed to detail the circumstances and the contents of the letter, did not the somewhat violent objections raised against the view, that, owing to the information given him by Apriolus, Rychardus took Luther to be suffering from the French sickness, render some further remarks necessary. …

Again, the word “if” has been emphasized; Rychardus does not say that Luther has syphilis, but that if he has it. But, as a matter of fact, he does not write “if he be suffering from it,” but, “if this malady disturbs his sleep”; taken in connection with the account of the illness, supplied by Apriolus, the most natural (we do not, however, say necessary) interpretation to be placed on his words is that he was aware the patient was suffering from this malady, perhaps only slightly, yet sufficiently to endanger his sleep. “But if, when use is made of the sleeping-draught indicated, syphilis should prevent his sleeping,” is surely a proviso which no physician would make in the case of a patient in whom syphilitic symptoms were not actually present;

Rychardus would never have spoken of the “new Elias” in this way unless he had reason to believe in the existence of the malady. It would have been far-fetched to introduce the subject of so disgusting a complaint, and much more natural to speak of other commoner causes which might disturb sleep. It must, however, be allowed, that, both before and after this letter was written, no trace of such an illness occurs in any of the documents concerning Luther.

Luther, Hartmann Grisar, 1915, vol. 2, pp. 161-164 (I’ve omitted the notes from those pages).
archive.org/details/luthergrisar02grisiala

But who knows for sure? Maybe someday they’ll exhume Luther and do DNA testing.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I’m not “fixated” on anything. James Swan, posting just before me, wrote:

I missed that prior post … apologies.

I simply made passing reference to this. But that there is “no documented evidence of Luther having an STD” is something everyone may judge for himself. The whole question of the “French disease” in relation to Luther is discussed by the Jesuit Historian, Hartmann Grisar.

Grisar writes:

Luther, Hartmann Grisar, 1915, vol. 2, pp. 161-164 (I’ve omitted the notes from those pages).
archive.org/details/luthergrisar02grisiala

But who knows for sure? Maybe someday they’ll exhume Luther and do DNA testing.

I would personally take anything a Jesuit historian wrote about Luther with a grain of salt (in fact I’d go as far as saying there should be a rebuttable presumption of falsity).

 

[TertiumQuid]

Luther, Hartmann Grisar, 1915, vol. 2, pp. 161-164 (I’ve omitted the notes from those pages).
archive.org/details/luthergrisar02grisiala
But who knows for sure? Maybe someday they’ll exhume Luther and do DNA testing.

Thanks for posting the snippet from Grisar. It’s an excellent example of why Luther scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, don’t rely on his work, but rather have abounded it as an outdated method of evaluating Luther.

While Grisar is more reliable than Denifle, both are typically viewed together as two scholars who basically arrived at the same conclusions, sharing the same bias. Richard Stauffer has succinctly said,

“Compared with Denifle’s work, that of Grisar seems an improvement, if only by its tone; for is it not written with a chilliness preferable to the rabies of its predecessor? One might think so at first sight; but I follow Walter Kohler in regarding the brutality of the Dominican as better than the smoothness of the Jesuit. Where Denifle says straight out what he thinks to be the truth, Grisar makes subtle insinuations. One example from among many will illustrate this. It concerns the illness from which Luther suffered in 1523. In asking what was the cause of first the fever and then the insomnia, Grisar relies on a document which an historian cannot draw on in this case and so suggests that Luther could have had the malum Franciae, that is, syphilis. Grisar does not make positive statements; he is content to hint. But by this he shows clearly enough the malice of which the Roman Catholic historian Adolf Herte accused him thirty years later.” source]

Stauffer also gives another example of Grisar’s insinuations:

“We may give yet another example, this time in regard to Luther’s alleged drunkenness, which illustrates Grisar’s cleverness: “He has been accused of being a ‘drinker’—another accusation without foundation. The fanatics and the mischief makers, the often austere Anabaptists, even some catholics, ill-informed adversaries, have spread the rumours. Some polemical writers have wanted to find a pretext for this charge in certain words of Luther that they have misinterpreted. They have not understood that these were words said in fun, expressions excusable in a man known for not being always careful in his language.” The case seems clear: Luther is not a drinker. But directly after these words, Grisar retreats from what he has just said: “No cases of drunkenness have ever been conclusively attested of Luther, although it is notorious that, in the German manner, he was sometimes a bit too fond of his glass of beer” (cf. E.T. Ill, pp. 294-318)” (18).

raumzeitmc2, you are unfortunately relying on a Catholic approach to Luther that is no longer taken seriously. Catholic authors with a severe negative bias toward Luther was the underlying theme of almost the entirety of Catholic Luther studies up until the early 20th century. The primary difference between early and later Catholic approaches to Luther is the shift in emphasis on Luther the person. for the first five hundred years of Catholic evaluations of Luther, a strong emphasis on vilifying Luther’s character as a means of discrediting the Reformation was the normal Catholic approach. The emphasis shifted in the Twentieth Century: Catholics began to study Luther as a sincere religious man and an honest theologian. You can read about more current catholic approaches to Luther here:

The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther (Part Two)

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Thanks for posting the snippet from Grisar. It’s an excellent example of why Luther scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, don’t rely on his work, but rather have abounded it as an outdated method of evaluating Luther.

sorry, It should have read, 'abandoned"

 

[raumzeitmc2]

The CC has a foul reputation, for the simple reason that it has done a lot of foul things. For Protestants to point this out is not prejudice or bigotry, but truthfulness. If Catholics can’t or won’t face this, that is no fault of Protestants or Protestantism.

A foul reputation? Well, certainly in the eyes of those who hate the Church and are always striving to discredit her.

But what of the countless saints the Church has produced? Or the many glorious martyrs? Or the great contributions which the Church has made to civilization?

Why so much emphasis on a few bad churchmen (who are always in the Church anyway)? Catholics especially should be cautious about emphasizing only the sins of the Church, if they are unwilling to acknowledge her glories and achievements as well. For if this is how we are to judge, this is most certainly how we shall be judged!

For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Matt. 7:2

And what does Augustine say?

“My advice to you now is this: that you should at least desist from slandering the Catholic Church, by declaiming against the conduct of men whom the Church herself condemns, seeking daily to correct them as wicked children.”

Of the Morals of the Catholic Church
newadvent.org/fathers/1401.htm

• But men always raged against the One Church in order to assuage their guilty consciences!

• that’s typical Catholic illogic - it ignores the issue, & condemns Jesus very thoroughly (see Matthew 23, for example). The possibility that many of the acts of the CC deserved to be condemned - its trafficking in indulgences (which the Fathers at Trent admitted was a scandal), its profiting by false relics, its avarice, the abuse of pluralism, its simony, its swarming clerical proletariat of semi-literate Mass-priests, & other faults - is completely ignored.

Nothing is being ignored. But the fact is, as Luther pointed out before his defection (and which you apparently did ignore), “Heretics cannot themselves appear good unless they depict the Church as evil, false, and mendacious. They alone wish to be esteemed as the good, but the Church must be made to appear evil in every respect.”

And Augustine:

“The close their eyes to the good and exaggerate only the evil, real or imagined.”

The Papacy was about as degraded as it could be from 1471 to 1534 - this should prove useful:

• [CHAPTER 5: ‘FACILIS DESCENSUS. . .’ 1471-1517 (BlackJack)

To respond to that, I would ask you first to answer this:

How is it that the *Roman Church, * which the apostle praised (Rom. 1:8), was preserved * free from doctrinal error *for say ( just to make it easy) the first six centuries after Christ’s death?

And just out of curiosity, how do you explain these search results?

Luther "corruption of rome"

google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=+Luther+&as_epq=corruption+of+rome&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

books.google.com/books?hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&q=Luther%20%22%20corruption%20of%20rome%20%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

Luther "corruption of wittenberg"

google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&ei=ZwT5SbPBGZK6M7rexbUP&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Luther+%22corruption+of+wittenberg%22&spell=1

books.google.com/books?as_q=Luther&num=10&lr=&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=corruption+of+wittenberg&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_isbn=&as_issn=

Whatever happen to “The nearer to Wittenberg, the worse the Christians”?

Seems there’s much more to the story than we’ve been told. Perhaps a beginning corrective might be this article, ***A Brief History of No-Popery, *** which begins as follows:

When Martin Luther proclaimed his non-scriptural teaching, ‘salvation by faith alone’, the over scrupulous and those tired of the battle to maintain virtue, found it attractive. … So almost from the beginning, doctrinal disputes began to shift to historical terrain. Luther found it easier to persuade men and women that the Pope was the Antichrist than to explain shades of theological opinion…

Until this time the writing of history had largely been left to chance. Individuals such as Gregory of Tours (538 – 593AD) and, most famously, the Venerable Bede (673 – 735 AD) had made important contributions to historical studies, but the challenges of Lutheran propaganda demanded refutations suited to the new conditions of the 16th century.

George Orwell observed in 1949 that: “Who controls the past, controls the future”. But Luther had anticipated this observation four hundred years previously and, as early as 1536, was making history the servant of polemics. The new interest, which urged 16th century scholars to investigate the past, was not pure history, but fuelled by a hatred for the Church. It was this attitude of Luther that inspired the formation of a team of Protestant scholars directed by Flacius Illyricus (1520 – 1575). Based at Magdeburg, each researcher was allocated one century as his field of work so as to produce ‘The History of the Christian Church’. The team became known as: ‘The Centuriators of Magdeburg’.

The Centuriators combed history for scandals and calumnies designed to prove that the whole body of Catholics had always been the foulest of humans. This would befit a Church which Luther had proclaimed as: ‘‘The Whore of Babylon”. They specialised in misrepresentation and in mutilated and forged documents. Between 1559 and 1574, thirteen volumes of the history were published. The story of a ‘Pope Joan’ was typical of its output, and the alleged finding of 6000 heads of children in a convent fishpond so as to explain why convents were built close to large lakes and swamps. The stories were propagated in foul language, which probably aided rather than hindered their circulation.

Continued here:
churchinhistory.org/pages/leaflets/no-popery.htm

---

Furthermore, the Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ, of which He is the Head and Saviour of His body. Ephesians 5:23

St. Augustine, letter 185:11:50
newadvent.org/fathers/1102185.htm

 

[raumzeitmc2]

No … just infallible in areas of faith and morals (so applying a label like “reformer” in the mold of Luther to a Pope who unilaterally has the power to change whatever doctrine he pleases is a little absurd don’t you think)?

Whose changing what doctrines??

The only reason why I appreciate Luther is because he rebelled against your church and set the western world free from its theocratic grip.

Rome was quite the sewer during Luther’s time as well (it sort of still is). Prostitution, thievery, drunkenness, indeed Rome was perhaps the most swine filled city during that period. So what does that say about your church?

Hmmm… speaking or “theocratic grip” and “swine filled” cities, maybe you’d have preferred life in Calvin’s Geneva? Let us see then what life there was like in that paradise.

William Thomas Wash writes:

Philip was well informed- too well for his own peace of mind- of what was going on in various parts of Europe. Geneva, mystical city of revolt, where Rousseau would be born and Lenin find refuge, and the League of Nations make its home, had become under Calvin a world-capital of the powers seeking the destruction of the Catholic Church, and was sending preachers and agitators every country Christian country…

Philip II, p. 208.
books.google.com/books?hl=en&client=firefox&rls=com.yahoo:en-USfficial&hs=VP7&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&q=%22Geneva%20mystical%20city%20of%20revolt%20where%20Rousseau%20would%20be%20born%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

And Daniel-Rops:

After the execution of Michal Servetus, Calvin was regarded by the Genevans as the defender of the Word of God, the saviour of the faith. His authority, which had so recently been contested, was now established on unshakable foundations. By supporting the Spanish blasphemer, his opponents had undoubtedly condemned themselves!

The final efforts of the ‘Libertines’ against him were mercilessly punished. A drunken conspiracy resulted in savage repression; the brothers Comparet, two humble boatmen, were executed and pieces of their dismembered bodies nailed on the city gates; a Bertheier implicated in the affair was beheaded; all the other leader of the party took flight and were sentenced to death in their absence.

From now onwards until his death Calvin’s rule over Geneva was absolute…. ‘We are the stewards of God,’ Calvin openly informed his colleagues… Henceforward, nothing could prevent God’s steward from practicing his theocratic principles.

The Protestant Reformation, Henri Daniel-Rops, Image Book, Doubleday, pp. 192-193.
books.google.com/books?id=OR8aAAAAMAAJ&q=%22We+are+the+stewards+of+God%22+rops&dq=%22We+are+the+stewards+of+God%22+rops&lr=&pgis=1

And the Knight of Columbus:

On January 16, 1537, Farel and Calvin got the city council to enact their religious program, to be enforced by a code of “blue laws.”

The following description of the Calvinist regime at Geneva is taken from the Protestant historian, Ranke:

"Outward life was subjected to regulations of the strictest discipline.

"The amount to be spent on clothes and meals was fixed; dancing was forbidden, as was the reading of certain books, for example, Amadis. Card players might be seen locked in the public pillory with their cards in their hands. Once a year, an inquiry was made in every house as to the knowledge and observance of religious precepts. There was introduced into the City Council the practice of reciprocal admonition for the failings that one member might observe in another.

"No indulgence was extended to offenders.

"One woman was burned for singing indecent songs;

“one of the principal burghers, who had made fun of the doctrine of salvation and of the person of Calvin—the Great Preacher—had to kneel down in the public square, holding an inverted torch, and to ask pardon before the people. On the proposal of the general assembly, the death penalty was enacted for adultery; a man, convicted under this law, when about to be executed, had to bless God for the stern laws of his country.” (Leopold von Ranke, Histoire de France, I, 164)

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/EUR16CEN.htm

Here is the French:

Sous sa direction, car il prit part aussi à la législation civile, la vie extérieure fut soumise aux règles de la plus étroite discipline.

La dépense des habits et des repas fut réduite à une mesure fixe; la danse interdite, ainsi que la lecture de certains livres, par exemple, celle de l’Amadis; on vit des joueurs exposés au pilori, les cartes à la main.

Une fois tous les ans, on faisait dans chaque maison une enquête sur la connaissance et l’observation des préceptes religieux: on introduisit dans le conseil l’admonition réciproque, pour les fautes qu’un membre observait chez un autre.

Les transgressions n’obtenaient aucune indulgence.

Une femme fut brûlée pour avoir chanté des chansons impudiques;

un des principaux bourgeois, qui avait fait des railleries sur la doctrine du salut et sur la personne du Grand Prédicateur, dut s’agenouiller dans la place publique, en tenant à la main un flambeau renversé, et demander pardon devant le people. Sur la proposition de l’assemblée générale, la peine de mort fut établie pour l’adultère; l’homme qui la subit bénit Dieu, en mourant, des sévères lois de sa patrie.

Histoire de France, principalement pendant le XVIe et le XVIIe siècle (History of France during the 16th and 17th centuries), 1854, Leopold von Ranke, Tome Priemier, vol. 1, p. 164.

books.google.com/books?id=lZUtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA164&dq=%22Une+femme+fut+br%C3%BBl%C3%A9e+pour+avoir+chant%C3%A9+des+chansons+impudiques%22&lr=

And still the blood-lust was not sated. Philip Schaff tells us:

A girl was beheaded for striking her parents, to vindicate the dignity of the fifth commandment.

History of the Christian church, vol. 7, p. 497.
books.google.com/books?id=N1wsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA491&dq=%22A+girl+was+beheaded+for+striking+her+parents%22&lr=#PPA491,M1

And how much more there is to tell of that interminable nightmare that was Calvin and Calvinism…

 

[MarysGirls]

If the madness of the Romanists [the Roman Catholic Church] be continued, it seems to me that the only hope of salvation left is that Emperor, kings, and princes take up arms and attack this pest of the earth, and thus bring matters to a conclusion, no longer by words but by steel . . . If a thief is punished by a halter, a murderer by sword, and a heretic by fire, why should not we, with all our weapons, attack these teachers of corruption, these Popes, Cardinals, and all the rabble of the Roman Sodom, and wash our hands in their blood?

• Martin Luther

Just thought I’d throw that in there and see what you guys do with it . . .

 

[josie_L]

Whose changing what doctrines??

Hmmm… speaking or “theocratic grip” and “swine filled” cities, maybe you’d have preferred life in Calvin’s Geneva? Let us see then what life there was like in that paradise.

William Thomas Wash writes:

Philip II, p. 208.
books.google.com/books?hl=en&client=firefox&rls=com.yahoo:en-USfficial&hs=VP7&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&q=%22Geneva%20mystical%20city%20of%20revolt%20where%20Rousseau%20would%20be%20born%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

And Daniel-Rops:

The Protestant Reformation, Henri Daniel-Rops, Image Book, Doubleday, pp. 192-193.
books.google.com/books?id=OR8aAAAAMAAJ&q=%22We+are+the+stewards+of+God%22+rops&dq=%22We+are+the+stewards+of+God%22+rops&lr=&pgis=1

And the Knight of Columbus:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/EUR16CEN.htm

Here is the French:

Histoire de France, principalement pendant le XVIe et le XVIIe siècle (History of France during the 16th and 17th centuries), 1854, Leopold von Ranke, Tome Priemier, vol. 1, p. 164.

books.google.com/books?id=lZUtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA164&dq=%22Une+femme+fut+br%C3%BBl%C3%A9e+pour+avoir+chant%C3%A9+des+chansons+impudiques%22&lr=

And still the blood-lust was not sated. Philip Schaff tells us:

History of the Christian church, vol. 7, p. 497.
books.google.com/books?id=N1wsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA491&dq=%22A+girl+was+beheaded+for+striking+her+parents%22&lr=#PPA491,M1

And how much more there is to tell of that interminable nightmare that was Calvin and Calvinism…

Wow!!! You put a lot of effort into this post.

 

[JonNC]

Just thought I’d throw that in there and see what you guys do with it . . .

He’s what I do with it: I look at the time frame and realize what a brutal, coorupt and hatefilled time it was. It was a time that no western Christian can be proud of or revel in. In fact, the reality is that if we continue in the way of the era, tossing insults and condemnations back nad forth, we are no better than they were, and the Holy Spirit is once again being ignored.

When we find it difficult to take each other’s hands, we should then agree to each take His hand, and allow Him to lead us together.

Jon

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Whose changing what doctrines??

Hmmm… speaking or “theocratic grip” and “swine filled” cities, maybe you’d have preferred life in Calvin’s Geneva? Let us see then what life there was like in that paradise.

William Thomas Wash writes:

Philip II, p. 208.
books.google.com/books?hl=en&client=firefox&rls=com.yahoo:en-USfficial&hs=VP7&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&q=%22Geneva%20mystical%20city%20of%20revolt%20where%20Rousseau%20would%20be%20born%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

And Daniel-Rops:

The Protestant Reformation, Henri Daniel-Rops, Image Book, Doubleday, pp. 192-193.
books.google.com/books?id=OR8aAAAAMAAJ&q=%22We+are+the+stewards+of+God%22+rops&dq=%22We+are+the+stewards+of+God%22+rops&lr=&pgis=1

And the Knight of Columbus:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/EUR16CEN.htm

Here is the French:

Histoire de France, principalement pendant le XVIe et le XVIIe siècle (History of France during the 16th and 17th centuries), 1854, Leopold von Ranke, Tome Priemier, vol. 1, p. 164.

books.google.com/books?id=lZUtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA164&dq=%22Une+femme+fut+br%C3%BBl%C3%A9e+pour+avoir+chant%C3%A9+des+chansons+impudiques%22&lr=

And still the blood-lust was not sated. Philip Schaff tells us:

History of the Christian church, vol. 7, p. 497.
books.google.com/books?id=N1wsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA491&dq=%22A+girl+was+beheaded+for+striking+her+parents%22&lr=#PPA491,M1

And how much more there is to tell of that interminable nightmare that was Calvin and Calvinism…

Well, in fairness why not talk about the nightmare of Catholicism?

*In 1478 Isabella established the Spanish Inquisition under the leadership of Dominican monk Tomás de Torquemada. The Spanish Inquisition was originally founded to ensure the sincerity of former Jews and Muslims who had recently converted to Christianity, known as conversos and Moriscos respectively. Insincere converts were suspected of disloyalty and punished. As an institution that operated in both Castile and Aragón, the Inquisition was an important source of unity in Spain. It brought both monarchies closer to the Roman Catholic Church and it helped guarantee that Spain would remain a profoundly Catholic country.

In its first decades the Inquisition tried and punished thousands of people, including many conversos involved in commerce and trade. People judged to be heretics were executed, often by burning at the stake. In 1492 all unconverted Jews were ordered to leave Spain, and many thousands emigrated to North Africa, the Ottoman Empire, and other parts of Europe. In the early 17th century the Spanish inquisitors turned their attention to Muslims. Between 1609 and 1614 more than 250,000 Spanish Muslims were driven out of Spain. Later, the Spanish Inquisition sought to discipline persons suspected of practicing Protestantism.*

encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575057_13/spain.html

Giordano Bruno, born Filippo Bruno (1548 – February 17, 1600), was an Italian philosopher best-known as a proponent of heliocentrism and the infinity of the universe. In addition to his cosmological writings, he also wrote extensive works on the art of memory, a loosely-organized group of mnemonic techniques and principles. He is often considered an early martyr for modern scientific ideas, in part because he was burned at the stake as a heretic by the Roman Inquisition. However, some argue that his actual heresy was his pantheist beliefs about God,[1] not an idea that would be characterized today as scientific.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

In what became known as the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of 24 August – 3 October 1572, Catholics killed thousands of Huguenots in Paris. Similar massacres took place in other towns in the weeks following. The main provisional towns and cities experiencing the Massacre were Aix, Bordeaux, Bourges, Lyon, Meaux, Orleans, Rouen, Toulouse, and Troyes. Nearly 3,000 Protestants were slaughtered in Toulouse alone. The exact number of fatalities throughout the country is not known. On the 23 - 24 August, between about 2,000 and 3,000 Protestants were killed in Paris and between 3,000 and 7,000 more in the French provinces. By the 17 September, almost 25,000 Protestants had been massacred in Paris alone. Outside of Paris, the killings continued until the 3 October. An amnesty granted in 1573 pardoned the perpetrators.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugenot

*On Friday, October 13, 1307 (a date sometimes incorrectly linked with the origin of the Friday the 13th superstition) Philip ordered de Molay and scores of other French Templars to be simultaneously arrested. The Templars were charged with numerous heresies and tortured to extract false confessions of blasphemy, which, though obtained under duress, caused a scandal in Paris. After more bullying from Philip, Pope Clement then issued the papal bull Pastoralis Praeeminentiae on November 22, 1307, which instructed all Christian monarchs in Europe to arrest all Templars and seize their assets . . .

As for the leaders of the Order, the elderly Grand Master Jacques de Molay, who had confessed under torture, retracted his statement. His associate Geoffrey de Charney, Preceptor of Normandy, followed de Molay’s example, and insisted on his innocence. Both men were declared guilty of being relapsed heretics, and they were sentenced to burn alive at the stake in Paris on March 18, 1314.*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar#Arrests_and_dissolution

I could also mention the handiwork of the Spaniards in Latin America, and the many other brutal periods in Catholic history (but I’m sure the post would be way too long). Frankly, if all you have are revelations about the occasional rants of Martin Luther, the Puritanical regime of Calvin’s Geneva, and Servetus (who btw was also wanted by the Catholic inquisition) … then by comparison the protestants seem pretty tame.

The moral of the story … religion can get pretty crazy (and no one can lay claim to moral high ground, well except maybe the Quakers, who in their actions were truly the most Christ-like Christians in history). Of course folks like you generally don’t listen to reason now do you (at least with regards to religious history); so I expect this history lesson will fall on deaf ears (or I’ll get the revisionist spin job). Whatever, I’ve heard all the apologetic nonsense before (and none of it really surprises me at this point).

 

[TertiumQuid]

I’ve been reading this thread with some interest. Sure, you can quote old books found on Google, and even link to Luther in German. But I’ve noticed a misunderstanding of Luther on a most fundamental level. Consider these comments:

“…not only Luther, but Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer and several other ‘reformers’ did in fact, teach it was ‘OK to sin,’ for they gave Philip of Hesse permission to take a second wife!”

“…reluctantly or not, Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer et al, did indeed and in fact give their ‘consent’ to Philip for him to take a second wife while his first one was still living! A blatant disregard for the commandments! And if that’s not to ‘sin boldly,’ then I don’t know what is!!”

According to these comments, when Luther said “sin boldly” he meant living a life of wanton lawlesslness, in fact go ahead and have a few wives! Of course, Luther meant no such thing when he wrote “sin boldly.” See this paper on this very topic:

Did Luther say, “Be a sinner and sin boldly”? A Look at Justification By Faith Alone and Good Works in Luther’s Theology

I submit, this method of discrediting the Reformation by attacking Luther “the person” is not the approach of serious Catholic scholarship. This outdated method shows a complete ignorance of Luther’s basic theology. Catholic scholars more-or-less abandoned this approach long ago. For instance: Catholic Historian Franz Xaver Kiefl held Luther never denied good works or holy living- rather good works are the way in which faith expresses itself. In fact, Kiefl rejected the earlier Catholic approach of attacking Luther for his doctrine of Justification. Catholic scholar Heinrich Denifle had made popular the notion that Luther simply invented his doctrine to excuse sinful behavior, thus Denifle spent considerable time painting Luther as a gross sinner. Kiefl rejects this. He sees past Denifle’s rhetoric and distorted facts and sees that Luther never denied good works or holy living. Rather good works are the way in which faith expresses itself.

I’m not impressed by a lot of cut-and-pastes from Google books in any language if the begininng presupposition is flawed. Luther never denied good works, nor did he teach people to live in sin and enjoy it. Any basic Luther biography written for a child in grade school would get this correct.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[MarysGirls]

He’s what I do with it: I look at the time frame and realize what a brutal, coorupt and hatefilled time it was. It was a time that no western Christian can be proud of or revel in. In fact, the reality is that if we continue in the way of the era, tossing insults and condemnations back nad forth, we are no better than they were, and the Holy Spirit is once again being ignored.

When we find it difficult to take each other’s hands, we should then agree to each take His hand, and allow Him to lead us together.

Jon

Good post.