Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[commenter]

Originally Posted by commenter View Post
Do people strain at the “gnat” of the Dogma of the Assumption, but swallow the “camel” of Christian support for legal abortion, gay marriage, and extra gospels?

You make a good point, commenter. However, I think it needs to be balanced by stressing that the church’s teaching on the Assumption is important as well as the church’s teachings on abortion, gay marriage, etc.

I make the same “assumption” about the importance of Marian doctrine as you do. But half our friends on this thread are starting with different “assumptions”, so I am trying to illustrate one value of the Magisterium for them. My other agenda is that I can’t resist using a colorful example, whether apt, dignified, appropriate, relevant, or not.

 

[benjohnson]

I make the same “assumption” about the importance of Marian doctrine as you do.

I see what you did there.

 

[Topper17]

A stunning indictment of the Church’s failure to properly educate even its best scholars - many Catholic scholars who lack an ax to grind do consider Luther a scholar - in that time and place.

If I understand you correctly, you suggest that Luther’s poor education about the Fathers is, (of course), the fault of the Catholic Church. At least that would admit that his education actually was poor. It would also suggest that someone with that poor an understanding of the Fathers should not have been forging new directions in Christian doctrine. If you would like to know more about the ‘quality’ of the University of Wittenberg, there are a lot of specifics which would contribute to an educated understanding of Luther’s true ‘qualifications’ as a Reformer.

I think the point of Pelikan’s quote, is that Luther was not aware of how poor his understanding of the Fathers really was.

The fact is that the University of Wittenberg didn’t even have a school library until the year that Luther was awarded his Doctorate there. In that year the UW bought 50 books, their first 50. I think that would account for Luther’s poor education regarding the Fathers. So was it the fault of the Church that the brand new University of Wittenberg was so poorly equipped to educate Theologians? I suppose you could take that position but I think it would be a stretch. The fact is that Luther was sent to the UW by his order, knowing that it was probably the least reputable university in the whole of Europe. He had been at the University of Erfurt, which was at least better than UW, but then, suddenly, he was sent away (after a dispute in which Luther took a leading role).

I think the point is that someone who was that young and that poorly educated had absolutely no business contradicting the Church on so many different doctrinal matters.

Lutheran Professor Schweibert comments on Luther’s misconception that what he was teaching early on was in keeping with the historic teachings of the Church. With regard to his meeting with Cardinal Cajetan in 1518:

**“Luther was still not fully conscious of the gulf which already existed between him and accepted Catholic teaching, and believed that he had taught nothing contrary to the Bible, the Fathers, and Canon Law.” ** Schwiebert, pg. 352.

Luther didn’t really realize how far he was outside of orthodoxy until about 6 months after the Leipzig Debate of mid-1519. By that time, he was committed to Revolt against the Church.

The fact is that Luther didn’t understand Catholic Theology well enough to even know that he was straying from what was acceptable teaching. .

Actually, Luther’s self-reliance and his criticism of the Fathers, as Richard Marius puts it “conceals a troubled soul”, or possibly reveals a troubled soul.

**“The issue, as any Catholic knew, was not whether the fathers could err as individuals; it was whether they had reached consensus on a core of doctrines to be believed. Luther’s furious language (against his opponents) indicates a willingness to attack that ancient consensus in the name of the gospel and to elevate his own understanding above the agreements of centuries.

None of the fathers was exempt from his strictures, and that attitude remained all his life and is significant for his development…Luther’s bravado… conceals a troubled soul.** He had posed the question to himself in his treatise on abrogating private masses: **“Are you alone wise? Has everyone else been mistaken? Have so many ages dwelled in ignorance? What if you are wrong and in your error draw so many into eternal damnation? The question came back to him early and late. It seems that one of his ways to combat it was to assert his calling with all the more vehemence.” **Marius, pg. 343

The question “Are you alone wise?” troubled him throughout his career, as did the possibility that he was possibly leading so many in to error, and even to eternal damnation.

 

[Topper17]

Actually, I don’t agree. You see, Topper, I had already come to own conclusions about Luther long before you started your crusade to educate the members of CAF on the “real” Luther, hidden lo these many years by the rascally Lutherans, who cleverly shielded his views by publishing volumes of his writings, and writing openly about them.

I find it interesting that you describe what I do here as a ‘crusade’. That has something of a negative connotation doesn’t it Jon? If the truth and the comments of various and mostly Protestant Scholars has a negative effect on Luther’s reputation, it might be worth considering that the fault is upon him.

As for the ‘hidden Luther’, we all know that the Lutheran church has not been exactly ‘forthcoming’ in its historical representation of Martin Luther and his teachings. I have considered it before, but your post has convinced me that I should start a file with the quotes of CA converts from Lutheranism who have stated here, on CA, that one of the reasons for their conversion is reading the actual words of Martin Luther and learning the details of his teachings. As you know, there have been more than a few. In fact, I am reading a book recommended by MaryT777 which contains the conversion stories of 11 Lutherans.

In a section about his conversion entitled “Luther’s attitude towards Jews troubles me”, Anthony Gerring wrote about being assigned a research paper in college:

“The moment I heard the name Martin Luther, I knew what my [research paper] topic would be. While I had studied his life in high school, this seemed to be a good way to learn about my boyhood hero. However, as I began to do the research and read what Luther actually wrote about the Jews his comments began to trouble me……

Clearly, Luther’s writings against the Jews violated Christ’s teaching to ‘love your neighbor as yourself’. **Moreover, his writings prompted me to question the esteem with which I held Luther. ** **How could it be that the man God had chosen to rediscover the pure Gospel after having been obscured for so many centuries could become so hateful? **At the time, I didn’t think about it too deeply and merely chalked it up to sin. After all, Luther had written these statements many years after having overcome what I thought were the false teachings of the Catholic Church and the Pope. What did it really matter, I thought? Many Godly men have fallen into sin and Luther was certainly no different. **As I finished my [research] paper, I concluded with the thought that it was ‘sad to know that the great reformer, Martin Luther, could not show love to the Jewish people.” ** “Are You a Religious Person”, Anthony L. Gerring, in “There We Stood, Here We Stand”, Edited by Timothy Drake.

Gerring’s comments seem to mirror a common theme that we have seen here on CA from converts from Lutheranism. In their upbringing in Lutheranism, there were portions of the history of Martin Luther, and areas of his teaching, to which they had not been exposed (to put it nicely). Gerring mentions studying Luther (his hero) in high school, but apparently was not aware of the whole issue of Luther against the Jews. That is pretty common.

Gerring’s question is crucial:

“How could it be that the man God had chosen to rediscover the pure Gospel after having been obscured for so many centuries could become so hateful?”

I would suggest that Luther’s hatefulness was not some late career development. He was calling for the death of his enemies pretty much throughout his entire career. He called for his followers to wash their hands in the blood of Catholics, even before his excommunication.

“…If we punish thieves with the gallows, robbers with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not all the more fling ourselves with all our weapons upon these masters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and all this stink of Roman sodomy that ceaselessly corrupts the church of God and wash our hands in their blood so that we may free ourselves and all who belong to us from this dangerous fire.” Marius page 283

Are people supposed to believe that, as Gerring puts it, Luther was “the man God had chosen to rediscover the pure Gospel?” Are we supposed to believe that God also ‘chose’ Luther to teach about death for Jews, Anabaptists, Peasants, ‘reluctant wives’, and numerous other wild rants, all the while quoting Scripture (madly)? **Just exactly how plausible is that? **

As Gerring attests, and so have many CA converts from Lutheranism, their former tradition has not exactly anxious to reveal the whole truth about Luther. As we have seen, people actually sometimes begin to question Lutheran doctrine when they become more aware of Luther’s actions and ‘lesser known’ teachings.

 

[commenter]

…
Actually, I don’t agree. You see, Topper, I had already come to own conclusions about Luther long before you started your crusade to educate the members of CAF on the “real” Luther, hidden lo these many years by the rascally Lutherans, who cleverly shielded his views by publishing volumes of his writings, and writing openly about them.
…Jon

This confirms my suspicions that a centuries-old coverup was in place, where the deceits, inconsistencies and mistakes of Luther and his henchmen were hidden in books, on open shelves in libraries, disguised in plain sight; precisely the one place where no serious investigator would think of looking. Next you’ll tell me they have been further cloaked by putting them on the internet.

The dots are starting to come together…

 

[Topper17]

This should further prove the point you have already noted yourself, that Lutherans at not Lutheran specifically because of Luther. Sometimes we are Lutheran despite of what we already know about him. Because it isn’t about him.

I don’t agree that we can simply skip over Luther’s wild teachings and just look at post Formula Lutheranism. The fact is that Lutheranism is known by Luther’s name for a reason. It is also a fact that without Luther’s Revolt against the Catholic Church, there would be no such thing as Lutheranism. The Pre-Formula history of Lutheranism reveals a lot about whether it is a valid continuation of the Christian Tradition. The details of that history deserve to be revealed.

You asked the question why I agree on these points with Chemnitz. Its because, as I explained in my previous post, he places Tradition and particularly the Fathers in their proper perspective, as reflected in the the CA and it’s Apology.

As I have said, and you have not disputed, no communion prior to ours practiced or defined sola scriptura in a different way.
JonNC;13056730:

Are you saying that you would like to discuss this particular issue, in depth?

The fact that Lutherans hold that doctrine is to be decided by the church, cannot erase the fact that the ‘church’ in question is an entirely different church. The church in question is one which was formed out of Luther’s rebellion against the Church.

I have asked several times, but again, what is it, specifically and exactly, which makes Luther’s doctrinal revolt an acceptable exception to the Lutheran teaching on doctrine being established by the Church?
JonNC;13056730:

Great. I look forward to your new thread.
JonNC;13056730:

Jon, it was actually you who brought up the matter of Luther and his respect for the Fathers. I can’t understand why you can bring up the issue and then call for a new thread when I comment on it.

In fact, in my response to your comment about Luther’s ‘putting less stock in the Fathers than Chemnitz’, I quoted a Lutheran Scholar (Pelikan), who converted to the EO, another Lutheran Scholar (Schwiebert), and Martin Luther himself, where he claims that he doesn’t care if a thousand Augustine’s were against him. I posted those three quotes because I wanted to see your comments on them. However, I have to admit that I don’t have any evidence that you even read them. Did you?

Incidentally, in the book I referenced above, the Editor, Tim Drake comments very directly about Luther’s responsibility for our doctrinal dissension, although he puts it much more directly:
**
“In my own search I found many books on conversion stories from an Evangelical or Jewish perspective, but very few examining it from a Lutheran perspective. This I found very surprising considering that it was Martin Luther, after all, who originally split with the Church.”/**

B] Pg. x.

These things are posted to hopefully cause people to consider a point of view which is different from what they learned in their childhood traditions. Isn’t that what these discussions should be for, among other things?

 

[JonNC]

This confirms my suspicions that a centuries-old coverup was in place, where the deceits, inconsistencies and mistakes of Luther and his henchmen were hidden in books, on open shelves in libraries, disguised in plain sight; precisely the one place where no serious investigator would think of looking. Next you’ll tell me they have been further cloaked by putting them on the internet.

The dots are starting to come together…

Darn. You’re on to us. If one Googles, “Luther Jews”, 9,260,000 hits appear. We figure that millions of them will only confuse even the most curious, causing them to abandon their search, and turn their searches instead to the Kardashians.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13058935]I don’t agree that we can simply skip over Luther’s wild teachings and just look at post Formula Lutheranism. The fact is that Lutheranism is known by Luther’s name for a reason. It is also a fact that without Luther’s Revolt against the Catholic Church, there would be no such thing as Lutheranism. The Pre-Formula history of Lutheranism reveals a lot about whether it is a valid continuation of the Christian Tradition.

Of course you don’t. That is obvious. But the question of this thread was precisely about what Lutherans (and Reformed) do.

The details of that history deserve to be revealed.

And you are the one to do it. Right?
Hence the word “crusade”.

As I have said, and you have not disputed, no communion prior to ours practiced or defined sola scriptura

in a different way.
JonNC;13056730:

Are you saying that you would like to discuss this particular issue, in depth?

A simple yes or no suffices on this one, and I’ve asked it at least twice. Was there a communion prior to the Lutheran Tradition, and one sees the Lutheran tradition in the CA and its Apology first, that practiced SS in a way differently than we always have?

The fact that Lutherans hold that doctrine is to be decided by the church, cannot erase the fact that the ‘church’ in question is an entirely different church. The church in question is one which was formed out of Luther’s rebellion against the Church.

There is only one Church. Both of our communions confess the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Our traditions are different in some ways, but there is only one Church.

I have asked several times, but again, what is it, specifically and exactly, which makes Luther’s doctrinal revolt an acceptable exception to the Lutheran teaching on doctrine being established by the Church?

What makes Rome’s revolt against the other patriarchs an acceptable exception? If the claim is that the doctrines of the Church Catholic were properly taught in that time and place, then I would say none of the Reformers had a leg to stand on.

Jon, it was actually you who brought up the matter of Luther and his respect for the Fathers. I can’t understand why you can bring up the issue and then call for a new thread when I comment on it.

No. You did. You asked why I preferred Chemnitz’s understanding of* sola scriptura*, and I answered your question

In fact, in my response to your comment about Luther’s ‘putting less stock in the Fathers than Chemnitz’, I quoted a Lutheran Scholar (Pelikan), who converted to the EO, another Lutheran Scholar (Schwiebert), and Martin Luther himself, where he claims that he doesn’t care if a thousand Augustine’s were against him. I posted those three quotes because I wanted to see your comments on them. However, I have to admit that I don’t have any evidence that you even read them. Did you?

Of course I read them. I had already told you that I thought Luther put less stock in the Fathers than Chemnitz.

These things are posted to hopefully cause people to consider a point of view which is different from what they learned in their childhood traditions. Isn’t that what these discussions should be for, among other things?

For what purpose, to what end? What’s your hope and intention?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13058925]I find it interesting that you describe what I do here as a ‘crusade’. That has something of a negative connotation doesn’t it Jon? If the truth and the comments of various and mostly Protestant Scholars has a negative effect on Luther’s reputation, it might be worth considering that the fault is upon him.

If you think its negative, you’re welcome to your inference. My intention was that your apologia is singularly focused against Luther, and Lutheranism.

As for the ‘hidden Luther’, we all know that the Lutheran church has not been exactly ‘forthcoming’ in its historical representation of Martin Luther and his teachings.

I think the same accusation - and yes, it is an accusation - could be made against any institution. How many Catholics are catechized on the corrupt leaders in its past?

I have considered it before, but your post has convinced me that I should start a file with the quotes of CA converts from Lutheranism who have stated here, on CA, that one of the reasons for their conversion is reading the actual words of Martin Luther and learning the details of his teachings. As you know, there have been more than a few. In fact, I am reading a book recommended by MaryT777 which contains the conversion stories of 11 Lutherans.

"There We Stood. Here We Stand"
Yes, I know of the book, even though it has been banned by the Lutheran Church, in an effort to be not exactly forthcoming. Secretly, it is on my “bucket list” of books to read, but don’t tell anyone.

Jon

 

[commenter]

Finding issues with Luther’s use of Sola Scriptura, is easy, but proves nothing. Fundamentalists argue that his mistakes were due to his lingering Catholic influences. I would focus on his good ideas, instead, which I think were due to the Magisterium, though he didn’t appreciate that. While people look at his questioning of a few of the Magisterium NT canonical books, it is incredible how much of the Magisterium he accepted: that there should be a NT; that the OT is still considered inspired; and he agreed with the great majority of the Magisterium selections. He also accepted Tradition; not all the thousands of Christian traditions, but most of the 1% that the Magisterium canonized as “Tradition”. He obediently excludes the proposed same NT books, and the 99% of proposed Christian traditions, that the Magisterium excluded!

I’m not defending Luther, because he started the process by which most Protestant denominations have now “progressed”, they abandoned much Christian Tradition that Luther considered sacred. There isn’t any obvious Lutheran (name removed by moderator)ut into the current process of adding books to the NT. But ELCA has already followed on many other issues the path previously set by other liberal denominations - like UCC - that are starting to add books. So ELCA will likely be adding books in a decade, or allowing congregations to decide which, if any, books to add. Other churches that lack a Magisterium will have no authority to exclude the Gospel of Thomas, etc, from the NT. They will buckle!

The LCMS, Anglican Continuum, and others in Protestantism are still faithfully “orthodox”. They just don’t yet see that it is the Magisterium template, perhaps more than their foundational documents, that guides them in what is “orthodox”. Most Protestants today are not Protestants because of what happened in the 1500s, they are Protestant because of their upbringing, their current marriage and congregational life, and their view of Christianity in the world of 2015.

Personally I am scandalized by immoral actions of priests, sisters, and Catholic laity, including me. I am scandalized by cafeteria Catholics, including priests and sisters. But the fact that people ignore the Magisterium (and fall into nonsense) doesn’t disprove it. We just need to point this out, lovingly, to like minded Christians who more or less agree with it, but don’t understand what it it, or its value. This is the answer to Sola Scriptura.

 

[JonNC]

=commenter;13059772]Finding issues with Luther’s use of Sola Scriptura, is easy, but proves nothing. Fundamentalists argue that his mistakes were due to his lingering Catholic influences. I would focus on his good ideas, instead, which I think were due to the Magisterium, though he didn’t appreciate that. While people look at his questioning of a few of the Magisterium NT canonical books, it is incredible how much of the Magisterium he accepted: that there should be a NT; that the OT is still considered inspired; and he agreed with the great majority of the Magisterium selections. He also accepted Tradition; not all the thousands of Christian traditions, but most of the 1% that the Magisterium canonized as “Tradition”. He obediently excludes the proposed same NT books, and the 99% of proposed Christian traditions, that the Magisterium excluded!

My sense is that American Lutherans have forgotten how Catholic we are supposed to be… to our detriment.

I’m not defending Luther, because he started the process by which most Protestant denominations have now “progressed”, they abandoned much Christian Tradition that Luther considered sacred. There isn’t any obvious Lutheran (name removed by moderator)ut into the current process of adding books to the NT.

I certainly do not expect a Catholic to defend everything Luther did. Heck, I don’t do that!
But there is clearly a change in attitude toward Luther within Catholic theological circles over the last 50 to 100 years, which is sometimes ignored by some posters.

But ELCA has already followed on many other issues the path previously set by other liberal denominations - like UCC - that are starting to add books. So ELCA will likely be adding books in a decade, or allowing congregations to decide which, if any, books to add. Other churches that lack a Magisterium will have no authority to exclude the Gospel of Thomas, etc, from the NT. They will buckle!

I pray for my ELCA brethren.

The LCMS, Anglican Continuum, and others in Protestantism are still faithfully “orthodox”. They just don’t yet see that it is the Magisterium template, perhaps more than their foundational documents, that guides them in what is “orthodox”.

Some of us recognize it more than others.

Most Protestants today are not Protestants because of what happened in the 1500s, they are Protestant because of their upbringing, their current marriage and congregational life, and their view of Christianity in the world of 2015.

A truth recognized in the Catholic Catechism.

Personally I am scandalized by immoral actions of priests, sisters, and Catholic laity, including me. I am scandalized by cafeteria Catholics, including priests and sisters. But the fact that people ignore the Magisterium (and fall into nonsense) doesn’t disprove it. We just need to point this out, lovingly, to like minded Christians who more or less agree with it, but don’t understand what it it, or its value. This is the answer to Sola Scriptura.

A very good common sense post.
Thank you, Commenter.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi comm,

This confirms my suspicions that a centuries-old coverup was in place, where the deceits, inconsistencies and mistakes of Luther and his henchmen were hidden in books, on open shelves in libraries, disguised in plain sight; precisely the one place where no serious investigator would think of looking. Next you’ll tell me they have been further cloaked by putting them on the internet.

The dots are starting to come together…

Heres the point, one which seems to have escaped many people. Not everybody is as well informed as the typical CA poster. While the average Lutheran amateur apologist is familiar with Luther’s crusade against the Jews, the vast majority of Lutheran laypeople are not. They are not because their church has, either consciously or unconsciously, decided that they don’t need to know about Luther’s crusade.

Over the years I have seen a lot of former Lutherans explain how shocked they were to learn, as adults, of Luther’s crusade against the Jews. In fact, in every case that I can remember, that was a factor in their deciding to explore the teachings of the Catholic Church.

The historic tendency for Protestants to sanitize Luther’s career resulted in even educated Lutheran ministers and Theologians being unaware of Luther’s record against the Jews.

“Years later, Eberhard Bethge said that most people, including him and Bonhoffer, were unaware of the anti-Semitic ravings of Luther. It was only when the arch-Semite propagandist (and Nazi) Julius Streicher began to publish and publicize them that they became generally known. It must have been shocking and confusing for devout Lutherans like Bonhoffer to learn of these writings. **But because he was so intimately familiar with all else Luther had written, he most likely dismissed the anti-Semitic writings as the ravings of a madman, unmoored from his past beliefs.” **Eric Metaxas, “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, Pg 109

This is a shocking statement. First of all, in his hatred of so many groups, the Jews being only one of them, Luther often did sound like a madman. Isn’t it weird that the man who “discovered” (supposedly in Scripture) the foundational beliefs of Protestantism often sounded like a madman and exhibited an astonishing level of un-Christian hatred for those who rejected his theology.

Deitrich Bonhoffer who taught systematic theology at the University of Berlin, was a Lutheran Pastor, Theologian who was “intimately familiar” with the writings of Luther and yet, DIDN’T know about “On the Jews and Their Lies”! How is that possible? I’ll tell you how it is possible – because Luther’s “position” on the Jews (and SO MANY other “things”) were hidden with the expressed intent to make him “look better” to Christians. If Bonhoeffer didn’t know about Luther and the Jews then who was supposed to?

Of course “On the Jews and Their Lies” was written in German, and Bonhoeffer, a German was ‘unaware of the anti-Semitic ravings of Luther’, and that he ‘and most people’ ONLY became aware of them when the Nazi’s began to publish and publicize them. That means that the very important writings of Luther against the Jews had been hidden, intentionally, from the people of Germany. If you have some alternative explanation, please post it.

 

[Topper17]

Have they been hidden from the English speaking people? The answer lies in the introduction to “On the Jews and Their Lies”, Luther’s Works, 1971:

“INTRODUCTION

**The fact that Luther, during the last years of his life, wrote treatises harshly condemnatory of the Jews and Judaism is rather widely known. The treatises themselves, however, have not previously been available in English. **The publication here of the longest and most infamous of them, On the Jews and Their Lies, will no doubt prove dismaying to many readers, not only because it shows Luther at his least attractive, but also because of the potential misuse of this material. The risk to Luther’s reputation is gladly borne, since the exposure of a broader range of his writings to modern critical judgment is an inherent purpose of this American edition. However, the thought of possible misuse of this material, to the detriment either of the Jewish people or of Jewish-Christian relations today, has occasioned great misgivings. Both editor and publisher, therefore, wish to make clear at the very outset that publication of this treatise is being undertaken only to make available the necessary documents for scholarly study of this aspect of Luther’s thought, which has played so fateful a role in the development of anti-Semitism in Western culture. Such publication is in no way intended as an endorsement of the distorted views of Jewish faith and practice or the defamation of the Jewish people which this treatise contains.”
Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 47: Luther’s works, vol. 47: The Christian in Society IV (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (121–123). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Luther’s more acceptable writings were being published in English long before his death. So, why was OTJATL and his other writings against the Jews never published in English UNTIL 1971?

The Lutherans editors recognize that the publication of OTJATL will ‘risk Luther’s reputation’. They also warn against the ‘misuse’ of the treatise, apparently concerned that the work will be used to assist in the efforts to harm the Jews (again).

The treatise was translated and published in English “only to make available the necessary documents for scholarly study”. The editors also make it clear that Luther’s ‘thought’ on the Jews “has played so fateful a role in the development of anti-Semitism in Western culture.”

The ‘dots actually are coming together’ comm, but not with the assistance of those who have an interest in protecting Luther’s ‘reputation’. For the record, how would you account for the fact that OTJATL was not translated into English until 1971 OTHER than because of attempting to protect Luther’s ‘reputation’?

“How, then, can Protestants designate Luther as “more than a Saint, and the greatest of Germans, the strongest, deepest, richest spirit of the Christian Church.”? (Hans Preuss, “Unser Luther,” 1917). **It is to be explained only by the fact that in the hundreds of Protestant books, pamphlets and articles, published in 1917, in honour of the four-hundredth anniversary of Luther’s inauguration of the Reformation, the average reader learns only of the legendary Luther, whose carefully expurgated words and writings are alone quoted.” **John, L. Stoddard, “Rebuilding a Lost Faith”, pg. 100

There is no doubt that the Lutheran Scholars of the last 50 years or so have been much more honest about their founder than the Protestant Scholars prior to that time. But, from my experience, and from reading the comments of former Lutherans, that much more realistic representation of Luther has not exactly reached the laypeople yet. It seems that for the most part, the vast majority of Lutheran laypeople have no idea about the ‘lesser known’ of Luther’s teachings.

What I appreciate about most modern Lutheran Scholars is that they have found a way to be extremely honest and forthcoming about the more embarrassing aspects of Luther’s career and teachings, while still finding a way to maintain their Lutheran faith. These people are fully willing to engage on ALL of the aspects of Martin Luther.

Much of the “Legend of Luther” is simply not true. For example, it is almost certain that he never nailed anything to any door and also almost certain that he never said ‘Here I Stand’ in some bold and brave defiance of Catholic Authority. But those things enhance Luther’s reputation and so they are repeated, even though they are false. The whole thing about the Jews, and several other subjects, are actually true, but are not part of the “Legend” because they do NOT enhance his reputation.

If you want to read an example of how the ‘Legend of Luther’ has been protected in popular literature, read Roland Bainton’s very popular biography, which BTW is the one that is almost always recommended here on CA by Lutherans. Pay particular to the very brief comments on Luther’s ‘attitude’ towards the Jews and decide for yourself if Bainton is correctly representing the facts.

God Bless You comm, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hi comm,

Heres the point, one which seems to have escaped many people. Not everybody is as well informed as the typical CA poster. While the average Lutheran amateur apologist is familiar with Luther’s crusade against the Jews, the vast majority of Lutheran laypeople are not. They are not because their church has, either consciously or unconsciously, decided that they don’t need to know about Luther’s crusade.

Hi Topper,
Two questions:

1. How many Catholics do you think are aware of Eck’s, Refutation of a Jew-Book? You know, not exactly and precisely, but maybe just a ballpark percentage.
2. How many average Lutheran laypeople regularly visit CAF? You know, not exactly and precisely, but maybe just a ballpark percentage.

My guess would be that not many Lutherans know about Of the Jews and Their Lies, and not many Catholics know about Refutation of a Jew - Book.
Ballpark percentages? I’d say <5% for each.

EDIT: I almost forgot my ballpark percentage for question 2: <1%. ISTM you’re missing your target audience.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13060780]
The ‘dots actually are coming together’ comm, but not with the assistance of those who have an interest in protecting Luther’s ‘reputation’. For the record, how would you account for the fact that OTJATL was not translated into English until 1971 OTHER than because of attempting to protect Luther’s ‘reputation’?

Hi Topper,
When was Refutation of a Jew - Book published in English?

If you want to read an example of how the ‘Legend of Luther’ has been protected in popular literature, read Roland Bainton’s very popular biography, which BTW is the one that is almost always recommended here on CA by Lutherans. Pay particular to the very brief comments on Luther’s ‘attitude’ towards the Jews and decide for yourself if Bainton is correctly representing the facts.

Here’s the link to New Advent’s passage about Eck. Pay particular attention to the comments about his anti-Jewish writings (I couldn’t find them).

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Of course you don’t. That is obvious. But the question of this thread was precisely about what Lutherans (and Reformed) do.

What I have learned Jon is that there are supposedly a lot of ‘other places’ where it would be appropriate to actually discuss Martin Luther. But those places are always somewhere different than where we are at the moment.

And you are the one to do it. Right?
Hence the word “crusade”.

If what I do here should be termed a ‘crusade’, then how would you describe Luther’s decades long Revolt against the Church? How would you describe his efforts against the Jews? The Peasants? Let’s be honest, what I do here is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever compared to the various Crusades that Luther launched, and all of them on the basis of his nothing more substantial than his own self-professed authority.

As I have said, and you have not disputed, no communion prior to ours practiced or defined sola scriptura

in a different way.
A simple yes or no suffices on this one, and I’ve asked it at least twice. Was there a communion prior to the Lutheran Tradition, and one sees the Lutheran tradition in the CA and its Apology first, that practiced SS in a way differently than we always have?

Ok, you want a definite answer. **No. ** The answer is that there was NOT ONE Christian communion or tradition which practiced ANY version of Sola Scriptura prior to the Reformation. After all, it was Martin Luther who introduced SS into the Western Church. If you claim otherwise, then please make your argument AND your supporting information, and we will discuss it from there.

I am happy though that you have asked me for a simple yes or no answer. I gave you one and will now expect them in return.

You may say that the Lutheran church proclaims that it is the church which proclaims doctrine, but Jon, that is AFTER it had broken off from the Church which Christ established. That is NOT exactly a minor detail.

If your argument were to be employed universally, you would have no choice but to support ANY church which splits off from your own, and then claims that their NEW tradition is ‘following the rules’ by claiming that doctrine will be established by THEIR church, and not their individual members. It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways. Your argument is internally illogical.
JonNC;13059434:

There is only one Church. Both of our communions confess the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Our traditions are different in some ways, but there is only one Church.

We have been down this road before Jon and you know that the Catholic Church considers Protestants to be a part of the church, in one sense, but not in all senses. You may consider Catholics to be part of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but in fact, your church does not consider us as such. Neither did Luther, and it shows in your Confessions.
**
“If they are not the church but the devil’s whore that has not remained faithful to Christ, then it is irrefutably and thoroughly established that they should not possess church property.” **(Wider Hans Wurst, or Against Jack Sausage, 1541, LW, vol. 41, 179-256, translated by Eric W. Gritsch; citation from p. 220)

Leaving aside the fact that Luther here ‘authorized’, meaning, by his ‘authority’, granted people the right to ‘help themselves’ to Church property. You know what happened of course. The ‘devil’s whore’ comment is simply another one out of the same mind which produced the whole “Pope as the antichrist” garbage.

“However, so that we may not completely waste our time with Harry’s devilish dirt, but may offer the reader something better and more useful—though not for the sake of Harry or those who incite him, for they are “self-condemned; they have ears, but hear not”—we will come to the point at issue, namely, why the papists, through their Harry, call us heretics. **And the point is that they allege that we have fallen away from the holy church and set up a new church. **This then is the answer: since they themselves boast that they are the church, it is for them to prove that they are. If they can prove it with a single reason (I don’t ask for more), then we shall give ourselves up as prisoners, willingly saying, “We have sinned, have mercy upon us.” **But if they cannot prove it, they must confess (whether they like it or not) that they are not the church and that we cannot be heretics since we have fallen away from what is not the true church. Indeed, since there is nothing in-between, we must be the church of Christ and they the devil’s church, or vice versa. Therefore it all turns on proving which is the true church.” **Against Hanswurrst, Luther Works, Vol 41, p 193, (c)Fortress Press

Here Jon, I agree with Luther, who seems to disagree with you. It ALL, and I mean ALL, turns on proving which one is the true church.

 

[Topper17]

In fact, Luther claimed to actually HAVE that proof, that he was the Church and the Catholic Church was not:

“But I will prove that you are the new false church, which is in everything apostate, separated from the true, ancient church, thus becoming Satan’s whore and synagogue [Rev. 2:9].” ibid, 199

Where is that ‘proof’ Jon? If there really was that ‘proof’ you would think that you, as a Lutheran, would be able to provide it. Is it possible that Luther’s ‘proof’ was not so ‘proof-like’? If so, then what does that mean for his claim that the Catholic Church is NOT the Church?
**
“Indeed, it is at least arguable that, save for one early disputation, which he mentioned in his memoir but which has been lost, he did not even think about the church as such until he was forced to it in 1519 **by the impending debate with Johannes Eck at Leipzig.” Lutheran Professor of Church History James Kittleson, in “Companion”, pg 262

Here we have a Lutheran Professor admitting that 2 years into his Revolt against the Church, Luther had still not yet thought about the nature of the Church. I think that is incredible.

**Jon, do you think it was wise of Luther to revolt against a Church when he hadn’t really considered what it really was? A simple yes or no will suffice. **

Your Book of Concord, which you hold to be authoritative, states with no equivocation that the Catholic Church is NOT the Church:

"XII. Of the Church.

**1] We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and [in truth] they are not [the Church]; **nor will we listen to those things which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid. 2] For, thank God, [to-day] a child seven years old knows what the Church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd. For the children pray thus: I believe in one holy [catholic or] Christian Church. 3] This holiness does not consist in albs, tonsures, long gowns, and other of their ceremonies devised by them beyond Holy Scripture, but in the Word of God and true faith." bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#church

What makes Rome’s revolt against the other patriarchs an acceptable exception? If the claim is that the doctrines of the Church Catholic were properly taught in that time and place, then I would say none of the Reformers had a leg to stand on.

Rome’s revolt? Did Rome also revolt against Arius? Did it revolt against Montanus? With this line of thinking, it was the Church which revolted against Luther. That at least would account for his “I am the Church and they are not”.

Do you want to stand on the fact that Luther was poorly educated, and so that gave him the right to revolt against the institution which had so poorly educated him? If so, we can get into the details of the quality of his education, and the fact that if it was that poor, then he should have realized that he was in no position whatsoever to forge new directions in doctrine.

Of course I read them. I had already told you that I thought Luther put less stock in the Fathers than Chemnitz.

My point was that the reason I posted all of those quotes was to get your comment on them. I operate on the assumption that if there was anything you could say about them, you would.

For what purpose, to what end? What’s your hope and intention?

I agree with Luther Jon. It ALL turns on proving which is the true Church. Your Confessions, your leaders, and your founder have made it VERY clear that we are NOT the Church, which leaves me no choice but to oppose them all.

As for the ‘what end’? I would simply hope to have people read what I post and think about it.

I think the same accusation - and yes, it is an accusation - could be made against any institution. How many Catholics are catechized on the corrupt leaders in its past?

Jon, none of the ‘corrupt leaders’ of the Catholic Church have ever broken away and started their own communions, WITHOUT being declared a heretic and depriving themselves of the authority they were granted when they were ordained. The authority of the Catholic Church is not dependent upon the moral integrity of it’s past leaders. However, Luther is another case. That being said, you don’t see me spending too much time on Luther’s immoral actions, just his anti-Christian teachings, things that we ALL know to be against the Christian Gospel.

Lutheranism was founded upon Luther’s claims to authority. As such, Luther’s credibility is an extremely important issue with regards to determining which is the ‘true church’.

"There We Stood. Here We Stand"
Yes, I know of the book, even though it has been banned by the Lutheran Church, in an effort to be not exactly forthcoming. Secretly, it is on my “bucket list” of books to read, but don’t tell anyone.

I’m sure you can find it in the lending library at your church, right next to Bainton’s extremely ‘generous and positive’ biography of Luther. I’m sure you will find it a compelling read. They all do though seem to have been poorly catechized (the standard rationalization for such things). All of those Pastors must have been really poorly educated.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Topper,
Two questions:

1. How many Catholics do you think are aware of Eck’s, Refutation of a Jew-Book? You know, not exactly and precisely, but maybe just a ballpark percentage.
2. How many average Lutheran laypeople regularly visit CAF? You know, not exactly and precisely, but maybe just a ballpark percentage.

My guess would be that not many Lutherans know about Of the Jews and Their Lies, and not many Catholics know about Refutation of a Jew - Book.
Ballpark percentages? I’d say <5% for each.

EDIT: I almost forgot my ballpark percentage for question 2: <1%. ISTM you’re missing your target audience.

This is at least the third or fourth time you have brought John Eck into the discussion in response to revelations about Luther’s Crusade against the Jews.

The comment of Richard Marius comes to mind (again):

**“….it seems foolish and even immoral to seek to mitigate or explain away or cover over his [Luther’s] prevailing hatred of the Jewish people.” ** Richard Marius, “Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death”pg. 372

I agree with Marius.

Each time you have previously brought Eck into the discussion to ’mitigate’ or ‘cover over’ Luther’s Crusade against the Jews, I have challenged you to provide even the barest scraps of quotes from Eck’s text. You so far have not done so, which I think suggests that you have not read the text in question. If you have any text to provide, then please post it and also reference the secondary source.

As for the ‘importance’ of Eck’s book, I have to ask you if you have ever seen anybody suggest that it contributed, in any way, to any of the horrors of the 20th century? If so, I would like to see the quote.

By the way, the reason that nobody knows about Eck’s writings on the Jews is that practically nobody even knows that Eck ever lived. That’s because he has had virtually no impact on Western Christendom or Civilization. They know absolutely nothing about his complete defeat of Luther at the Leipzig Debate, which is probably the most important debate in Christian history.

I can assure you of one thing though Jon. If there was any way possible for Lutheranism to represent that Luther even tied Eck at Leipzig, or even came close, every Lutheran child would learn the name John Eck before the age of 10. Eck’s name would be prominent in the popular “Legend of Luther”, But then, the Leipzig Debate is another one of those things that Lutherans are NOT taught.

Hi Topper,
When was Refutation of a Jew - Book published in English?

Here’s the link to New Advent’s passage about Eck. Pay particular attention to the comments about his anti-Jewish writings (I couldn’t find them).

I don’t know that it has been Jon.

Also I have a very direct and simple question for you? Have you ever seen ANY English translation of even fragments of Eck’s text? Even fragments of sentences? A simple yes or no will suffice.

If so, where did you see it?

I find it rather interesting that I am constantly told that we should stick to the subject of the opening post, and NOW, somehow, we should be discussing Eck’s “Refutation”.

As for your percentage question, I think you are right. I should probably branch out and make my comments known to a larger percentage of Lutheranism. Maybe you could arrange a debate between the two of us at your church. I think it would be very helpful for people to hear a different point of view. What do you think?

 

[Micosil]

Hi Topper,
Two questions:

1. How many Catholics do you think are aware of Eck’s, Refutation of a Jew-Book? You know, not exactly and precisely, but maybe just a ballpark percentage.
2. How many average Lutheran laypeople regularly visit CAF? You know, not exactly and precisely, but maybe just a ballpark percentage.

My guess would be that not many Lutherans know about Of the Jews and Their Lies, and not many Catholics know about Refutation of a Jew - Book.
Ballpark percentages? I’d say <5% for each.

EDIT: I almost forgot my ballpark percentage for question 2: <1%. ISTM you’re missing your target audience.

Jon

That Christian writers throughout the ages have written anti-Semitic things is an unfortunate reality. Even respected figures such as St. John Chrysostom succumbed to such attitudes. But the key thing about Luther is that he is generally considered the person to have spearheaded the Protestant Reformation. Eck is just one of many Catholic theologians.

 

[JonNC]

That Christian writers throughout the ages have written anti-Semitic things is an unfortunate reality. Even respected figures such as St. John Chrysostom succumbed to such attitudes. But the key thing about Luther is that he is generally considered the person to have spearheaded the Protestant Reformation. Eck is just one of many Catholic theologians.

I think this is something that can be discussed. My sense, however, is that when we are talking about the Lutheran Reformation, Eck is more than one of many theologians. I think the argument can be made that, when considering is role at Leipzig, his 404 Theses, and his key role at Augsburg and the Roman Confutation of the Augsburg Confession, he was one of the main Catholic players, if not the main one.

But that’s a side issue, Mic. Topper makes an important point; *“This is at least the third or fourth time you have brought John Eck into the discussion in response to revelations about Luther’s Crusade against the Jews.” *
I never bring him up regarding the anti-Judaic sentiments of that era, except in response to someone, in this case Topper, wants to use Luther’s anti-Judaism to make a polemical points, often without the context of the time.

In this case, Topper made the accusation that English speaking Lutherans had/have hidden Of the Jews and Their Lies, claiming that its lack of an English translation was evidence. I am pointing out that Eck’s Refutation of a Jew - Book is similarly not printed in English, or if it is, its publication in obscure. and further, New Advent doesn’t mention Eck’s anti-Judaic sentiments.

Now frankly, if Ignatius Press never prints an English version, that’s fine by me. Neither book deserves an effort to translate and print it. Further, I don’t think Eck’s sentiments should ever be held against Catholics. As forum rules state: ** It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false. **
I agree with this statement. I would add that I think that attempting to do so only poisons dialogue.

Finally, Topper said, *“Each time you have previously brought Eck into the discussion to ’mitigate’ or ‘cover over’ Luther’s Crusade against the Jews,…” *
He knows full well that this isn’t the case. I have mentioned before that Eck’s writing was directed, in part, at Andreas Osiander, who had written a tract ( Whether It be True and Credible That the Jews Secretly Strangulate Christian Children and Make Use of Their Blood) repudiating the blood libel accusations against the Jews. It is also true that Justus Jonas also wrote in strong defense of the Jews. Both Jonus and Osiander were Luther colleagues.

I mention this for one simple reason: Luther was exposed to a truly Christian approach to the Jews in these two men, and chose to ignore them. With Luther, there was no excuse. He knew better.

Now, if my saying this is an attempt to mitigate, as Topper alleges of me, well, I’ll let readers be the judge.

Jon