The "Ask a Lutheran" Thread!

[qui_est_ce]

Christine:
I don’t say this as an attack, or as a slam, but just to be fair, trends in bad music in liturgy, as well as all other forms of atrocious and irreverent liturgy, including the influence of feminism in the Church, these are all cross-denominational problems. Most LCMS churches still do not have women lectors or women giving the prayers, or Marty Haugen style liturgical settings. In these ways, Rome has been the leader, and the trailblazer, and Lutherans have all too often followed that lead. There are very good and very bad things happening in RC churches and LCMS churches, and I pray that the renewed interest in traditional liturgy in both churches of recent years will continue, and bear fruit. The sad fact, however, is that both with the kind of authority you speak of, and without it, these things happen.

I wouldn’t say it comes from “Rome” although I agree that many Latin Rite parishes (ours included) are guilty of irreverent liturgy in the US. Thankfully, Rome has issued new guidelines regarding the appropriateness of the music. Our choir is kicking and screaming about the changes in language and music.

As regards Mary Haugen, The St Louis Jesuits are even worse. I can’t stand the sing-songiness, especially at the Memorial Acclamation, " When we eat this Bread of Life, when we drink of this Holy Cup, we proclaim your death O Lord, until you come again!"

 

[Deacon_Latif]

Luther’s 95 Theses were simply intended for acedemic discussion - but he suddenly found himself at the epicenter of a 10.0 earthquake. It was a role for which I’ve gathered he was ill prepared and didn’t handle very well. In any case, The Catholic Church went on the offensive. The process became totally in the control of the CC. Any “timelines” were its, not his. The demand was one of recanting and obedience on the part of Luther…First of all, I don’t think he broke the church. I think Pope Leo broke his denomination…

Josiah:
I agree with much of what you say here, but I believe you to be mistaken in other parts. For example, you say the Blessed Reformer was ill-prepared for the role his was thrust into, and that he didn’t handle it very well. I think that few men in history were more suited to their historical roles than he was.

His temperament, for example, was tailor made for the battles he had to fight. Luther was hardly the only educated man of his time to complain about the morally corrupt Roman Curia, and the simony, and sale of indulgences for the church’s profit, etc. Erasmus, for example, was just as repulsed by these things as anyone else. But the Erasmuses of the world never had the stomach, or the thickness of skin, to actually stay in the fight, especially when Rome put the pressure on. And Rome did apply pressure, of many types. And it usually worked. They would promote you, to bishop, or give you a cardinal’s hat, if only you would shut up. They would grant you all sorts of favors. If those things didn’t work, they would condemn you. This was Luther’s fate. After Luther’s stand at Worms, he was condemned by both the Pope and the Emperor. God kept him and his work safe by the protection of his prince, Elector Frederick. It was while in protective custody, as a matter of fact, that he completed his New Testament, the so-called September Testament.

Let me add that his fiery temperament is often brought up by his opponents, as though he was the only one who was capable of being harsh. In fact, most of his opponents could be just as harsh, often just as earthy. In our age we are accustomed to gentle popes, like John XXIII or JPII or BXVI, but it was not always like that at all. Unfortunately Luther’s image among many Catholics is painted for them by those who write the histories on that side. You know the saying, the winners write the history.

Another of his unique gifts that well suited him for his role as Reformer in such a troubled time was his intellect. He was intellectually gifted in manifold ways. He was a poet and musician, who wrote many hymns. You will even hear some in Catholic churches today. He knew the scriptures better than virtually anyone. On top of that, he was keenly gifted with the ability to preach Christ and Him crucified in all the scriptures. His lectures on Genesis, which took him ten years, are so thoroughly sacramental in their exegesis that it makes a Thomist squirm.

Back to his temperament for a moment, I must add that one thing that usually missed altogether or ignored by his detractors is that while he could be quite harsh with his theological opponents, he could also be equally tender and pastoral with those who needed it. He was able to shift gears, as it were, and treat different situations differently. You might read, for example, his treatise, Comfort for Women Who Have Had a Miscarriage, or his beautiful treatment of the Mother of God in his sermons.

And you’re right when you say that he did fight as best he could from within. As a matter of fact, even after he was excommunicated, which was truly an unjust and essentially false excommunication, his pastoral and theological work continued as a true man of the Church. It is in a sense natural for Catholics to tend to conclude that a man that was excommunicated five centuries ago must have been in the wrong. But I think we must remember that in many ways Rome moves slowly, and the time may come when a real reevaluation of Luther may take place. Look how long it took for Rome to change its mind about Joan of Arc. These things don’t happen overnight.

 

[SteveVH]

From MY very limited knowledge, Luther’s 95 Theses were simply intended for acedemic discussion - but he suddenly found himself at the epicenter of a 10.0 earthquake. It was a role for which I’ve gathered he was ill prepared and didn’t handle very well. In any case, The Catholic Church went on the offensive. The process became totally in the control of the CC. Any “timelines” were its, not his. The demand was one of recanting and obedience on the part of Luther.

I think what often get’s “lost” in this discussion is that The Church claimed to be infallible in these issues (and thus incapable of being wrong, unaccountable in these matters) and it demanded absolute obedience to its control/lordship/authority and docility in regard to its teachings. It was not a situation “open” to reform. Any reform. By any one. At least not in matters of doctrine. From the Church’s perspective: Luther was simply wrong if he disgreed with the Church and it was intolerable for him to not be docilically obedient (probably strengthened because he was ordained and a university professor). IF Luther had INTENDED to be a Reformer, I think he could be criticized for not realizing the impossible mission of such, but I don’t think that was his intention. He wanted to discuss some issues with the students and profs of the university - and suddenly found himself in the center of a firestorm. He seemed willing to be so, however. I don’t think he did well in that role.

There is no doubt that many in the Church at that time were “messed up” beyond belief. Corruption ran rampant, especially within the clergy. I only wish that ML would have taken the route of St. Francis. What was needed was a reformation, not of Church doctrine, but of personal lives. When Francis spoke, bishops weeped at their own sinfulness and corruption. Their lives were transformed and reformed. That being said, it was the Church that excommunicated ML, it wasn’t that he just left. That is a huge misunderstanding in Catholic circles. I just wish that they would have worked it out.

 

[qui_est_ce]

There is no doubt that many in the Church at that time were “messed up” beyond belief. Corruption ran rampant, especially within the clergy. I only wish that ML would have taken the route of St. Francis. What was needed was a reformation, not of Church doctrine, but of personal lives. When Francis spoke, bishops weeped at their own sinfulness and corruption. Their lives were transformed and reformed. That being said, it was the Church that excommunicated ML, it wasn’t that he just left. That is a huge misunderstanding in Catholic circles. I just wish that they would have worked it out.

Given the political and social times, I don’t believe that would have been the end of it. Martin Luther’s “rebellion” unleashed a simmering cauldron. Until then, the Church had been successful at quashing rebellion. The time was ripe for dissent.

 

[SteveVH]

Given the political and social times, I don’t believe that would have been the end of it. Martin Luther’s “rebellion” unleashed a simmering cauldron. Until then, the Church had been successful at quashing rebellion. The time was ripe for dissent.

You’ll get no argument from me on that one. Just wish it could have been different.

 

[JonNC]

You’ll get no argument from me on that one. Just wish it could have been different.

I would hazard a guess, Steve, that virtually every Lutheran here agrees with this sentiment.

Jon

 

[JMJ4]

AmericanJosiah, Iowa Jay, JonNC and other contributors to this thread -

Thank you for all of your answers. I have been studying early Church history and have not yet made it to the time of Martin Luther. I look forward to getting to know more about this time in our history. Thanks for the quick study!

God Bless!!

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Christine/Qui est-ce?

**We wrote: **

***Jerry Parker: *** I suspect that the real (and perhaps a bit secretive) reason that the L.C.M.S. did not sign the agreement with the Catholic Church concerning Justification is that its own, bizarrely sectarian doctrine of U.O.J. (“universal objective justification”) and S.J. (“subjective justification”) just cannot fit the mold either of the Roman teaching or of the teaching of the Lutheran Confessions. The same applies to all of the Lutheran groups in the orbit of the former Evangelical Synodical Conference. None of them teach what the Reformers intended by Justification by Faith Alone. Hence, they cannot sign on with other Lutherans worldwide OR with the Catholic Church.

***Christine: *** Please elaborate Reformers had various views. I thought ML taught Faith ALONE, and that a person was intrinsically evil.

***Jerry Parker: *** When I at last read the Catholic-Lutheran statement, I was amazed at how orthodox it truly is. The liberalism that lurks in Lutheran quarters outside the realm of the old Synodical Conference is nowhere in evidence in this joint statement.

***Christine: *** *But liberal Lutherans did sign it. *​

To start with the latter point first, yes, the Lutheran World Federation did sign the Joint Declaration on Justification. In doing so it represented moderate and liberal shades of Lutheranism and of the Lutheran denominational groups which are members of the Lutheran World Federation (which do not include the L.C.M.S., W.E.L.S., and other U.O.J. promoters). However, that joint declaration was not something that expresses the liberalism, just the real Lutheranism that, at least vistigially, is the basis of their common history and heritage. The bodies had become liberal, but the content of the declaration, thankfully, was not affected by that.

No, there is nothing in the early Lutherans that reflects the line of theological thinking and sheer strangeness of the U.O.J./S.J. doctrinal paradigm. That was something that arose initially in the 19th century, and has nothing to do with early Lutheran Confessionalism. Also, in all of its illogical contradictoriness, the Synodical Conference Lutherans did not outrightly deny Total Depravity and Predestination, however much the U.O.J./S.J. paradigm undermines those soteriological doctrines.

Lutherans share the sick idea of all Protestantism and sectarianism that new doctrinal “insights”, even those that lead to new and worrisomely problematic dogmatic paradigms, are possible and justifiable. They all put too much stress on originality of theological thinking, and that, alas! does not extend only to the liberals and apostates among them!

Jerry Parker

 

[Deacon_Latif]

To start with the latter point first, yes, the Lutheran World Federation did sign the Joint Declaration on Justification. In doing so it represented moderate and liberal shades of Lutheranism and of the Lutheran denominational groups which are members of the Lutheran World Federation (which do not include the L.C.M.S., W.E.L.S., and other U.O.J. promoters). However, that joint declaration was not something that expresses the liberalism, just the real Lutheranism that, at least vistigially, is the basis of their common history and heritage. The bodies had become liberal, but the content of the declaration, thankfully, was not affected by that.

No, there is nothing in the early Lutherans that reflects the line of theological thinking and sheer strangeness of the U.O.J./S.J. doctrinal paradigm. That was something that arose initially in the 19th century, and has nothing to do with early Lutheran Confessionalism. Also, in all of its illogical contradictoriness, the Synodical Conference Lutherans did not outrightly deny Total Depravity and Predestination, however much the U.O.J./S.J. paradigm undermines those soteriological doctrines.

Lutherans share the sick idea of all Protestantism and sectarianism that new doctrinal “insights”, even those that lead to new and worrisomely problematic dogmatic paradigms, are possible and justifiable. They all put too much stress on originality of theological thinking, and that, alas! does not extend only to the liberals and apostates among them!

Mr. Parker:
Please elaborate on how you define objective and subjective justification, and how you think it differs from the theology of early Lutheranism. This I’ve got to hear. Your third paragraph makes no sense, at least not if by “Lutherans” you have in mind Lutherans who are true to the Book of Concord of 1580. The Joint Declaration on Justification simply cannot be signed by Confessional Lutherans in good conscience, because while it contains truth, it is also woefully deficient in its formulations. But I do look forward to hearing your take on the matter, and to meaningful dialog with you. Thanks.
Latif

 

[JMJ4]

Deacon Latif -

Great insight on Martin Luther the man.
You mentioned his intellect and temperment, but did not mention humility and obedience among his attributes. While I agree it is very hard to be these things when one knows he is right, it is the making of a saint.
Imagine how different things would be if ML was able to use his intellect to instruct the Church where he saw error, then wait for change. The change may not have happened in his lifetime, but don’t you think the Church would have eventually recognized his contributions (and made him a saint?)

 

[Deacon_Latif]

JMJ4:
I did not intend that to be a comprehensive list of his qualities. It was a quick note, written as usual as I was on my way out the door. It is very easy, I suppose, for a Catholic, trained to think of Luther in a certain way, as a heretic, as a rebel, etc., to think that a man with Luther’s fiery temperament could never be a saint, but the Roman Church’s recognized saints is actually a wide variety of temperaments. I could name you some that were just as temperamental. But rare is the saint who is both fiery AND tender and humble. Yet such a man was Martin Luther.

He was deeply humble, in many ways. Humble before God: he was a great man of prayer. Humble before the Word of God: he refused to back down on the truth of God’s Word precisely because of His humble submission to God’s Word. For example, consider his fight with Zwingli over the Real Presence, both in his books and in their debate at Marburg 1529.

He was also a man with a profound sense of obedience. His giving up of the monastic life, and his “leaving” the Roman Church are often cited against him as proof was had no sense of obedience. I recall one of the famous Catholic apologists, perhaps it was Jimmy Akin, has said, lamely, that Luther never made a vow he could keep. That is pure idiocy, and no way to discuss history in an intellectually honest manner. Staupitz himself insisted on releasing Luther from his monastic vows, after he (Staupitz) decided that he couldn’t support Luther’s fight any longer, because he hadn’t the stomach for that kind of battle. Luther accepted this, but was deeply hurt by this separation; to him it felt like the loss of a second father. My point, though, is that it is hardly like Luther just walked away from his monastic vows. Even after this release, Luther in some ways like an ascetic life for the rest of his life, in his discipline of prayer, for example, but of course not in other ways (he decided to marry Katherine von Bora in 1525). In fact, it is interesting that for a couple years after his release from the Augustinian Order he still wore his habit. In that inbetween period, he still very much felt like a monk. But those who like to claim Luther had no sense of obedience to vows never seem to mention his marriage vows. For he was a good husband and father. Just read his letters. He also had a deep sense of obedience to his doctoral vows. This is what compelled him to refuse to back down from his public stand on theological matters. He had a duty as doctor of theology and doctor of scripture.

You say BML should have instructed the Church. He did instruct the Church. That was his whole life. You say he should have waited. I don’t know what you mean. Should he have instructed or waited? It was his instructing that got him an unjust excommunication. You say “don’t you think the Church would have eventually recognized his contributions (and made him a saint?)” The Church, outside of Rome, recognized it from the start. It is called the Church of the Augsburg Confession. The Church of Rome has indeed been gradually growing in its recognition of his contributions. As I say, I don’t expect its view of him to change overnight. Rome moves slowly. We must be patient.

 

[Deacon_Latif]

One more thought regarding the fiery personality. I have heard Catholic apologists praise and encourage that kind of approach to the faith, when it is in defense of their issues, or their favorite people. For example, one of the famous apologists, the one who used to be a Marine (is it Tim Staples?) I recall hearing a tape of his conversion story, and he went out of his way to say that more Catholics should be that bold, that fiesty, should take matters personally. In his case, as I recall, he was recounting an argument (which got nearly physical) with a superior in the military, about the Blessed Virgin Mary. With Martin Luther, many Catholics like to have their cake and eat it too. Is the combative personality virtuous or a sure sing of a heretic rebel? My own answer is that it is not necessarily a sure sign of either virtue or heresy, but it is one of the types of temperaments that is a gift of God, and should be used for good. This was certainly the case with Blessed Martin Luther.

 

[JMJ4]

Deacon Latif - Thanks again for your insight.
As I truly know almost nothing about Martin Luther, his life, his personality, and his contributions, I really appreciate your help with my “quick study!”
I myself have a “fiery” personality but it has gotten me into a little trouble when discussing religion. As far as Catholic apologists are concerned, some may be “fiery” when they speak, too.
I guess I don’t hold them up to exactly the same standards that I do for priests and saints. I would be much more offended to hear a priest make an “off the cuff” remark about Martin Luther, than I would an apologist. Also, a common theme among all Catholic saints is their total obedience in times of complete unfairness, even until death.
A great example (there are many) is Saint Oliver Plunkett. Wrongly accused, dragged through the streets, disembowled etc. etc. etc. all for his faith.
Please know, I am not asking questions about Martin Luther because I have preconceived ideas given to me by my Church. These are questions that I have formulated on my own by reading many books on the lives of saints.
As I’ve stated earlier, I do not know this time in church history. I will study it soon!
Once again, I appreciate your sharing your knowledge with me on this topic.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Latif,

**You wrote: ** *Please elaborate on how you define objective and subjective justification, and how you think it differs from the theology of early Lutheranism. This I’ve got to hear. Your third paragraph makes no sense, at least not if by “Lutherans” you have in mind Lutherans who are true to the Book of Concord of 1580. The Joint Declaration on Justification simply cannot be signed by Confessional Lutherans in good conscience, because while it contains truth, it is also woefully deficient in its formulations. But I do look forward to hearing your take on the matter, and to meaningful dialog with you. *.​

The last thing that I wish to do, having gone through endless wrangles some years back with Lutherans combatting the “pros” and “cons” of the issue of U.O.J./S.J. vs. the Lutheran Confessions (and, of course, the Bible), is to get entangled in that tiresome and illogical doctrinal matter again. Sorry to disappoint you, but I do not wish to “dialog[ue]” with you over U.O.J.! Over other matters, okay, but not over that sickening heresy, which makes me feel ill just to ponder it!

However, to make a shaggy-dog-long matter short, the Confessions do not say what the U.O.J./S.J. paradigm asserts. According to that besotted paradigm, Jesus came to save all men and that all men truly are saved, but those who did not experience S.J. go to Hell, anyway, despite being saved. This is nonsensical (since saved souls do not go to Hell, nor can they simultaneously be saved and damned). The Book of Concord, of the Lutheran Confessions (which I have read in full) ,state that kind of thing nowhere. Jesus came to save all men, but some men, from unbelief and disobedience, are damned; that is true Christian teaching.

I know that this over-simplifies a torturously complex Synodical Conference doctrine, but that is, in short, to what the whole worthless doctrinal construct boils down. I left all of that stuff behind when I came to the embrace of Holy Mother Church! Pieper and Stoeckhardt were fools over the matter of Justification, despite how learned they were in so many other ways.

As for the Joint Declaration being “liberal” because liberal Lutherans accept it, this boils down to the dishonesty and hypocrisy of such Lutherans, who accept a document that teaches what they themselves (in the inner counsels of their darkened hearts) do not believe.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Deacon_Latif]

The last thing that I wish to do, having gone through endless wrangles some years back with Lutherans combatting the “pros” and “cons” of the issue of U.O.J./S.J. vs. the Lutheran Confessions (and, of course, the Bible), is to get entangled in that tiresome and illogical doctrinal matter again. Sorry to disappoint you, but I do not wish to “dialog[ue]” with you over U.O.J.! Over other matters, okay, but not over that sickening heresy, which makes me feel ill just to ponder it!

However, to make a shaggy-dog-long matter short, the Confessions do not say what the U.O.J./S.J. paradigm asserts. According to that besotted paradigm, Jesus came to save all men and that all men truly are saved, but those who did not experience S.J. go to Hell, anyway, despite being saved. This is nonsensical (since saved souls do not go to Hell, nor can they simultaneously be saved and damned). The Book of Concord, of the Lutheran Confessions (which I have read in full) ,state that kind of thing nowhere. Jesus came to save all men, but some men, from unbelief and disobedience, are damned; that is true Christian teaching.

I know that this over-simplifies a torturously complex Synodical Conference doctrine, but that is, in short, to what the whole worthless doctrinal construct boils down. I left all of that stuff behind when I came to the embrace of Holy Mother Church! Pieper and Stoeckhardt were fools over the matter of Justification, despite how learned they were in so many other ways.

As for the Joint Declaration being “liberal” because liberal Lutherans accept it, this boils down to the dishonesty and hypocrisy of such Lutherans, who accept a document that teaches what they themselves (in the inner counsels of their darkened hearts) do not believe.

Pax, Jerry Parker

You are unfortunately and badly mistaken on this matter, certainly insofar as you have summed it up here. You are not even able, if your words above are any indication, to properly define the concepts you so readily condemn. That does not speak well for your position, which brings me to the other thing, viz., you haven’t even clearly and positively defined your own position. When you are ready, I am here, ready to enter into real, reasoned, Christian dialog with you. “Dialog” in quotes seems almost like you are mocking the very concept. As far as I have seen of you, which is just the past couple posts here, you seem to prefer ranting to reasoned dialogue. That’s okay. You’re not ready. As I say, when you are, I am here.

 

[JonNC]

=Jerry Parker;6257809]However, to make a shaggy-dog-long matter short, the Confessions do not say what the U.O.J./S.J. paradigm asserts. According to that besotted paradigm, Jesus came to save all men and that all men truly are saved, but those who did not experience S.J. go to Hell, anyway, despite being saved. This is nonsensical (since saved souls do not go to Hell, nor can they simultaneously be saved and damned). The Book of Concord, of the Lutheran Confessions (which I have read in full) ,state that kind of thing nowhere. Jesus came to save all men, but some men, from unbelief and disobedience, are damned; that is true Christian teaching.

Honestly, Jerry, as a lifelong Lutheran, and nearly 10 years in LCMS, I’ve never heard this
approach, at least not in a Lutheran setting. This seems to have serious reformed overtones. Do you have an LCMS link that you can provide?

Jon

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Deacon Latif,

**You wrote: ** *You are unfortunately and badly mistaken on this matter, certainly insofar as you have summed it up here. You are not even able, if your words above are any indication, to properly define the concepts you so readily condemn. That does not speak well for your position, which brings me to the other thing, viz., you haven’t even clearly and positively defined your own position. When you are ready, I am here, ready to enter into real, reasoned, Christian dialog with you. “Dialog” in quotes seems almost like you are mocking the very concept. As far as I have seen of you, which is just the past couple posts here, you seem to prefer ranting to reasoned dialogue. That’s okay. You’re not ready. As I say, when you are, I am here. *​

I stated the truth of the matter about both the Joint Declaration and about the appalling U.O.J./S.J. soteriological paradigm. Like so many L.C.M.S. and W.E.L.S. Lutherans (and others of their ilk), you refuse to deal with anything but the most torturously detailed account of these things. That kind of elaboration does not alter that the U.O.J. doctrine is heinously wrong. The details amount to straw and piffle as much as the essence does.

There are plenty of ex-Lutherans (and practising Lutherans who reject the U.O.J.-S.J. construct) with whom you can dialogue about these things. I am not one of them. I am sick of the whole rotten, Synodical Conference rot! I mean you no harm nor do I have the intent of belittling you. I just do not care to delve into these sorry matters again.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Deacon_Latif]

Deacon Latif, I stated the truth of the matter about both the Joint Declaration and about the appalling U.O.J./S.J. soteriological paradigm. Like so many L.C.M.S. and W.E.L.S. Lutherans (and others of their ilk), you refuse to deal with anything but the most torturously detailed account of these things. That kind of elaboration does not alter that the U.O.J. doctrine is heinously wrong. The details amount to straw and piffle as much as the essence does.

There are plenty of ex-Lutherans (and practising Lutherans who reject the U.O.J.-S.J. construct) with whom you can dialogue about these things. I am not one of them. I am sick of the whole rotten, Synodical Conference rot! I mean you no harm nor do I have the intent of belittling you. I just do not care to delve into these sorry matters again.

Pax, Jerry Parker

Mr. Parker:

In the few posts I have seen, indeed, you have not represented the truth. You say, curiously, that I “refuse to deal with anything but the most tortuously detailed account of these matters.” Odd, since all you really know of me so far is that I am calling for something more than the vague, sophomoric rants you have displayed. Both I and the truth will be here waiting for the day that you are ready to engage us.

 

[JonNC]

The Joint Declaration on Justification simply cannot be signed by Confessional Lutherans in good conscience, because while it contains truth, it is also woefully deficient in its formulations.

Hi Latif,
What are some of the deficiencies that you see in the JDDJ? While it is certaily limited in its scope and intentions, it has always seemed to me to be quite in agreement with the Confessions as far as it goes. It seems to me, having read through the LCMS repsonse, that the doocument could have been agreed to, while issuing a clarification statment about what was not covered, much like Rome did.

I look forward to your thoughts.
Jon

 

[Deacon_Latif]

Dear JMJ4:
Luther studies, along with the 16th century in general, is an enormous field of study. More books have been written about Luther than almost anyone in history. Last I checked, Jesus and Paul are in first and second place, and Luther is in third. My point is that both Luther’s writings themselves, and books about Luther, are like an ocean, one hardly knows where to begin. And one can easily get lost or led to faulty conclusions if one follows only those with an anti-Luther bias.

I am not a Luther expert. I have read a lot of Luther, and a number of good biographies, and one good, scholarly book I’d recommend to you off the top of my head is Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, by Heiko Oberman. Oberman was also, by the way, a medieval scholar, especially in the area of late medieval history. One of the many important keys to understanding Luther is to appreciate the late medieval church which led to the events of the 16th century, and his medieval influences. Luther was deeply influenced by the life and thought of Bernard of Clairvaux, for example. He was also influenced in other ways by men like William of Ockham, and Gabriel Biel. Therefore I’d also recommend a good study of Gabriel Biel by Oberman, called The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism. Gotta run. That’ll do for now.