The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right)

[JonNC]

If the premise is to explore Luther’s teachings based on his writings, it makes sense to explore the broad nature of his writings on a given subject.
For example, using a snippet ( out of context) of the “Sin bodily” letter to Melanchthon, O’Connor proclaims:
"To my mind the words mean: ‘As far as the certainty of our own salvation is concerned, it does not matter one bit whether we sin or not, as long as we put our trust in Christ.’ Thus whereas Christ preaches hatred of every sin, Luther proclaims indifference toward every kind of sin, with the only exception of unbelief.”
No one, not even a 13 year old Catechetical student, could come to that conclusion about Luther with even a casual reading of his catechisms, his commentary of Galatians and numerous other readily available writings. So, only one of three possibilities exist about O’Connor:

1. he was simply ignorant of Luther’s writings,
2. he was too lazy to do real research, or
3. his intent was malevolent in regards Luther’s reputation.
   Any of these three eliminate his writings as worthy of consideration.

It also means we should explore without using sources that are intentionally disingenuous such as the likes of O’Connor. I would also contend that those who paint an unrealistically rosy picture of Luther should be used with great caution.

Using honest theologians such as Lortz, Pesch, Ratzinger/Pope Benedict give us much better evaluation of Luther.

 

[Jaaye]

The three points are for each to judge as we walk our way through the historical records. Doubtless there will be a discussion on the merits of the information presented. The historical timeline is proposed as a chronology and not a judgement … it remains for each reader to consider that which is presented within the framework of a chonological timeline and make judgement for themselves.

 

[Jaaye]

For example, using a snippet ( out of context) of the “Sin bodily” letter to Melanchthon, O’Connor proclaims:

"To my mind the words mean: ‘As far as the certainty of our own salvation is concerned, it does not matter one bit whether we sin or not, as long as we put our trust in Christ.’ Thus whereas Christ preaches hatred of every sin, Luther proclaims indifference toward every kind of sin, with the only exception of unbelief.”

No one, not even a 13 year old Catechetical student, could come to that conclusion about Luther with even a casual reading of his catechisms, his commentary of Galatians and numerous other readily available writings. So, only one of three possibilities exist about O’Connor:

he was simply ignorant of Luther’s writings,
he was too lazy to do real research, or
his intent was malevolent in regards Luther’s reputation.

Any of these three eliminate his writings as worthy of consideration.

It also means we should explore without using sources that are intentionally disingenuous such as the likes of O’Connor. I would also contend that those who paint an unrealistically rosy picture of Luther should be used with great caution.

Using honest theologians such as Lortz, Pesch, Ratzinger/Pope Benedict give us much better evaluation of Luther.

Now why would you ignore how that information was actually presented, and also split off the front half of that quote?

It is presented in the Preface (pg ii / PDF pg 12) as the beginning of his point #4 where he says " I herewith give the translation of Luther’s celebrated Latin letter to Melanchton, only a fragment of which seems to be preserved" … he goes on to provide a summary of the beginning of the letter with direct quotes from Luther and continuing on page iii (PDF 13) quotes the (in)famous quote where Luther tells Melanchton to “Be a sinner, and sin mightily … etc.” and types out the whole quote to conclusion. Immediately following that is his next sentence .."I am of the opinion that, if we merely consider the words just quoted, it would be an exaggeration to say that Luther ordered his disciple to sin, or that he even positively advised him to do so.

Which is THEN followed with the quote you extracted …“To my mind the words mean…” etc. etc.

So he’s not being disingenuous … he provided the context and the whole quote and then offered his opinion of what he believed was being said — how he understood it — clearly stating it was HIS opinion and not a matter of fact. I see nothing wrong with that … every/any article we find will be part fact and part of the author’s opinion who we happen to source – that is the nature of writing. For all us I think it is important to differentiate between the two and not have them confused as we begin back in the 16th century and follow a timeline of Luther’s life.

Here is the Link to the Text in question … the pamphlet has page numbers on it, but I’ve also provided the PDF Page numbers, which may be easier for some:

https://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Luthers%20Own%20Statements.pdf

 

[PickyPicky]

Well, press on. But presenting the evidence on a chronological timescale will not of itself allow an historical judgement. The three points are theological, not historical. But press on by all means.

 

[JonNC]

So he’s not being disingenuous … he provided the context and the whole quote and then offered his opinion of what he believed was being said — how he understood it — clearly stating it was HIS opinion and not a matter of fact. I see nothing wrong with that … every/any article we find will be part fact and part of the author’s opinion who we happen to source – that is the nature of writing. For all us I think it is important to differentiate between the two and not have them confused as we begin back in the 16th century and follow a timeline of Luther’s life.

He is being disingenuous and dishonest because he fails to identify the context of the letter and the overwhelming written proof that Luther never "proclaims indifference toward every kind of sin, with the only exception of unbelief.”
That is a falsehood perpetrated by using a selected part of a letter, ignoring not only the context and intent of the letter, but also Luther’s writings.

The context of the letter is not one of a doctrinal statement. It is a letter written to a friend and fellow theologian about the nature of a preacher.
If Father O’Connor wanted context, he needed only to ask Lutheran theologians of his time. If he wanted to view the text in light of Luther’s writings, he need only have read the Lutheran confessions where some writings on the topic appear. He need only have read Luther’s commentary on Galatians.
He need only have educated himself on Luther’s beliefs. He chose not to, or perhaps chose to ignore it.

 

[Jaaye]

Which is why, of course, we set the link and mark the reference pages so each reader can access the work involved … read it … and decide for themselves. This portion is in the PREFACE, where he is giving a listing of works and samples of works consulted … and in this particular place is responding to a request from The Dublin Review on how the booklet is organized.

You seem to think his explanation is somehow sinister, which is of course your opinion … and everyone is invited to read it for themselves and decide for themselves. Some will agree and some will not.

Here is the Link to the Text in question … the pamphlet has page numbers on it, but I’ve also provided the PDF Page numbers, which may be easier for some:

http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Luthers Own Statements.pdf

 

[JonNC]

You seem to think his explanation is somehow sinister, which is of course your opinion … and everyone is invited to read it for themselves and decide for themselves. Some will agree and some will not.

I stated what I think are the three possibilities:

1. ignorance
2. laziness
3. malevolence

If they read the document, they will read snippets out of context, and the opinion of Father O’Connor.

 

[William_Scott]

JonNC is absolutely correct. Again, I’m amazed by so much of what I’ve seen from scanning this thread. It is interesting that these apologists want non-Roman Catholic Christians to be fair in evaluating Roman Catholic positions and claims while they deal so haphazardly and uncharitably with the historical figures and positions of their non-Roman Catholic brethren. Simply put, anyone attempting to have a fair and balanced view needs to read Luther’s own writings rather than reading hatchet jobs loaded with out of context/spun “quotes” of Luther.

As I noted earlier–and as JonNC has noted far better in this thread–virtually every accusation against Luther falls under one of two categories:

1. The category of subtle to blatant misrepresentation. For instance, the claim that Luther taught “faith alone” as a license for sin–far from it–Luther’s teachings on the absolute necessity of genuine sanctification, if anything, far outpaced those held by many of his Roman Catholic peers. Luther’s views on the necessity of genuine sanctification versus mere outward acts of penitence/piety were a driving force in countless sermons and works of Luther. And Luther’s frequent statements on sanctification became even more pointed in his later works as he combated the Antinomian heresy. The following passage is representative of what Luther notes throughout his works:

“The apostle refers to this subject in Romans 7: 5, 8, 23, and elsewhere, frequently explaining how, in the saints, there continue to remain various lusts of original sin, which constantly rise in the effort to break out, even gross external vices. These have to be resisted. They are strong enough utterly to enslave a man, to subject him to the deepest guilt, as Paul complains (Rom 7, 23); and they will surely do it unless the individual, by faith and the aid of the Holy Spirit, oppose and conquer them.

Therefore, saints must, by a vigorous and unceasing warfare, subdue their sinful lusts if they would not lose God’s grace and their faith. Paul says in Romans 8, 13: “If ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” In order, then, to retain the Spirit and the incipient divine life, the Christian must contend against himself.” Luther, Sermon on Romans 8

OR

1. The category of hypocritical condemnation. For instance, pointing out Luther’s antisemitic statements and works while ignoring the countless antisemitic actions and works of the Roman Catholic Church (e.g. 16th century Papal Bulls calling for vile acts of antisemitism) and those of leading representatives of the Roman Catholic Church in Luther’s day (e.g. Johann Eck’s antisemitic works).

As always, it may be a week or more before I have time to follow up on this thread.

 

[0104]

Luther was a troubled monk who took on the Catholic Church like others in the past they would stay a little while then the heresy would die out like arianism, that said Jesus Christ is subordinate of the father. We as Catholic’s believe he is consubstantial of the Father. What Luther had in his corner was the printing press. That he could print lots of Bible’s but they were expensive. Then Luther took the Bible under his inspiration and not the Holy Spirit. The Protestants Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Canon used by Hebrew speaking Jews in Palestine. The Catholic Canon used by Greek speaking Jews throughout the Mediterranean, including Palestine. Hebrew was a dieing language so for Luther to use the Hebrew Old Testament was wrong. In 1529 Luther proposed to adopt the 39 books used by rabbinic Judaism as his old testament Canon leaving 7 books out Wisdom,Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit and 1and 2 Maccabees as well as parts of Daniel and Esther. In 382 AD Pope Damasus prompted the Council of Rome, wrote a decree listing the OT and NT Canon of 73 books. Pope St. Innocent in 405 AD closed and approved the Canon. Luther didn’t like the duduronical books because they taught doctrine of praying for the dead. The real question is who do you follow Christ and his apostles that used these books are and uninspired man that was angry at the Catholic Church and now there’s over 4,000 religions instead of one Church that Jesus started, Matthew 16:18.

 

[Jaaye]

Simply put, anyone attempting to have a fair and balanced view needs to read Luther’s own writings

Yes, of course … we are quoting Luther’s own writings … if there is “spin” in them, those that believe they are spun are free to “unspin” them … and give whatever historical context they feel is applicable.

 

[De_Maria]

… So, only one of three possibilities exist about O’Connor:

1. he was simply ignorant of Luther’s writings,
2. he was too lazy to do real research, or
3. his intent was malevolent in regards Luther’s reputation.
   Any of these three eliminate his writings as worthy of consideration.

It also means we should explore without using sources that are intentionally disingenuous such as the likes of O’Connor. I would also contend that those who paint an unrealistically rosy picture of Luther should be used with great caution.

Using honest theologians such as Lortz, Pesch, Ratzinger/Pope Benedict give us much better evaluation of Luther.

On the contrary. What about the facts that Luther:

1. Conceded that he advised a king to commit bigamy and when challenged, did not repent but said he would do it again.
2. Advised that, “if the wife does not, then bring on the maid.” Thus, promoting adultery. And, yes, if you want to believe the Beggars website, that he really intended that the wife be divorced and the husband remarry. Which is still adultery, anyway. (Matthew 5:31-32).
3. was largely known to be a man of vulgar speech. Obviously, he didn’t have high regard for Christ’s admonition:

Matt 5:22But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

Based on those facts and more, I’m more inclined to believe that those who honor Luther are the ones being disingenuous. Here are the possibilities as I see them.

People who claim that Luther was actually a saint, either:

1. are simply ignorant of Luther’s entire life and writings,
2. were too lazy to do real research, or
3. or their intent is dishonest with regards to the true history of the Protestant revolution.

 

[De_Maria]

Luther’s teachings on the absolute necessity of genuine sanctification, if anything, far outpaced those held by many of his Roman Catholic peers.

Did Luther recommend to a certain King that he marry a second wife and thus, to commit bigamy? Yes or no.

 

[JonNC]

Based on those facts and more, I’m more inclined to believe that those who honor Luther are the ones being disingenuous. Here are the possibilities as I see them.

People who claim that Luther was actually a saint, either:

Depends on what you mean by saint. If you are speaking of saint as in believer, sure he was. If you mean Saint, You’ll have to ask people who think that.

 

[De_Maria]

Depends on what you mean by saint. If you are speaking of saint as in believer, sure he was. If you mean Saint, You’ll have to ask people who think that.

What I mean is those people who have sanitized history to make believe that Luther didn’t teach the immoral things which history attributes to him.

Those things which some claim are not really Luther’s comparing them to certain things in his writings have simply left out some of the context, which in my opinion, is even more important than writing. The way he actually lived his life.

Remember, this is a man who made many vows TO GOD. But then set them aside as though they meant nothing to him.

 

[Azaryahtt]

I’m sure the Mormons , would agreed as far as having wife’s, not obviously the other part!

 

[JonNC]

What I mean is those people who have sanitized history to make believe that Luther didn’t teach the immoral things which history attributes to him.

And of course, that sanitizing has been done by both sides regarding their leaders. And both sides, in the past, have participated in polemical bashing against the other. Theologians, for the most part, have abandoned that approach to dialogue, primarily because it doesn’t work. I would contend that few Lutherans transferred their membership to the Catholic Church because of the likes of O’Connor.

 

[JonNC]

The way he actually lived his life.

I sincerely hope no one, 500 years from now, determines to evaluate how I’ve lived my life. The purging/cleansing at the moment of death will be sufficiently humbling, I imagine

 

[De_Maria]

And of course, that sanitizing has been done by both sides regarding their leaders.

It’s not about our leaders. It’s about what Luther taught. Nothing that any Catholic did excuses that which Luther did.

And both sides, in the past, have participated in polemical bashing against the other.

And you’re point? Should people ignore facts simply because they seem unpleasant to the one’s who deny them?

Theologians, for the most part, have abandoned that approach to dialogue, primarily because it doesn’t work.

Just because someone doesn’t like it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

I would contend that few Lutherans transferred their membership to the Catholic Church because of the likes of O’Connor.

That sounds like an opinion. Whereas, I’m of the opposite view. I believe many have converted to the Catholic Church when they learned the truth about Luther.

 

[JonNC]

It’s not about our leaders. It’s about what Luther taught. Nothing that any Catholic did excuses that which Luther did.

Of course. They are each responsible for the horrible things they said and did. And no one today is responsible for it.

And you’re point? Should people ignore facts simply because they seem unpleasant to the one’s who deny them?

Of course not. O’Connor, however, should not be confused with facts.

That sounds like an opinion. Whereas, I’m of the opposite view. I believe many have converted to the Catholic Church when they learned the truth about Luther.

Like I said, people like O’Connor, O’Hare and the like should not be confused with the truth.

 

[De_Maria]

Like I said, people like O’Connor, O’Hare and the like should not be confused with the truth.

And like I said,

On the contrary. What about the facts that Luther:

Conceded that he advised a king to commit bigamy and when challenged, did not repent but said he would do it again.

Advised that, “if the wife does not, then bring on the maid.” Thus, promoting adultery. And, yes, if you want to believe the Beggars website, that he really intended that the wife be divorced and the husband remarry. Which is still adultery, anyway. (Matthew 5:31-32).

was largely known to be a man of vulgar speech. Obviously, he didn’t have high regard for Christ’s admonition:

Matt 5:22But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

Based on those facts and more, I’m more inclined to believe that those who honor Luther are the ones being disingenuous. Here are the possibilities as I see them.

People who claim that Luther was actually a saint, either:

are simply ignorant of Luther’s entire life and writings,
were too lazy to do real research, or
or their intent is dishonest with regards to the true history of the Protestant revolution.

By the way, how did Luther respond to Henry the VIII’s apologetic directed against Luther’s doctrines? I believe they were contemporaries, were they not?