The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right)

[JonNC]

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?

No idea. AFAIK, they were not on particularly good terms.

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

On the first part, true. On the second, I don’t think too many Catholic theologians question is high regard for Christ.

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).

There are lots of writings by Luther that explain these kinds of out of context snippets. There is an interesting quote in the link.
The mere fact that the Pope, Luther and Erasmus considered bigamy to be the obvious preferable solution indicates clearly that this idea, so alien and unacceptable to the modern mind, was a perfectly reasonable reaction at the time.

Luther's "Teachings" on Bigamy and Catholic Double Standards

Discrediting the Reformation by indicting Martin Luther of teaching bigamy and polygamy lives on. Over on the Catholic Answers forum they s...

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com

 

[GKMotley]

Luther and Henry never became pen pals. But, after Hank issued the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (at least a portion of which was his own work), Luther made reply (Against Henry, King of the English), in which he begged to state that Hank was a ninnyhammer and the RCC worse. Henry had Thomas More pen a rejoinder (Reply to Luther), asserting in several hundred pages, that Luther was not a reasonable man, and possessed other foibles. .

Luther tried to make nice a little and blame all the misunderstanding on Cardinal Wolsey, but they never really made up. Luther got a measure of revenge in not supporting Hank, in his Great Matter.

 

[De_Maria]

No idea. AFAIK, they were not on particularly good terms.

Well, that is the subject we’re talking about. Trying to get the facts about Luther. Aren’t you interested in how he lined up with the founder of your faith?

Then let not King Henry impute it to me but to himself if he meets with rough and harsh treatment at my hands. He does not come forth to battle with a royal mind, or with any drop of royal blood, but with a slavish and impudent and strumpet-like insolence and silliness, proving nothing by argument but only by cursings. And what is more disgraceful in a man, and especially in a man in the highest position, than openly and deliberately to be, so that you can recognize him as a Sophist, a creature of ignorance and virulence? He would deserve some consideration if he had erred like a man. But when knowingly and designedly this damnable and offensive worm forges lies against the Majesty of my King in Heaven, it is right for me, on behalf of my King, to spatter his Anglican royal highness with his own mud and filth, and cast down and trample under foot the crown that blasphemeth Christ.

I read some of it. I got somewhat tired of looking for actual apologetics. Mostly, Luther just insults Henry. Sort of like he thought vitriol trumps facts.

But, maybe this is an Anglican fabrication.

On the first part, true. On the second, I don’t think too many Catholic theologians question is high regard for Christ.

“I don’t think” are the key words there. So, you don’t think that his regard for Christ is exemplified by his disregard for Christ’s Teachings?

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).

There are lots of writings by Luther that explain these kinds of out of context snippets.

No, there aren’t.

There is an interesting quote in the link.
The mere fact that the Pope, Luther and Erasmus considered bigamy to be the obvious preferable solution indicates clearly that this idea, so alien and unacceptable to the modern mind, was a perfectly reasonable reaction at the time.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/04/luthers-teachings-on-bigamy-and.html?m=1

You’ve mentioned that before. If you believe it, perhaps you can provide the proof which beggarsall hasn’t produced. Produce the document where the Pope says that bigamy is permissible under any circumstances.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

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

That’s how the Catholic Church canonizes Saints. By going through the record of their lives with a fine tooth comb. Sometimes it takes more than 500 years.

 

[GKMotley]

No, the Contra Henricum Regem Anglie was not an Anglican fabrication. Nor was More’s reply, Responsio ad Lutherum, an example of Lutheran fake news. If either were the case, I would have mentioned it, in my post above.

 

[PickyPicky]

Nor was Henry the founder of anyone’s faith.

 

[JonNC]

Well, that is the subject we’re talking about. Trying to get the facts about Luther. Aren’t you interested in how he lined up with the founder of your faith?

The founder of my faith was Christ Jesus.

You’ve mentioned that before. If you believe it, perhaps you can provide the proof which beggarsall hasn’t produced. Produce the document where the Pope says that bigamy is permissible under any circumstances.

That’s not what the article said. It said the pope thought a better choice than divorce. Unless you have a source that says otherwise…
And, none of them said it was a good choice.

That’s how the Catholic Church canonizes Saints. By going through the record of their lives with a fine tooth comb.

I don’t think I’m a candidate.

 

[De_Maria]

Some people think he was the founder of the Anglican faith:

King Henry VIII - Greatsite.com
www.greatsite.com › English Bible History
Read the fascinating story of King Henry VIII, founder of the Anglican Church ( Church of England), and first king to authorize an English language Bible.
King Henry VIII

That website records the history of Anglicanism as I learned it, years ago. So, if it wasn’t Henry the VIII, who was it?

 

[PickyPicky]

1 You speak of the Anglican Church. There is no Anglican Church.

2 You speak of the Anglican faith. Anglicanism is a strand of thought and practice within the Christian faith. It is a strand which developed first in the Church of England, but it had no “founder”, and if it did it would most certainly not be Henry.

3 The Church in what is now England was brought to these islands during the Roman occupation. It has lasted to this day.

4 Henry was responsible for the Church of England’s separation from the Church of Rome. He did not found it any more than Batholomew I founded the Church of Constantinople.

 

[GKMotley]

And the beat goes on…

 

[JonNC]

And the beat goes on…

Welcome back…

 

[GKMotley]

I thank you.

For all the changes I anticipated, there is a great deal of continuity here. For what that’s worth.

 

[De_Maria]

3 The Church in what is now England was brought to these islands during the Roman occupation. It has lasted to this day.

4 Henry was responsible for the Church of England’s separation from the Church of Rome. He did not found it any more than Batholomew I founded the Church of Constantinople.

That sounds like your opinion. But historically, Henry has been considered the founder of the Anglican faith, whether you like it or not.

When did Henry set up the Church of England?
Henry VIII therefore set up the Church of England and made all Church officials swear that he was its leader so he could arrange his own divorce. This process was called the reformation and was confirmed by the Act of Supremacy (1534) which declared Henry to be the Supreme Head of the Church of England.
Henry VIII and the Church - Children’s British History Encyclopedia
history.parkfieldict.co.uk/tudors/henry-viii-and-the-church

 

[PickyPicky]

Ah yes, two authorities. The Bible Museum and the Children’s British History Encyclopedia. Splendid.

Yes, it’s my opinion. Historical truth is all about judgement and opinion.

 

[De_Maria]

Historical truth is all about judgement and opinion.

Mostly about recorded facts, though. Of course, you can make an opinion based on those facts, but the prevailing opinion and for centuries, has been that King Henry VIII established the Anglican faith.

There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with historians. But, in this case, the facts substantiate their opinion.

Anyway, if you don’t mind, let’s get back to the facts about Luther.

 

[GKMotley]

The question of whether Hank was the founder of the CoE depends a great deal on who is being asked. Hank did not found the Church of England. He separated it from the rest of the Catholic Church.

Though the Tudor era, and Horny Henry in particular, have been a major hobby of mine for 20 years (and it shows, from time to time), what folks think about this particular question has never greatly agitated me.

 

[GKMotley]

Ah, pfui. Henry is more fascinating a train wreck than Luther was.

Ne’er the less, press on.

 

[PickyPicky]

But before you do, even if one believed Henry, by separating the Church of England from the Church of Rome, founded the Church of England (which I, and historical fact, dispute) there is absolutely no grounds whatsoever for suggesting, as our friend does, that he founded Anglicanism. And how anyone could doubt that Christianity came to Britain during the Roman occupation I’m flabbergasted to imagine: we have the mosaics to prove it.

 

[GKMotley]

And we have CHRISTIANITY IN ROMAN BRITAIN TO AD 500, written by the brother of a dear friend of mine, whom I’ve never met. The brother, that is.

 

[De_Maria]

Well, here’s what I’m wondering. Some people say that the saying,

“sin and sin boldly and grace will abound the more”, is uncharacteristic of Luther.

Now, I see a man who made vows to God and set them aside. This man also chose to marry a former nun, who presumably had made similar vows to God.

Could this choice of a spouse be considered a choice to “sin boldly”?

Many of Luther’s colleagues (including Philipp Melanchthon) were against his marriage on the grounds that this decision would simply confirm the claims of some Roman Catholic critics that he had started the Reformation as a way to avoid fulfilling his vow of celibacy. Luther explained that he agreed to marry Katharina in order to please his father, and to spite the devil and the pope.
Katharina von Bora Luther - Lutheran Reformation

That quote is from a PRO Lutheran website. Notice what they claim that Luther said:

Luther explained that he agreed to marry Katharina in order to … to spite the devil …

Which leads us to the Table Talk book which many claim is inaccurate, where he said that he would rather choose the greatest sins, in order to spite the devil.

“Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes” [J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248].
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/luther-perform-big-sin-to-quiet-your.html

if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away.

Here’s the beggarsall blogsite trying to sanitize the Luther understanding of sin:

I simply couldn’t find any direct verification to the validity of this exact quote in the form it is in based on the documentation given. I suspect if this quote exists at all, it’s a sort of Roman Catholic interpretation of Luther’s letter to Weller.

So, what do you think, is that quote consistent with the way that Martin Luther lived his life? Or is it some anti-Luther fabrication?