The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right)

  • Thread starter Thread starter patricius79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Beginning today I will attempt to chronologically step through Luther’s life examining his words and his actions against the backdrop of the historical, cultural and political perspectives in the times he lived…… seeking to answer the question posed by O’Connor: “Can Luther be looked upon as a Reformer commissioned by Almighty God?” O’Connor opines that whenever prophets or apostles act as chosen instruments of God we also find:

A. That the manner in which they teach is in accordance with the supreme dignity of Him who sends them;
B. That the doctrines which they inculcate are worthy of the God of all truth; and,
C. That the results of their teaching are such as to entitle them to be revered as the messengers of a God of Infinite Holiness

Ref: “ Luther’s Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and It’s Results”


Luther – Early Family Life – 1483 to 1505
Martin Luther was born Nov. 10, 1483 in Eisleben, Germany to Margarethe and Hans Luder (later Luther). He was baptized the next day on the feast day of St. Martin of Tours. His family moved to Mansfield the next year and became part of the emerging middle class characterized by expanding non-agrarian urban communities with merchants and craftsmen … his father was a leaseholder of copper mines and smelters. His father also had “standing” in the community, being one of 4 townspeople who could represent others before the town council. Both of his parents were hard-working “no-nonsense” types and harsh disciplinarians. Luther records he was severely beaten for minor childhood infractions by both his father and mother … his mother once beating him with a cane till the blood flowed for taking a nut without permission. The link below examines possible repercussions in his life as a result of childhood harshness and conflicts with his father’s authority.


It is believed he was the oldest of 8 siblings, yet only one brother (Jakob) and 3 sisters survived to adulthood. (Infant mortality rates during first year and various epidemics, plagues and childhood diseases had a death rate for children in the 40-50% range at this time in history)
 
He was sent to school at age 7 and was reportedly a so-so student, largely uninterested in his studies and later describing his schooling years as the “same as hell”. Hans Luther, however, very much wanted his eldest son to become a lawyer perceiving this to be advantageous to his own burgeoning business aspirations. In 1501 Luther entered the University of Erfurt at 17 yrs old, which he later described as “a beerhouse and whorehouse”. His day began at 4 am every morning to what he described as a day of “rote learning and often wearying spiritual exercises”. He received a master’s degree in 1505 and dutifully enrolled in law school the same year – but dropped out almost immediately as he experienced an uneasiness about the uncertainty of the law.

In July he was reportedly caught in the midst of a violent thunderstorm and fearing for his life he called out to St. Anne (patron saint of miners) to save him. He later told his father that the nearness of the lightning bolt and fierceness of the storm made him terrified on his impending death and divine judgement and he cried out, “Help! Saint Anna, I will become a monk.” He entered the Augustinian order by joining the friary at Erfut on July 17, 1505 taking vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. His father was reportedly furious over this turn of events as #1 he would not be gaining a lawyer in the family and #2 he saw this outcome as a waste of Luther’s education.

Luther biographer Marty Martin offers the opinion that Luther sought assurances about life (not found in the law) and was then drawn to theology and philosophy expressing particular interest in Aristotle, William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel … yet philosophy then proved to (also) be unsatisfying as it employed the use of reason as a means of assurance. Luther felt reason and logic could not lead men to God and was increasingly drawn to theology, where human beings could learn about God only through divine revelation.

lutherandhisworldat500.wordpress.com

Young Martin Luther: Childhood and Education

Holly Hausler When people here the name Martin Luther they think about the religion of Lutheranism. Some people might even think about his ninety-five theses he wrote against th…
lutherandhisworldat500.wordpress.com lutherandhisworldat500.wordpress.com
 
JonNC said:
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.
Click to expand...
What do you mean "Luther never proclaimed…indifference to sin, with the only exception of unbelief"???

I believe Father O’Connor is referring to a direct quote from Luther’s 1520 Treatise “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church” which is regarded on the level of doctrine, and is 1 of 3 of his 1520 publications prompting his excommunication when he refused to recant them.

In this portion … Luther is speaking of a person once baptized…

" Even if he would, he could not lose his salvation, however much he sinned, unless he refused to believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone"
 
Jaaye said:
Ref: “ Luther’s Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and It’s Results”

http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Luthers Own Statements.pdf
Click to expand...
Note to the reader : O’Connor was a late 19th century Catholic polemicist. He does not provide a balanced view of Luther, his views or his writings.

Read O’Coonnor, of course, as a historical reference of where Catholic theologians used to be. Then read modern theologians like Wicks.
http://www.hereiwalk.org/2010/10/23/an-interview-with-jared-wicks-s-j-catholic-scholar-of-luther/
 
Wicks says about Luther:
In my reading of Luther I was quickly impressed by his conception of the penitential life as fundamental in Christian spirituality. Also, I had the good fortune to discover a text by Luther which sets forth an ingenious theology of indulgences, but which had been mistakenly dated in the Weimar Edition (in fact, it was from 1517 and sent in the packet to the Archbishop with the 95 Theses). That text became a key to my dissertation and I published it in English with commentary in Theological Studies at the time of the 1967 observance of the 450th anniversary of the Reformation’s outbreak.
…
_From this shift of 1518, the penitential life continues to unfold in daily self-denial, but Luther has it firmly anchored in God’s gracious word which applies Christ’s saving grace in moments of clear, unambiguous communication. From 1519 on, it is no accident that Luther turned out engaging short pamphlets on the sacraments, in which the certain-making word resounds in its variant expressions. This had not been present in his works on penitential living and prayer down through 1517.**_

When I worked out in 1983-84 this momentous shift in Luther’s teaching, I added a series of considerations in favor of a nuanced or even positive Catholic assessment of Luther’s point. Luther did not feature aspects ascribed to him by critics like Cardinal Cajetan (1518) and Paul Hacker (The Ego in Faith, 1970). He appealed to Bernard of Clairvaux as holding something very similar—which gives us pause. We Catholics also take the sacraments very seriously and should recognize in Luther an ally against religiosities of subjective experience.**

This certainly doesn’t sound like a man who proclaims an indifference to sin. In fact,it sounds rather Catholic.

**Penance is a sacrament. It is also a way of life.

At its heart, penance is turning away from sin and turning towards God. It is decisively accomplished at Baptism. It is accomplished again when our mortal sins are forgiven in Confession and our venial sins are forgiven through Confession or the Holy Eucharist.

Sin and temptations are pervasive in our lives. Our conversion must be ongoing. We must struggle vigilantly against those tendencies in our hearts which would place our comfort, our sensuality and our pride above our love for God. If we want to put the love of God at the centre of our lives, there is no question about what we must do – we must engage in some form of self-denial.
**

http://www.bspenance.org/The_penitential_life.shtml
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
Note to the reader : O’Connor was a late 19th century Catholic polemicist. He does not provide a balanced view of Luther, his views or his writings.
Click to expand...
As we have repeatedly stated … He is not a polemicist, he is offering a point of view that is different than expressed by other posters on this forum, and cites his original sources for every quote, for every dialogue. Father O’Connor is quite plain in his text when he is offering his OPINION and when he is directly quoting the words of Martin Luther — all readers are of course free to accept or reject any/all opinions.

What Father O’Connor is able to offer in this booklet are direct quotes from many of Luther’s documents that have disappeared from access .. or remain in the original German language, and not easily available in English. Father O’Connor, who speaks German is able to offer his translation for many of these, as well as his commentary — which is of course, his right. Each is invited to examine the materials.

One repeated strategy evident in this forum is that readers are told that Father O’Connor should not be considered a reliable source based on the OPINION that … he does not present a balanced view of Luther ??? uh…no… what he does is present LUTHER’s WORDS … for all to read and for each to decide for themselves.

 
JonNC said:
This certainly doesn’t sound like a man who proclaims an indifference to sin. I
Click to expand...
It really doesn’t matter what the quotes you pulled “sound like” to you. The quote cited is directly from Luther’s doctrinal writings published in 1520. So why would you not address THAT issue and instead your reponse is to pull out non-applicable quotes from 1967??? We’re examining the treatises and doctrines from the 1500’s that caused the rift in the church … I want to know what Luther said … and why … not some random quotes from 50 years ago that are not applicable to the 1520 published document “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church” authored and defended by Luther.

None of the quotes you presented are relative to the discussion.
 
Last edited:
The polemicist Father O’Connor also seemed to miss Luther’s actual important writing, the Small Catechism. In it, Luther describes the importance of confession:

_V. Confession

How Christians should be taught to confess.

What is Confession?*

Confession embraces two parts: the one is, that we confess our sins; the other, that we receive absolution, or forgiveness, from the confessor, as from God Himself, and in no wise doubt, but firmly believe, that our sins are thereby forgiven before God in heaven.

What sins should we confess?

Before God we should plead guilty of all sins, even of those which we do not know, as we do in the Lord’s Prayer. But before the confessor we should confess those sins alone which we know and feel in our hearts.

Which are these?

Here consider your station according to the Ten Commandments, whether you are a father, mother, son, daughter, master, mistress, a man-servant or maid-servant; whether you have been disobedient, unfaithful, slothful; whether you have grieved any one by words or deeds; whether you have stolen, neglected, or wasted aught, or done other injury._

Luther clearly views these as necessary to confess.
 
In the Smalkald Articles, he is even more emphatic:

**Part III, Article III. Of Repentance.

1] This office [of the Law] the New Testament retains and urges, as St. Paul, Rom. 1:18 does, saying: The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Again, Rom 3:19: All the world is guilty before God. No man is righteous before Him. And Christ says, John 16:8: The Holy Ghost will reprove the world of sin.

2] This, then, is the thunderbolt of God by which He strikes in a heap [hurls to the ground] both manifest sinners and false saints [hypocrites], and suffers no one to be in the right [declares no one righteous], but drives them all together to terror and despair. This is the hammer, as Jeremiah 23:29 says: Is not My Word like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? This is not activa contritio or manufactured repentance, but passiva contritio [torture of conscience], true sorrow of heart, suffering and sensation of death.

3] This, then, is what it means to begin true repentance; and here man must hear such a sentence as this: You are all of no account, whether you be manifest sinners or saints [in your own opinion]; you all must become different and do otherwise than you now are and are doing [no matter what sort of people you are], whether you are as great, wise, powerful, and holy as you may. Here no one is [righteous, holy], godly, etc.**
 
So, maybe a few more quotes on the Subject:

When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent,’ he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

**The recognition of sin is the beginning of salvation."
**

**Let no one think that as long as we live here he can reach such a position that he will not need such forgiveness. In short, if God does not forgive without ceasing, we are lost. **

**There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.” **
 
The Small Catechism was published in 1529 – it was not written when he was excommunicated, nor was it one of the items he was asked to recant.

What we are most interested in right now is WHAT he wrote up to the time he was excommunicated that was contrary to the church’s teaching.
 
The Smalkald Articles were published in 1537 – it was not written when he was excommunicated, nor was it one of the items he was asked to recant.

What we are most interested in right now is WHAT he wrote up to the time he was excommunicated that was contrary to the church’s teaching.
 
And do you have any dates and titles where these quotes are excerpted from … or are these just random (unsubstantiated) quotes you wanted to mention ??? or what???

Any information you have explaining what Luther said in his 1520 Treatise “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church” (which is regarded on the level of doctrine, and is 1 of 3 of his 1520 publications prompting his excommunication when he refused to recant them)
would be helpful at this point in our discussion.

In this portion … Luther is speaking of a person once baptized…

" Even if he would, he could not lose his salvation, however much he sinned, unless he refused to believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone"
 
Regardless of Father O’Connor’s motives, his practice of narrowly selected texts leads to a wrong conclusion
 
JonNC said:
He does not provide a balanced view of Luther, his views or his writings.
Click to expand...
What does “a balanced view of Luther” mean to you, Jon? I would much rather see an accurate view.

For example, is it true that Luther said:
Jaaye said:
" Even if he would, he could not lose his salvation, however much he sinned, unless he refused to believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone"
Click to expand...
Beggarsall does not deny it. They even try to justify it. But their justification is a justification of error.

They claim, as you have probably already verified, that it is justified because it is in reference to Baptism. The problem is, if you read past that a bit, that it isn’t strictly about baptism.

All other sins, so long as the faith in God’s promise made in baptism returns or remains, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because he cannot deny himself if you confess him and faithfully cling to him in his promise. But as for contrition, confession of sins, and satisfaction, along with all those carefully devised exercises of men: if you rely on them and neglect this truth of God, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than before.

That proves that he is also talking about the other Sacraments. And the other Sacraments require repentance and contrition.

But as for contrition, confession of sins, and satisfaction, along with all those carefully devised exercises of men: if you rely on them and neglect this truth of God, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than before

So, what is he saying? Luther is saying that one is saved by his faith alone. He says that the other Sacraments are not necessary. Not even contrition for sins. Since one is already saved.

And, the Catholic Church seemed to think that someone was teaching this heresy at the time of Luther. Because it was anathematized at the Council of Trent.

Canon 12.
If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy,[117] which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Canon 14.
If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified,[118] or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema.

Based on that teaching which even Beggarsall does not deny is from Luther, I’d say that the Council of Trent was aware that Luther was teaching this falsehood.
 
Jaaye said:
You Said:
"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.”
Click to expand...
You are the one who maligned Father O’Connor … you said there was “overwhelming written proof that Luther never…” said that. Wrong. It is one of the centerpiece statements of Luther’s 1520 treatise called “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church” where Luther is attacking the sacraments of the Church and their validity … and Father O’Connor knew that …and called it out. You (apparently) did not know that and have peppered the forum … not with a viable explanation … but with various non-applicable quotes… which seems kind of …what were the words you used…oh yeah … disingenuous and dishonest, maybe?
 
Last edited:
Some more quotes on the topic.

**“After coming to faith, no one should think that sin can be taken lightly. Sin is truly sin, whether it is committed before or after one comes to know Christ. God always hates sin. Every sin is a mortal sin—a sin that leads to death—as far as the act itself is concerned. But it’s not a mortal sin for the believer. Christ the Reconciler atoned for sin by his death. For unbelievers, not only are all of their sins mortal ones, but even their good works are sins. As Paul says in Romans, “Everything that does not come from faith is sin.”
**
**“Not only are all men without exception declared to be guilty in God’s sight, they are slaves to the sin that makes them guilty.”
**
"even if Christians are completely surrounded by sin, they should still fight against it. Some people think they’re Christians because they’ve been baptized. These people give their desires free rein and don’t care about conquering their sins. They merely follow their own cravings".

"The vicious character of sin is brought out by the words “who gave himself for our sins.” So vicious is sin that only the sacrifice of Christ could atone for sin".
 
Last edited:
Bump:

See this post:
40.png
The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right) Apologetics
What does “a balanced view of Luther” mean to you, Jon? I would much rather see an accurate view. For example, is it true that Luther said: Beggarsall does not deny it. They even try to justify it. But their justification is a justification of error. They claim, as you have probably already verified, that it is justified because it is in reference to Baptism. The problem is, if you read past that a bit, that it isn’t strictly about baptism. All other sins, so long as the faith in God’s…
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top