The Wisdom of Personal Attacks on Martin Luther

[Peter_J]

Let’s not get carried away.

Agreed.

Lutheran was a sinner, even if he was also a good and noble reformer.

 

[Peter_J]

Why try to turn this forum into a mirror image of nasty Protestant anti-Catholic forums?

I sincerely don’t want to do that, especially if the forum you’re thinking of is the forum of which I think you’re thinking.

The thing is, though, that many non-Catholics seem to have a fairy-tale kind of expectation of this forum: that anything posted here will be worth reading, that all the children will be above average, etc etc. I have to wonder, then, why we shouldn’t have the same expectation of protestant forums.

 

[7_Sorrows]

This is the “tu quoque” fallacy. If the Protestants complaining about Catholic behavior were somehow responsible for these other forums, you would have a point. Since they aren’t, you don’t. Of course plenty of Protestant forums are reprehensible. I agree with Jon that this forum has generally been much superior to most other such forums. So why compare this forum with all the garbage out there on the Internet? Why try to turn this forum into a mirror image of nasty Protestant anti-Catholic forums? It makes no sense.

Edwin

Where did I say we need to turn this forum into a mirror image of a nasty protestant website?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**Okay folks, if the charity on this thread doesn’t improve soon, I’m going to close it the next time I log in. **

 

[Peter_J]

Has anyone, within Lutheranism, with the authority to say so…actually acknowledged the faults of Lutherans in the Reformation also?

They don’t have a Pope.

 

[rcwitness]

First of all, if you think Catholicism in the early sixteenth century was harmonious, you don’t know much about it.

I understand what you mean. I agree in the sense that Catholic clergy were not in harmony with the deposit of faith. Catholicism, however, is the faith and not the behavior of clergy or laity. Just as Christianity is the faith in the Gospel and not the actions of claiming Christians.

But in the second and more important place, you don’t get to tell Protestants what the foundation of their faith is. Perhaps you should listen instead.

Why not? I was raised Protestant, went to a Protestant school and worked in the youth ministry at an Evangelical church. I am very greatful for the good faith I received there. I learned much Scripture! But I did not say “Protestant faith”, I said “Protestantism”. You see, Protestantism was founded by its founders in 1529 (give or take) based on the Protest of Martin Luther. His doctrines were formed through his interpretation of Scripture. This principal of Protestantism comes from individuals interpreting what Scripture means. Therefore, you don’t have one harmonious Protestant faith, you have denominations with different interpretations.

The Reformers did indeed have a naive expectation that all sincere people, guided by the Spirit, would come together around the Word of God. They were wrong about that. The question is: how to go forward now.

The answer is to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Identify where Luther was wrong, if you will. Show how his belief was error. But these personal attacks are unbecoming. We already know he was a sinner, but in all honesty I don’t know that he was any worse than I am, or that I would have done better in the same circumstances. I cannot throw stones at him.

That is an open invitation to something you previously classified as boring

It is still boring and I am surprised how this thread is still open…

This is just another demagogue attempt to defend an “underdog”:

The Big Bad Institution vs. The Little Guy.

This is the biggest and best marketing scheme.

Not by Luther Alone.

 

[robwar]

The proper way to do this is the following:

1. Make a solid theological argument about some point of difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.
2. When the “Luther mystique” gets in the way of that discussion, address it.

Catholic posters on this forum vastly exaggerate the “Luther mystique” and its importance. This mystique certainly does exist and needs to be challenged. But it seems to have become an excuse on this forum for Catholic posters to spend all their energies tearing down Luther and the hypothetical views Protestants hold about him.

Edwin

First of all, I am writing from direct experience. I was raised United Methodist and again Luther was held up as the good guy that stood up to the corrupt Catholic Church. There was not much more than that and again there was no exploration of the things he wrote and taught except for a few quotes here and there. Likewise when I was attending independent Charismatic Church, the elders brought in a speaker from Jews for Jesus to explain the passover etc. He started talking about barriers for Jews in accepting Christ and one of the barriers was Martin Luther, not the Catholic Church. I’ll never forget it because the audience became totally quite, you could here a pin drop. I think when the speaker realized that he just shocked everyone with the news that Hitler used Luther’s 6 stage plan to eliminate the Jews, he started to make excuses for Luther like, he must have still had anger about being ex-communicated and took it out on Jews later in life. My point is 90% of Protestants that are not Lutheran have not actually really read Luther and Calvin and a number of other early reformers. Now one could make the case that Johanne Ecke was equally as anti-Semitic and both men reflect the times they lived in But beyond Sola Scriptura which 100% of Protestants still believe in as well as the other 4 Sola’s to some extent most Protestants have a disconnected view of Luther. They all point to him. To me, what Op is trying to say really shuts down the conversation not enhance it. Claiming that there is bashing of Luther isn’t a willingness to look closely at the early reformers and what they actually taught and wrote. If one is trying to grapple with splits in Christianity, one honestly should be looking at who these reformers were, what they actually wrote and taught, why were they ex-communicated. Bashing claims are just that bashing to shut the conversation down.

 

[robwar]

Where did I say we need to turn this forum into a mirror image of a nasty protestant website?

exactly. The best critics of Protestants are other Protestants. They can do a great job bashing each other and questioning each other’s salvation. Looking at a pivotal historical figure, examining all his writings and teaching, not just what you want to pick and choose and then maybe examining the reasons why ought to be done. Hindsight into someone can be done. I always thought that Luther’s scruples was poorly managed by his Augustinian order to begin with. I think his abusive father also played a role. Those are things that are not bashing Luther but hindsight into him. The faith alone as he taught it might be more to do with his own dealing with excessive scruples. Anger against his father and authority may have lead to his anger against the ultimate Church authority, the Pope. Dealing with his own internal demons may have lead him to read the Bible a certain way to come up with some answers. That isn’t calling Luther a lunatic and not questioning his salvation or sincerity.

 

[rcwitness]

Now one could make the case that Johanne Ecke was equally as anti-Semitic and both men reflect the times they lived in

Right. And Johanne Ecke is not a formal Saint either.

Maybe there is a genuine criticism of Luther because Catholics don’t regard him as a formal Saint, yet Protestants do. Saints are men and women who stand up to the times they lived in and the Church finds no fault in their faith. Therefore, they are regarded as worthy of imitation and holy examples of godliness with merits of intercession. Johanne Ecke may have done great good yet had faults just as Luther did. However, Luther chose his own interpretations regarding Scripture in defiance of the Church Universal. Johanne Ecke submitted to the Teachings of the Church. Each man’s personal state of grace in the end of their lives is only fully known to God, but what can be evident is what each one taught others to believe. Johanne upheld Church Teaching, while Luther upheld individual interpretation.

 

[robwar]

That is an open invitation to something you previously classified as boring

It is still boring and I am surprised how this thread is still open…

This is just another demagogue attempt to defend an “underdog”:

The Big Bad Institution vs. The Little Guy.

This is the biggest and best marketing scheme.

Not by Luther Alone.

I also don’t think Luther would have gone any where without the support of the local duke (I think) that was looking for a way to break away from the Holy Roman Empire. That is why with the peasant revolt which was actually the fruit of what Luther was teaching, he did a 180 and condemned in very violent language this revolt in order to keep in with good graces with the local rulers. The peasants were acting on what Luther was teaching. He betrayed them.

 

[robwar]

Right. And Johanne Ecke is not a formal Saint either.

Maybe there is a genuine criticism of Luther because Catholics don’t regard him as a formal Saint, yet Protestants do. Saints are men and women who stand up to the times they lived in and the Church finds no fault in their faith. Therefore, they are regarded as worthy of imitation and holy examples of godliness with merits of intercession. Johanne Ecke may have done great good yet had faults just as Luther did. However, Luther chose his own interpretations regarding Scripture in defiance of the Church Universal. Johanne Ecke submitted to the Teachings of the Church. Each man’s personal state of grace in the end of their lives is only fully known to God, but what can be evident is what each one taught others to believe. Johanne upheld Church Teaching, while Luther upheld individual interpretation.

Yes, Johanne Ecke is not on any nomination for saint hood either. The proof of the pudding is looking at WWII. It was the Catholic Church that censored people like Fr. Couglin on pain of defrocking, It was the Catholic Church on orders of the Pope that hid Jews in monasteries and in the Vatican. It was the Catholic Church that tried to save Jews not because there were Christians but because they were human.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, Johanne Ecke is not on any nomination for saint hood either. The proof of the pudding is looking at WWII. It was the Catholic Church that censored people like Fr. Couglin on pain of defrocking, It was the Catholic Church on orders of the Pope that hid Jews in monasteries and in the Vatican. It was the Catholic Church that tried to save Jews not because there were Christians but because they were human.

Yes. The arguement would be… Why, when Catholics behave badly, they are not seen as the Catholic Church and when they do good things they are called the Church?

It is because, when these men upheld the Catholic principals of how we should treat our brothers and sisters, they are participating in the life of Christ. They are following what the Church Teaches. Therefore, they are united to the mission of the Spirit and the Bride.

When Catholics, wheather clergy or not, behave against the Teachings of the Church, they are acting outside the Faith of the Church. Just like St Peter did according to St Paul.

 

[steido01]

It appears to me that this official statement of the LCMS, is, at best, grossly misinformed. By suggesting that ‘we personally and individually adopt Luther’s final attitude towards the Jewish people’, the LCMS is implying that Luther’s position against the Jews ‘softened’ at the end of his life. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You’ll forgive us if we take the scholarly work of an entire Synod (filled with hundreds of Latin, Hebrew, Greek and German-speaking theologians who are intimately familiar with Luther’s teachings have dedicated their lives to the sharing of the Gospel of Christ) over the words of an amateur with an ax to grind - particularly one who has been proven on other threads to take quotes out of context in order to prove his points.

Just a few days before he died Luther wrote an addendum to one of his last sermons, probably his second to last – February 7th. This addendum, “An Admonition Against the Jews”: “forcefully advocates the expulsion of the Jews so as to avoid being implicated in – and thus contaminated by – Jewish blasphemy, stands as Luther’s final work on the Jewish question.” Schramm, pg. 200

Why take Schramm’s word for it? Why don’t we read the actual text, Topper:

“Now I am going home, and perhaps I will never preach to you again, and I have blessed you and prayed you to stay always close to God’s Word … I see the Jews are still among you. Now we have to deal with them in a Christian manner and try to bring them to the Christian faith that they may receive the true Messiah who is their flesh and blood and of the seed of Abraham—though I am afraid Jewish blood has got watery and wild these days. Yet they must be invited to turn to the Messiah and be baptized in him … If not then we must not suffer them to remain for they daily abuse and blaspheme Christ. I must not, you must not be a partaker of the sins of others. God knows I have enough to do with sins of my own, but if they will give up usury and receive Christ we will willingly receive them as our brethren . . . but if they call Mary a whore and Jesus her bastard still we must exercise Christian love towards them that they may be converted and receive our Lord . . . this I tell you as your Landeskind not to be partakers of the sins of others. If they turn from their blasphemies we must gladly forgive them, but if not we must not suffer them to remain!”
-WA. 51. 195-6 as cited in: Gordon Rupp, Martin Luther and the Jews. Emphasis mine.

We know what your [amateur] opinion is of this. And that position is not surprising given your personal vendetta against Luther. My opinion, and that of many Lutherans, is that Luther the man held some unsavory views about many people, including Anabaptists, Roman Catholics, Zwinglians and Jews. He should have followed his own advice and spoken of these people with charity. But his ultimate point - that Christians should share the Gospel and bring as many to faith in Christ as possible - stands today. THAT is what the LCMS means when it ties itself to ‘Luther’s final attitude.’ The sharing of the Gospel. One would think that was obvious.

It would seem to me that they need to retract that statement and at least ‘reword’ it somehow.

The intention and spirit of the LCMS document is clear. Perhaps the issue lies not with the writer, but the presuppositions of reader?

You were attempting I think to point out how your Lutheran communion is willing to condemn the clearly objectionable writings of Luther. But that is not exactly what the facts point out.

That’s precisely what the facts say! How can you possibly say that the LCMS is unwilling to condemn Luther’s erroneous teachings when the document literally reads, “The LCMS…**denounces **them (without denouncing Luther’s theology)…” and “we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther’s negative statements about the Jewish people, and, by the same token, we **deplore **the use today of such sentiments by Luther to incite anti-Christian and/or anti-Lutheran sentiment” ? In light of the facts of what is written, your statement is beyond absurd.

Personally, I think someone ought to inform the LCMS that their official statement does not match up very well with the historical facts.

Good thing we have the Prophet Topper, eh?

PS, Also for the record, this is obviously NOT “bashing” Luther. It is setting the record straight with the facts.

When the facts have been misrepresented to follow an agenda, it is bashing. Your comments serve no purpose but to sow division, and attack a dead man.

 

[Tomster]

You’ll forgive us if we take the scholarly work of an entire Synod (filled with hundreds of Latin, Hebrew, Greek and German-speaking theologians who are intimately familiar with Luther’s teachings have dedicated their lives to the sharing of the Gospel of Christ) over the words of an amateur with an ax to grind - particularly one who has been proven on other threads to take quotes out of context in order to prove his points.

Why take Schramm’s word for it? Why don’t we read the actual text, Topper:

We know what your [amateur] opinion is of this. And that position is not surprising given your personal vendetta against Luther. My opinion, and that of many Lutherans, is that Luther the man held some unsavory views about many people, including Anabaptists, Roman Catholics, Zwinglians and Jews. He should have followed his own advice and spoken of these people with charity. But his ultimate point - that Christians should share the Gospel and bring as many to faith in Christ as possible - stands today. THAT is what the LCMS means when it ties itself to ‘Luther’s final attitude.’ The sharing of the Gospel. One would think that was obvious.

The intention and spirit of the LCMS document is clear. Perhaps the issue lies not with the writer, but the presuppositions of reader?

That’s precisely what the facts say! How can you possibly say that the LCMS is unwilling to condemn Luther’s erroneous teachings when the document literally reads, “The LCMS…**denounces **them (without denouncing Luther’s theology)…” and “we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther’s negative statements about the Jewish people, and, by the same token, we **deplore **the use today of such sentiments by Luther to incite anti-Christian and/or anti-Lutheran sentiment” ? In light of the facts of what is written, your statement is beyond absurd.

Good thing we have the Prophet Topper, eh?

When the facts have been misrepresented to follow an agenda, it is bashing. Your comments serve no purpose but to sow division, and attack a dead man.

You must admit, though, that the dead man did, in fact, sow division, lots of it, even among his fellow protesters who had/have great difficulty, to this day, resolving there own differences.

 

[steido01]

You must admit, though, that the dead man did, in fact, sow division, lots of it,

Yep. He and many others who lived during that time. They were a sinners by their fault, by their own fault, by their own, most grievous fault. And I’m even worse. Mercifully and inexplicably, God loves us all -undeserving as we are- anyway.

even among his fellow protesters who had/have great difficulty, to this day, resolving there own differences.

If you’re stating that Luthers words are still used by people on both sides of the Tiber to sow division - agreed. But if you’re tossing every Western non-Catholic into the mythical “Protestant Church” founded by a legendary Martin Luther, however, I won’t follow you there.

 

[Tomster]

Yep. He and many others who lived during that time. They were a sinners by their fault, by their own fault, by their own, most grievous fault. And I’m even worse. Mercifully and inexplicably, God loves us all -undeserving as we are- anyway.

If you’re stating that Luthers words are still used by people on both sides of the Tiber to sow division - agreed. But if you’re tossing every Western non-Catholic into the mythical “Protestant Church” founded by a legendary Martin Luther, however, I won’t follow you there.

What I am saying is that Luther and his fellow reformers started the whole mess. I am also saying that modern day Protestants cannot agree among themselves on how to resolve their own differences. I am also saying that Catholics are not sowing division. Catholics are simply pointing out the divisions among non-Catholics which were started by the legendary Martin Luther and his merry band of “protesters”.

 

[rfournier103]

I personally think that attacks on Martin Luther are pointless. We can debate the wisdom of his actions (and we do); but he’s dead, and so are all his buddies. Done is done, as they say.

Did the Church need some changes for the better? Absolutely. Was Luther justified in following the course of action he did? The Church and most Catholics say “no”.

That being said, I think the Church has learned from this. If attacking Marty is “unwise”; what IS wise is learning from the mistakes the Church made in handling him, his followers, and the whole situation.

Today the Church has several “rogue” groups within it displaying varying degrees of disobedience. I’m sure we all know who they are and what they want; so no need to go into it here. The Church could either: ignore these groups, declare them heretics/schismatic, and hope they go away; OR the Church can talk, negotiate, and work it out. I am happy to see the Church has learned a lesson from its dealings with Luther and is going with the latter of the two options.

 

[Tomster]

I personally think that attacks on Martin Luther are pointless. We can debate the wisdom of his actions (and we do); but he’s dead, and so are all his buddies. Done is done, as they say.

Did the Church need some changes for the better? Absolutely. Was Luther justified in following the course of action he did? The Church and most Catholics say “no”.

That being said, I think the Church has learned from this. If attacking Marty is “unwise”; what IS wise is learning from the mistakes the Church made in handling him, his followers, and the whole situation.

Today the Church has several “rogue” groups within it displaying varying degrees of disobedience. I’m sure we all know who they are and what they want; so no need to go into it here. The Church could either: ignore these groups, declare them heretics/schismatic, and hope they go away; OR the Church can talk, negotiate, and work it out. I am happy to see the Church has learned a lesson from its dealings with Luther and is going with the latter of the two options.

Just a point of clarification. It really doesn’t matter what most Catholics say. The Catholic Church is hierarchical. We have the “Ecclesia discens” (learning Church) and the “Ecclesia docens” (teaching Church).

 

[Tomster]

I personally think that attacks on Martin Luther are pointless. We can debate the wisdom of his actions (and we do); but he’s dead, and so are all his buddies. Done is done, as they say.

Did the Church need some changes for the better? Absolutely. Was Luther justified in following the course of action he did? The Church and most Catholics say “no”.

That being said, I think the Church has learned from this. If attacking Marty is “unwise”; what IS wise is learning from the mistakes the Church made in handling him, his followers, and the whole situation.

Today the Church has several “rogue” groups within it displaying varying degrees of disobedience. I’m sure we all know who they are and what they want; so no need to go into it here. The Church could either: ignore these groups, declare them heretics/schismatic, and hope they go away; OR the Church can talk, negotiate, and work it out. I am happy to see the Church has learned a lesson from its dealings with Luther and is going with the latter of the two options.

Oh, and by the way, “Exsurge Domine”, Leo X’s Bull against Luther and his errors, is still on the books. An expiration date was never stamped on it.

What errors did the Church make in handling him?