The Wisdom of Personal Attacks on Martin Luther

[Novocastrian]

For that reason alone, it is worthwhile to study Luther and ponder his motivations, his strengths, his good points and his weaknesses. I do notice that the OP never mentioned my pet theory. At risk of boring him, I’d assert that Luther suffered from scrupulosity before developing his Sola Fide doctrine to alleviate it. This is not a disparagement of Luther, it’s an attempt to identify a charitable explanation for why he thought the way he did and why he fought so hard against attempts at correcting him.

I’m curious as to why a person’s motivation for holding/articulating/advocating a given doctrine should impact our evaluation of its truthfulness and orthodoxy. Proposition a is true or false regardless of who holds it or why.

 

[benjohnson]

Thanks, Don…but I was looking more, something from an official capacity…for example, something from the LCMS hierarchy, or the ILF or LWF, that you guys can post and cite.

Something like this? The bold part is rather telling IMHO.

While The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod holds Martin Luther in high esteem for his bold proclamation and clear articulation of the teachings of Scripture, it deeply regrets and deplores statements made by Luther which express a negative and hostile attitude toward the Jews. In light of the many positive and caring statements concerning the Jews made by Luther throughout his lifetime, it would not be fair on the basis of these few regrettable (and uncharacteristic) negative statements, to characterize the reformer as “a rabid anti-Semite.”

The LCMS, however, does not seek to “excuse” these statements of Luther, but denounces them (without denouncing Luther’s theology).

In 1983, the Synod adopted an official resolution addressing these statements of Luther and making clear its own position on anti-Semitism. The text of this resolution reads as follows:

WHEREAS, Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are a continuing problem in our world; and

WHEREAS, Some of Luther’s intemperate remarks about the Jews are often cited in this connection; and

WHEREAS, It is widely but **falsely assumed that Luther’s personal writings and opinions have some official status among us **(thus, sometimes implying the responsibility of contemporary Lutheranism for those statements, if not complicity in them); but also

WHEREAS, It is plain from scripture that the Gospel must be proclaimed to all people–that is, to Jews also, no more and no less than to others (Matt. 28:18-20); and

WHEREAS, This Scriptural mandate is sometimes confused with anti-Semitism; therefore be it

Resolved, That we condemn any and all discrimination against others on account of race or religion or any coercion on that account and pledge ourselves to work and witness against such sins; and be it further

Resolved, That we reaffirm that the bases of our doctrine and practice are the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions and not Luther, as such; and be it further

Resolved, That while, on the one hand, we are deeply indebted to Luther for his rediscovery and enunciation of the Gospel, on the other hand, 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; and be it further

Resolved, That in our teaching and preaching we take care not to confuse the religion of the Old Testament (often labeled “Yahwism”) with the subsequent Judaism, nor misleadingly speak about “Jews” in the Old Testament (“Israelites” or “Hebrews” being much more accurate terms), lest we obscure the basic claim of the New Testament and of the Gospel to being in substantial continuity with the Old Testament and that the fulfillment of the ancient promises came in Jesus Christ; and be it further

Resolved, That we avoid the recurring pitfall of recrimination (as illustrated by the remarks of Luther and many of the early church fathers) against those who do not respond positively to our evangelistic efforts; and be it finally

Resolved, That, in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther’s final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: “We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord” (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195).

 

[manualman]

I added numbers below for convenience and organization.

1. Like every other non-deified human being that has ever existed.
2. Hus was relevant enough for the church to call a council and murder him.
3. So it’s your assertion that our (Lutheran) views of sola fide are restricted to being founded on Luther’s scrupulosity and nothing whatsoever to do with, say, Romans, Galatians or Ephesians (as an example)?

Wow, active thread!

1. Agreed, with minor quibbles (which I won’t mention to avoid tangents!). Which is why no human can be totally trusted to teach with authority unless he is the recipient of a particular Grace that prevents him from formally teaching error.
2. I’d agree that capital punishment for egregious heresy is inappropriate, but I’m not sure the word murder applies in the context of those times. Our cultural conditioning today tells us that such a practice is abhorrent, but I can understand why it happened. Perhaps they feared that such individualist thinking applied to gospel truths would open Pandora’s box of violence and manipulation of the gospel for reasons both sincere and cynical to the point where centuries of violence and untold millions of deaths would result? Farfetched? No, history. What should they have done instead? I’m not sure and it’s moot now anyways. It’s always easier to destroy a culture than to build one. If you have been monitoring the news in recent years, you already know this.
3. Not exactly. I think those passages of Scripture leaped off the page at him and shook him like a rag doll precisely because of his inner issues. People are like that. Our pains and our needs dictate what resonate with us. I absolutely think this is why he considered passages like that to stand alone and self-evident while considering others (James, for example) as unimportant (‘epistle of straw’). This is in contrast to the catholic system of considering all of Scripture as a unified whole that when understood properly never opposes the gospel.

I’m not challenging his sincerity, I’m challenging his objectivity and I’m asserting that his specific biases bear significantly on the rupture of the church that he largely created. Nobody is objective, which is why Christ established a Church rather than just authoring a book. A church can teach, correct, reprove and train in righteousness the way a book ALONE simply can’t. Which is why the book is useful for those purposes rather than sufficient.

 

[manualman]

I’m curious as to why a person’s motivation for holding/articulating/advocating a given doctrine should impact our evaluation of its truthfulness and orthodoxy. Proposition a is true or false regardless of who holds it or why.

Objectively, you are correct. Sadly, the human condition does not allow us to always prove or disprove an assertion with complete certainty on the basis of objectively verifiable facts. History cannot be duplicated in a lab.

There is a real reason that motive is always treated as a significant piece of evidence in a criminal trial. It’s a lot easier to believe that a man committed murder if we are shown why he would be motivated to do so. It’s a lot harder to convince a jury that a man killed another man if one limits the discussion to the physical evidence (especially if there is any ambiguity in that evidence!).

Such is the case here as well. Protestants understandably desire to believe that Luther objectively analyzed Scripture, read the thoughts of Jerome, Hus and others in history and rationally developed a professional academic opinion of what sort of gospel Christ really brought us. But refusal to consider motive is not good policy in courts or history.

The objective fact is that Luther was the trigger point for the biggest fragmentation of Christianity in history. If indeed his ideas were motivated by more than just rational theology, I do think that’s important.

 

[spina1953]

I added numbers below for convenience and organization.

Wow, active thread!

1. Agreed, with minor quibbles (which I won’t mention to avoid tangents!). Which is why no human can be totally trusted to teach with authority unless he is the recipient of a particular Grace that prevents him from formally teaching error.
2. I’d agree that capital punishment for egregious heresy is inappropriate, but I’m not sure the word murder applies in the context of those times. Our cultural conditioning today tells us that such a practice is abhorrent, but I can understand why it happened. Perhaps they feared that such individualist thinking applied to gospel truths would open Pandora’s box of violence and manipulation of the gospel for reasons both sincere and cynical to the point where centuries of violence and untold millions of deaths would result? Farfetched? No, history. What should they have done instead? I’m not sure and it’s moot now anyways. It’s always easier to destroy a culture than to build one. If you have been monitoring the news in recent years, you already know this.
3. Not exactly. I think those passages of Scripture leaped off the page at him and shook him like a rag doll precisely because of his inner issues. People are like that. Our pains and our needs dictate what resonate with us. I absolutely think this is why he considered passages like that to stand alone and self-evident while considering others (James, for example) as unimportant (‘epistle of straw’). This is in contrast to the catholic system of considering all of Scripture as a unified whole that when understood properly never opposes the gospel.

I’m not challenging his sincerity, I’m challenging his objectivity and I’m asserting that his specific biases bear significantly on the rupture of the church that he largely created. Nobody is objective, which is why Christ established a Church rather than just authoring a book. A church can teach, correct, reprove and train in righteousness the way a book ALONE simply can’t. Which is why the book is useful for those purposes rather than sufficient.

Hi manualman: I have to agree with your thesis statement; it is his objectivity and specific thinking that was due in part by his scrupulosity looking at those passages that seemed to him to be the answers to his fears of not being saved. From what I have reading on the subject of scrupulosity it appears that some in looking for anything to relieve the terror they have of being condemned often see something that really is not there but seems to the troubled mind the meaning they were looking for. it is putting one’s ideas first then looking for anything that might fit the idea rather than seeing the meaning for what it is.

 

[PJM]

=Tomyris;12336048]I am really puzzled by the seeming obsession some Catholics display in attacking Martin Luther, as if somehow it will undo the Reformation: He was insane, he was the devil’s spawn, he was this, that, manic depressive, whatever. Somehow people seem to think they are going to get somewhere with all that. As I am more in the Reformed camp, Luther really was incidental. I shrug my shoulders.

This thread is not about his person or even about Luther at all. This thread is about why some Catholics seem to think that they will get somewhere by destroying him. I wish to make several points as to why I think this tactic is a bad idea.

One, Lutherans REPEATEDLY have stated that they do not elevate his teachings to the level of doctine. Lutheranism is not Luther and he is not their pope or prophet. What is called Lutheranism has been digested and percolated over the last 500 years and is not contingent on anything in Martin Luther’s person or even thoughts. I would venture to say the man might very well disagree with a lot of what passes for Lutheranism. Lutherans say this was a fine example of God using a sinner for His purposes. Paul was a murderer, Peter betrayed Christ, Luther may have been nuts. I really don’t care about his psychological profile. Really!

Secondly, I wonder at the idea that if they show that Martin Luther is so bad, they will then become Catholic. This is certainly a negative tactic that suggests that those pursuing this agenda really have no better arguments for Catholicism than that Luther was bad, so therefore Lutherans should become Catholic. I find this extremely unconvincing. Isn’t there anything good in Catholicism? Did these Luther-bashers really become Catholic because they took a dislike to Luther? That is like preferring God to Satan because you don’t like Satan - never mind what God is like. Faint praise, there.

Thirdly, Catholics embrace the argument that it does not matter what Church leaders have done, it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that is important. But then they turn around and say that it is not what Luther taught that is important, but what a crazy little blockhead he was, as if his teaching does not matter. It seems logically contradictory.

Fourthly, I suspect these Luther-bashers have not taken the time to study what Luther believed, or what Lutheranism developed into, because all they seem able to do is to attack Luther. It gets boring. BORING. BORING. Reading post after post of unremitting negative information about someone gets boring. These are the kinds of people you move away from at parties and are not the sorts of people I enjoy interacting with. People who are negative all the time are no fun. Luther had his good points and these sorts of patterns of posts suggest personal problems or distortions in themselves that make me question them from the get-go. Luther DID have his good points. It is off-putting, to say the least.

That is my 2 cents.

I AGREE! Such attacks are NON_Christian non-Catholic, serve NO good purpose and are frankly not needed in condemning Luther, who was sadly misguided, and whose actions are sufficient to judge the merits of his work.

 

[manualman]

In fairness, Luther’s theology really is an excellent pastoral approach for those suffering scrupulosity. It’s very close to what such a sufferer actually needs to hear in order to comprehend the gospel correctly and restore Grace to its rightful place of primacy in the worldview of the believer.

In that sense, Luther’s ideas could have been and still can be highly helpful for people struggling to understand God, sin and the meaning of life.

The problem is that his ideas are a disaster when preached to people prone to the opposite theological problem of “cheap Grace.” As I tend more to that sort of problem (as do most Americans, IMO), I find it personally helpful to identify and reject the theological biases and errors in Luther’s work as a way of avoiding them sucking me in without me realizing it! I don’t think this is a form of bashing the man, but of improving my own understanding of the gospel. As someone above noted, we all have our biases and flaws, eh? The more we learn to identify the better off we are.

 

[Novocastrian]

Objectively, you are correct. Sadly, the human condition does not allow us to always prove or disprove an assertion with complete certainty on the basis of objectively verifiable facts. History cannot be duplicated in a lab.

There is a real reason that motive is always treated as a significant piece of evidence in a criminal trial. It’s a lot easier to believe that a man committed murder if we are shown why he would be motivated to do so. It’s a lot harder to convince a jury that a man killed another man if one limits the discussion to the physical evidence (especially if there is any ambiguity in that evidence!).

Nobody doubts that Luther wrote what he did. Few of us doubt why. But that’s not what we’re talking about, and it’s why your trial analogy doesn’t work. We’re not trying to pin a murder on someone.

Such is the case here as well. Protestants understandably desire to believe that Luther objectively analyzed Scripture, read the thoughts of Jerome, Hus and others in history and rationally developed a professional academic opinion of what sort of gospel Christ really brought us. But refusal to consider motive is not good policy in courts or history.

Do you believe that objectivity really exists? Can you point me towards an objective interpreter of the Scriptures, who doesn’t bring anything to his reading of them, only taking away divine truth? I don’t think such a person exists. We’re looking for objective truth, sure, but you won’t find any objective persons!

The objective fact is that Luther was the trigger point for the biggest fragmentation of Christianity in history. If indeed his ideas were motivated by more than just rational theology, I do think that’s important.

Whose ideas are motivated by ‘just rational theology’? I honestly don’t believe for one minute that you or I have ever encountered anyone whose ideas are!

 

[manualman]

Do you believe that objectivity really exists? Can you point me towards an objective interpreter of the Scriptures, who doesn’t bring anything to his reading of them, only taking away divine truth? I don’t think such a person exists. We’re looking for objective truth, sure, but you won’t find any objective persons!

Whose ideas are motivated by ‘just rational theology’? I honestly don’t believe for one minute that you or I have ever encountered anyone whose ideas are!

I believe that objective truth exists for sure (as do you I think), but agree with you above that no fallen human is objective in his analysis. I think this is precisely WHY it is helpful to know a bit about important thinkers and what their biases are, what issues influence their thinking and then be aware of it. It’s also why I don’t think such a discussion is automatically “bashing.” Would you agree?

 

[Novocastrian]

I believe that objective truth exists for sure (as do you I think), but agree with you above that no fallen human is objective in his analysis. I think this is precisely WHY it is helpful to know a bit about important thinkers and what their biases are, what issues influence their thinking and then be aware of it. It’s also why I don’t think such a discussion is automatically “bashing.” Would you agree?

I do agree. But it’s also why I struggle to understand why it’s relevant to theology, as opposed to history. As a historian, I want to know Luther’s motives in teaching sola fide, etc. As a theologian, that is irrelevant; I want to know whether sola fide is true or not! I can’t see why his motives would make it true or not.

 

[rcwitness]

Do you believe that objectivity really exists? Can you point me towards an objective interpreter of the Scriptures, who doesn’t bring anything to his reading of them, only taking away divine truth? I don’t think such a person exists. We’re looking for objective truth, sure, but you won’t find any objective persons!

But this is the foundation of Protestantism… that not only individuals with a gift for interpretation or appointed leaders with the authority to bind, but ALL individuals are able and intended to interpret for themselves the meaning of Scripture (and as a whole) and then all have one mind, with one faith, one baptism, one communion and come together in one council.

This is the pattern that Martin Luther was responsible for stting against the harmony of Catholicism, wheather alone or not, he was a responsible agent of division. And like someone quoted the Catechism, so were the Catholic clergy who abused the gospel which created an unhealthy environment.

 

[spina1953]

I think one thing to remember about the time of Luther is that many of the professors in the universities who taught any theology often taught something that was not what the CC was teaching. Luther was just one person, presenting new and often novel ideas of Scriptural interpretations. There was not a really uniform teaching in many of the universities in Germany which also lead to confusion as to what the Cc actually taught.

 

[manualman]

I do agree. But it’s also why I struggle to understand why it’s relevant to theology, as opposed to history. As a historian, I want to know Luther’s motives in teaching sola fide, etc. As a theologian, that is irrelevant; I want to know whether sola fide is true or not! I can’t see why his motives would make it true or not.

I’m not entirely persuaded that it is wise to parse reality into hermetically sealed compartments like history, theology, philosophy, math, literature, biology, music, etc. I’ve always been of the opinion that cross-pollination among all disciplines results in a more solid grasp of each of the particulars. If I believed that Luther really did theology apart from his other influences in life then it would be irrelevant. But as you already mentioned, nobody does theology that way. People are an amalgamation of influences.

This is precisely why I think it’s important to wonder about how Luther’s own issues could have influenced his thinking and how perhaps his work might to this day still appeal to some and not to others for similar reasons.

 

[pablope]

Something like this? The bold part is rather telling IMHO.

While The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod holds Martin Luther in high esteem for his bold proclamation and clear articulation of the teachings of Scripture, it deeply regrets and deplores statements made by Luther which express a negative and hostile attitude toward the Jews. In light of the many positive and caring statements concerning the Jews made by Luther throughout his lifetime, it would not be fair on the basis of these few regrettable (and uncharacteristic) negative statements, to characterize the reformer as “a rabid anti-Semite.”

The LCMS, however, does not seek to “excuse” these statements of Luther, but denounces them (without denouncing Luther’s theology).


Resolved, That, in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther’s final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: “We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord” (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195).

No…this is regarding the Jews.

What I was asking was a statement acknowleding the fault of Luther/Lutherans/Reformers for the cause of the split.

Akin to this quote from the CCC:

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”

Is there any statement accepting the blame also? (is what I am asking).

 

[JonNC]

Sure. Every Lutheran pastor ever. It’s the core of our teaching. We are sinners. We sin against God and our fellow Christians. We need a savior.

I have and I know other Lutherans here and elsewhere have, too. But just so there’s no question, I’ll leave this example: Luther’s bombastic use of polemic, which was common to his day, contributed greatly to the deepening chasm between Wittenberg and Rome.** He could, and should, have followed his own advice regarding the eighth commandment, that “We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.**”

Amen!

Jon

 

[JonNC]

In fairness, Luther’s theology really is an excellent pastoral approach for those suffering scrupulosity. It’s very close to what such a sufferer actually needs to hear in order to comprehend the gospel correctly and restore Grace to its rightful place of primacy in the worldview of the believer.

In that sense, Luther’s ideas could have been and still can be highly helpful for people struggling to understand God, sin and the meaning of life.

The problem is that his ideas are a disaster when preached to people prone to the opposite theological problem of “cheap Grace.” As I tend more to that sort of problem (as do most Americans, IMO), I find it personally helpful to identify and reject the theological biases and errors in Luther’s work as a way of avoiding them sucking me in without me realizing it! I don’t think this is a form of bashing the man, but of improving my own understanding of the gospel. As someone above noted, we all have our biases and flaws, eh? The more we learn to identify the better off we are.

On the bolded, I tend to agree. I take myself to the[ Epitome of the Formula of Concord](http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#IV. Good Works.) on occasion;

1. **We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound **to do good works.

9] 4. In this sense the words necessary, shall, and must are employed correctly and in a Christian manner also with respect to the regenerate, and in no way are contrary to the form of sound words and speech.

10] 5. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:14.

11] 6. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.

Bound means more than certainty, it means also required.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

In fairness, Luther’s theology really is an excellent pastoral approach for those suffering scrupulosity. It’s very close to what such a sufferer actually needs to hear in order to comprehend the gospel correctly and restore Grace to its rightful place of primacy in the worldview of the believer.

In that sense, Luther’s ideas could have been and still can be highly helpful for people struggling to understand God, sin and the meaning of life.

The problem is that his ideas are a disaster when preached to people prone to the opposite theological problem of “cheap Grace.” As I tend more to that sort of problem (as do most Americans, IMO), I find it personally helpful to identify and reject the theological biases and errors in Luther’s work as a way of avoiding them sucking me in without me realizing it! I don’t think this is a form of bashing the man, but of improving my own understanding of the gospel. As someone above noted, we all have our biases and flaws, eh? The more we learn to identify the better off we are.

Just another thought; when one reads what he wrote in is commentary on Galatians, it doesn’t sound to me like “cheap grace”, really.

Verse 6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.
Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

and on verse 14, in part:

The Apostle exhorts all Christians to practice good works after they have embraced the pure doctrine of faith, because even though they have been justified they still have the old flesh to refrain them from doing good. Therefore it becomes necessary that sincere preachers cultivate the doctrine of good works as diligently as the doctrine of faith, for Satan is a deadly enemy of both. Nevertheless faith must come first because without faith it is impossible to know what a God-pleasing deed is.

Let nobody think that he knows all about this commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” It sounds short and easy, but show me the man who can teach, learn, and do this commandment perfectly. None of us heed, or urge, or practice this commandment properly. Though the conscience hurts when we fail to fulfill this commandment in every respect we are not overwhelmed by our failure to bear our neighbor sincere and brotherly love.

The words, “for all the law is fulfilled in one word,” entail a criticism of the Galatians. “You are so taken up by your superstitions and ceremonies that serve no good purpose, that you neglect the most important thing, love.” St. Jerome says: “We wear our bodies out with watching, fasting, and labor and neglect charity, the queen of all good works.”

Jon

 

[pablope]

On the bolded, I tend to agree. I take myself to the[ Epitome of the Formula of Concord](http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#IV. Good Works.) on occasion;

Bound means more than certainty, it means also required.

Jon

Jon…when you say “required”…are you saying then that good works are merely a robotic response to grace? In that one is “required” or are a must?

Then good works are not a foundation of an interior renewal or results from an interior change in oneself?

 

[manualman]

Just another thought; when one reads what he wrote in is commentary on Galatians, it doesn’t sound to me like “cheap grace”, really.

No, and I should have clarified that I don’t think Luther suffered from the particular defect. (It’s the opposite defect as scrupulosity, actually!) It’s just my opinion that much of his work tends to enable the Cheap Grace philosophy. It’s a good point that you make that it appears to be a flaw of emphasis in his teachings, not the character of his heart.

We moderns like to be preached to in areas where we are not weak (Witness how much the happily married man desires fire and brimstone preaching on homosexuality, fornication and divorce). Give Luther his due, he tended to preach to his own weaknesses. That takes guts and commitment, virtues he had in spades.

 

[mlz]

Hi munalman: I agree. yes, Luther opened the door with a can of worms that in affect allowed others to be taken seriously who otherwise would not have been. Luther used many of Huss’s ideas in his debates in defending his own.

                   Luther did suffer severe scrupulosity and I think it is one of the root causes that led him to develop his Sola Fide doctrine. His upbringing was harsh and severe which I think also led him to have a hot temper and a big ego and stubbornness which he is rather known for. Luther was the type of person who could not take any criticism from anyone nor thought that he could ever be wrong or incorrect in his thinking, teachings, doctrines and theology. To Luther anyone who disagreed with him was wrong, plain and simple. he used slander and violent language against his opponents  that could be very crude. Luther's scrupulosity is not a disparaging since it is a symptom of his disease, which caused him to develop his doctrine of Sola Fide to alleviate it, which also led to other doctrines, teachings and theology. I also think that his upbringing is important as it also influenced his behavior, the stubbornness, big ego and hot temper, since this caused him not to accept any criticism from anyone. The more one learns the more one can either accept or not accept who Luther was and is.

.

I am currently reading a book about Luther and agree with what you have shared. I was Lutheran for over 30 years and never knew much about him. Knowing history and the history of a person and why they believe the way they do helps understanding and can better explain and develop unity rather than division. “Bashing” anyone as a rule has never been really the best way to come to any agreement. I just haven’t really seen a lot of this “bashing” Luther myself being Lutheran or now that I’m Catholic. I have experienced some Catholic “bashing” since converting- unfortunately. I pray for those who do the bashing.
Blessings in Him,
mlz