What Really Caused the Reformation?

[Teflon93]

I am no fan of Luthers but I beleive it is wrong to try and link Nazi policies against the Jews to Luther or Lutherism. As Cathikics we should be particulalry sensitive about such smears as we have suffered quite a bit of it ourselves with books like “Hitlers Pope” and other claims that the Church aided and abetted Hitler.

I didn’t link Nazism to Luther—the Nazis did, which is rather easy to do when a man who claims to speak with the mouth of Christ prints a tract advocating what Luther advocated in “On the Jews and Their Lies”.

I didn’t smear Luther; Luther smeared himself.

I’d love to see the evidence on the Catholic Church supporting Mussolini—please start a thread as appropriate.

Given that the thread is “What caused the Reformation?”, how is Luther’s character irrelevant?

Luther is not directly responsible for acts committed to some extent in his name four centuries later, surely, but his claim to be acting on Christ’s behalf and his horrible actions certainly seem to be at issue.

Protestants seem to feel that “the bad Popes” are bludgeons to be used at will against Catholics, but the Reformers are somehow too sacred to be questioned, even when simply printing their own words.

Does it not say something that one must pick and choose among Luther’s writings quite carefully so as to not be profane, much less uncharitable?

I can certainly understand why Protestants don’t want to discuss the character of the Reformers but don’t see why that is out of bounds in a thread on the Reformation’s causes.

 

[Teflon93]

Shirer is wrong to use the term “anti-Semite,” which is best avoided in speaking of the premodern era and certainly doesn’t apply to Luther, whose hostility to the Jews appears to have rested solely on religious grounds. He is quite right that Luther was useful to Hitler in getting Protestants to support him. I think the more significant issue was Luther’s view of submission to civil authorities, which Shirer exaggerates a bit but which certainly played some role in creating a culture of deference to authority and in crippling the Protestant church’s ability to stand up to Nazi idolatry. Unlike Luther’s anti-Judaism, his attitude to the civil authorities really did mark a break with Catholicism in some sense (not that 16th-century Catholics favored rebellion, but they did pose the Church as an alternate source of authority), and this is one of the reasons why Catholicism was a far more serious opponent of Nazism than Protestantism.

However, I entirely agree that Luther’s vicious language was a nice propaganda piece for the Nazis. Furthermore, I think Ani Ibi made a very telling point that Luther’s supposed “integrity and courage of purpose” would have been put to far better use fighting for better treatment of the Jews rather than (my example, not AI’s) reviling perfectly harmless and holy Carthusians as examples of self-centeredness and self-righteousness. Given Luther’s willingness to criticize certain aspects of his cultural and religious heritage, he showed very bad moral judgment in some of the things he chose not to question.

I’m even open to the argument that Luther did go beyond the tradition (at least the tradition as represented by church leaders and serious theologians, rather than politicians and rabble-rousing demagogues). I just want to see some comparative research supporting such an argument.

It would be hard to show just how much difference it made, but certainly it helped muzzle potential protests from the Protestants. And of course there’s the more complex, and probably more significant question of how much Luther’s legacy had helped keep anti-Judaism/anti-Semitism going over the centuries.

Presumably if Hitler’s program had really been “lifted directly” from Luther’s, the Lutherans would have been a bit more enthusiastic!

Edwin

You can check out Shirer on the subject—I provided the reference but lacked the space to print the whole thing. Needless to say the Lutherans have a decidedly mixed record on this point. When rushing to the barricades to denounce “Hitler’s Pope”, it’s pretty odd how quickly the Lutheran and Reformed communities’ records get glossed over. They certainly had more influence earlier in much of Germany than the Catholic Church did, and yet have not been subjected to the scorn the Pope has. Hmm…wonder why?

Luther’s moral judgment is precisely the question. One would presume that someone claiming to be the mouth of Christ and speaking and acting as Luther did would have a rather tough sales job to make.

Luther gets off scot free compared to Joseph Smith, Mohammed, and others who have made similar claims. I wonder why that is?

 

[Contarini]

I didn’t link Nazism to Luther—the Nazis did, which is rather easy to do when a man who claims to speak with the mouth of Christ prints a tract advocating what Luther advocated in “On the Jews and Their Lies”.

But as I have been pointing out repeatedly, Catholics of that era wrote vicious anti-Jewish tracts as well. There is a double standard operating here.

Given that the thread is “What caused the Reformation?”, how is Luther’s character irrelevant?

Luther is not directly responsible for acts committed to some extent in his name four centuries later, surely, but his claim to be acting on Christ’s behalf and his horrible actions certainly seem to be at issue.

Protestants seem to feel that “the bad Popes” are bludgeons to be used at will against Catholics, but the Reformers are somehow too sacred to be questioned, even when simply printing their own words.

When someone who thinks this shows up on this thread, please go at them with all your might, and I’ll help you. So far the double standard is running the other way. I do not think that the Reformers are too sacred to be questioned–I question them all the time myself. But you and Ani Ibi are the ones using the moral flaws of the Reformers as bludgeons. The fact that other unspecified Protestants do this does not justify you in doing it. It’s a silly thing to do no matter who does it.

OK, I grant that some of the posts earlier on this thread, including the one that Ani Ibi was responding to in the post that initially roused my ire, made vague statements about the corruption of the Catholic Church, etc. It is certainly fair to point out that the Reformers were themselves far from perfect. But it seems to me that the rhetoric has gone way beyond that, starting with the above-mentioned post of Ani Ibi. If you were simply saying “the Reformers did bad stuff too, so let’s wash out all the ‘corruption’ business and focus on questions of truth and falsehood,” I’d be with you 100%.

Even though that does not seem to be what you or Ani Ibi are doing, I do owe Ani an apology for not recognizing the context of his post in my initial response. I should have made it clearer that I agreed that the “moral corruption” explanation of the Reformation is woefully inadequate. And, of course, Luther himself said that this was not the main issue. The Reformation stands or falls on its claim to have recovered the Gospel. And in my opinion that means that it mostly falls. That would be true even if Luther were a spotless saint, which he certainly wasn’t.

I can certainly understand why Protestants don’t want to discuss the character of the Reformers but don’t see why that is out of bounds in a thread on the Reformation’s causes.

It’s not out of bounds insofar as Protestants are making an argument based either on the alleged moral corruption of Catholics or on the good moral character of the Reformers. I suppose that as a Reformation scholar I tend to dismiss these sorts of arguments from the start and am not sympathetic enough with Catholics who have to deal with this nonsense all the time.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You can check out Shirer on the subject—I provided the reference but lacked the space to print the whole thing. Needless to say the Lutherans have a decidedly mixed record on this point. When rushing to the barricades to denounce “Hitler’s Pope”, it’s pretty odd how quickly the Lutheran and Reformed communities’ records get glossed over. They certainly had more influence earlier in much of Germany than the Catholic Church did, and yet have not been subjected to the scorn the Pope has. Hmm…wonder why?

I guess this is true in the popular media. It’s certainly not true in academic circles. Even the Confessional Church, founded specifically to resist Nazi idolatry, has gotten quite a beating in recent years along much the same grounds as the (more thoughtful and serious) criticisms of the Vatican–i.e., even though the Confessing folks clearly opposed Nazism, they opposed it on specifically Christian grounds and maintained a traditional Christian view of Judaism, and therefore their opposition doesn’t really “count.”

Part of my problem on these threads is that I come with certain issues and questions about Catholicism which are (at the risk of sounding arrogant and pompous) rather different from the typical stuff that gets thrown around by anti-Catholics. Since I don’t find the more anti-Catholic versions of Protestantism even remotely plausible, I tend to ignore those posts unless forced to pay attention to them. But since I do continue to struggle with the question of the truth of Catholicism and no doubt always will unless/until I become Catholic, I respond more emotionally to the posts that defend Catholicism in what strike me as indefensible ways. If you look at my posts in general, you’ll see that I have no use for most of the arguments posed by Protestants on this forum. But I need to make that clearer when responding to Catholic posts, and I apologize for not doing so.

Luther’s moral judgment is precisely the question. One would presume that someone claiming to be the mouth of Christ and speaking and acting as Luther did would have a rather tough sales job to make.

Luther gets off scot free compared to Joseph Smith, Mohammed, and others who have made similar claims. I wonder why that is?

Well, his claims were not quite on that level, first of all. Yes, I know he referred to himself as a prophet, but he revealed no new Scripture, and all his teachings were supposedly based on the Scriptures already revealed to the Church. That’s why I think attacking his character is unnecessary. If his ideas are bad (many of them are), they can surely be shown to be bad without regard to Luther’s personal character. However, pointing out Luther’s flaws is relevant when you run into Protestants who have a hagiographic view of him and who accept some of his ideas on the grounds that Luther was such a heroic, prophetic figure that he must have gotten something right.

Generally speaking, I’m not fond of the personal-attack approach with regard to Joseph Smith or Muhammad either. Although they did claim to bring new revelation (as Luther did not), their teachings do not strike me as the sort of thing that God would reveal. So I really don’t care what sort of people they were, except for the sake of their own souls. Generally speaking, it’s better to pray for the dead rather than analyzing their character.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Agreed, unless of course the Catholic Church wants to take responsibility for Mussolini and Franco as well.

For that matter, Hitler was a Catholic insofar as he was anything–he was certainly never a Lutheran. And his initial base of operations was in heavily Catholic Bavaria. Luther mattered to him as a great national hero, certainly (and undoubtedly German nationalism was Hitler’s real religion–I am not claiming that he was Catholic by profession or belief or practice, and apparently even his baptism is somewhat in doubt, although it’s probable that he was baptized). But not all Germans were/are Protestants by any means, and Hitler was in fact one of the ones who wasn’t. So I think these links between Luther and Hitler can easily be taken too far. And there were quite a lot of German Catholics who supported Hitler, presumably not because he had Luther on his side. . . .

Edwin

 

[Teflon93]

But as I have been pointing out repeatedly, Catholics of that era wrote vicious anti-Jewish tracts as well. There is a double standard operating here.

Not on my part—feel free to post links, provide references, or give examples of these. The trouble is that this is a thread on what caused the Reformation, so if you want another thread on Catholic anti-Semitism, it would be best to start one. If you feel that Catholic anti-Semitism contributed to causing the Reformation, you could make that argument here.

I think the intolerance of the Reformers WAS a cause of the Reformation. Luther was offered Christian charity at a number of turns by various Catholics; he would have none of it. Nothing but Luther as Pope would do for him. The tract against the Jews is an example of both Luther’s intolerance and his response to anyone who disagreed with him. That seems to be directly on topic.

When someone who thinks this shows up on this thread, please go at them with all your might, and I’ll help you. So far the double standard is running the other way. I do not think that the Reformers are too sacred to be questioned–I question them all the time myself. But you and Ani Ibi are the ones using the moral flaws of the Reformers as bludgeons. The fact that other unspecified Protestants do this does not justify you in doing it. It’s a silly thing to do no matter who does it.

Well, your mileage may vary. The thread is on causes of the Reformation. Is not the unChristian behavior of the Reformers not a valid topic for discussion regarding this point?

OK, I grant that some of the posts earlier on this thread, including the one that Ani Ibi was responding to in the post that initially roused my ire, made vague statements about the corruption of the Catholic Church, etc. It is certainly fair to point out that the Reformers were themselves far from perfect. But it seems to me that the rhetoric has gone way beyond that, starting with the above-mentioned post of Ani Ibi. If you were simply saying “the Reformers did bad stuff too, so let’s wash out all the ‘corruption’ business and focus on questions of truth and falsehood,” I’d be with you 100%.

All well and good, but I’ll make my arguments and you make yours. Mine are concerning what caused the Reformation. I don’t see how your formulation bears on this point, even if I were making a moral equivalence argument.

Even though that does not seem to be what you or Ani Ibi are doing, I do owe Ani an apology for not recognizing the context of his post in my initial response. I should have made it clearer that I agreed that the “moral corruption” explanation of the Reformation is woefully inadequate. And, of course, Luther himself said that this was not the main issue. The Reformation stands or falls on its claim to have recovered the Gospel. And in my opinion that means that it mostly falls. That would be true even if Luther were a spotless saint, which he certainly wasn’t.

Okay, but let’s avoid more sleight of hand. Luther claimed to speak with the mouth of Christ, not merely to be interpreting the Gospel in a novel way. When one claims to be the mouthpiece of the Lord, one’s conduct and what one says need to be put to the test. That is a higher standard Luther’s claimed for himself than merely not being a mass murderer or something. Does it trouble you that Luther said and wrote what he did while claiming to speak with Christ’s mouth? Do you think Luther spoke with Christ’s mouth?

It’s not out of bounds insofar as Protestants are making an argument based either on the alleged moral corruption of Catholics or on the good moral character of the Reformers. I suppose that as a Reformation scholar I tend to dismiss these sorts of arguments from the start and am not sympathetic enough with Catholics who have to deal with this nonsense all the time.

Edwin

Well, fair enough, but the Reformers make claims and those claims must be tested. If someone claims to have discovered a higher morality, it is only fair to ask on what authority they make such claims, and to see whether word and deed match them. That is what we’re doing. If it feels like a bludgeon, might it not be because it’s an effective rather than unfair line of inquiry?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

When rushing to the barricades to denounce “Hitler’s Pope”, it’s pretty odd how quickly the Lutheran and Reformed communities’ records get glossed over. They certainly had more influence earlier in much of Germany than the Catholic Church did, and yet have not been subjected to the scorn the Pope has. Hmm…wonder why?

Luther’s moral judgment is precisely the question. One would presume that someone claiming to be the mouth of Christ and speaking and acting as Luther did would have a rather tough sales job to make.

Luther gets off scot free compared to Joseph Smith, Mohammed, and others who have made similar claims. I wonder why that is?

Contarini:

Shirer is wrong to use the term “anti-Semite,” which is best avoided in speaking of the premodern era and certainly doesn’t apply to Luther, whose hostility to the Jews appears to have rested solely on religious grounds.

It’s a bit of a stretch claiming that Luther’s hostility appears to have rested ‘only religious grounds’, particularly in the absence of any substantiation. Much is glossed over in this statement.

Many folks had religious opinions, religious teachings which they wanted to see widely held, religious heros, and so on. But did they go to the lengths that Luther did? No. Even given the robustness of public debate in that era, Luther’s short temper, vitriolic invective, and explosive rage stand out as bizarrely disproportionate.

One has to wonder at the cause of that, particularly given his own admission that entering the monastery as a youth saved him from being murdered by his own parents. This, at least, is what he believed to be the case. If he believed this to be the case, then we have to entertain the notion that Luther may have had some monkeys on his back which were personal, not religious.

In any case, whatever the ‘grounds’ for the ‘anti-Semiticism’ of Luther, there seems to be persistent efforts to gloss over or excuse or contextualize his anti-Jewish program away into insignifance and thereby to let him off the hook for it.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the man was a man of God, a monk, a brilliant Biblical scholar, had the benefit of kind fellows from the monastery – he should have known better than to fly into rages over the Jews not wanting to convert to his new religion.

Luther said what he said. He did what he did. It is what it is. There is no back door. How on earth was he not responsible for what he said and did?

You pounced on evidence suggesting that the Reformers engaged in forcible conversion, wanting this and that and this in the form of evidence, when in fact I had provided evidence. You unilaterally decided that my abridged excerpts did not meet your standards. They were ‘outdated’: a very peculiar comment for a historian!

Tell me then,
what was Luther’s Jewish program
if not a program of forcible conversion
for the Jews?

I also must take issue once again at the protests lodged against any posts which call the early Reformers on the mat for their violence. It goes without saying that many modern-day Reformers on this forum denounce violence. Calling Luther and Calvin on the mat in no way reflects on the more temperate among you.

Yet some of you would prefer that some of us might place the violence of Luther and Calvin on a no-go list and ignore the elephant in the room. To do that imho would be to disrespect the free exchange of ideas which is discussion and therefore would be not only unwarranted but irresponsible on our part. Why?

Because how can folks exercise free will
if they have gaps in the information
available to them?

 

[rr1213]

For that matter, Hitler was a Catholic insofar as he was anything–he was certainly never a Lutheran. And his initial base of operations was in heavily Catholic Bavaria. Luther mattered to him as a great national hero, certainly (and undoubtedly German nationalism was Hitler’s real religion–I am not claiming that he was Catholic by profession or belief or practice, and apparently even his baptism is somewhat in doubt, although it’s probable that he was baptized). But not all Germans were/are Protestants by any means, and Hitler was in fact one of the ones who wasn’t. So I think these links between Luther and Hitler can easily be taken too far. And there were quite a lot of German Catholics who supported Hitler, presumably not because he had Luther on his side. . . .

Edwin

Yes, and Hitler was also an Austrian. Moreover, after the Anschluss of 1938 when Germany “acquired” Austria, there were even more Catholics under the jurisdiction of the Third Reich.

 

[Contarini]

Not on my part—feel free to post links, provide references, or give examples of these. The trouble is that this is a thread on what caused the Reformation, so if you want another thread on Catholic anti-Semitism, it would be best to start one. If you feel that Catholic anti-Semitism contributed to causing the Reformation, you could make that argument here.

If we really cared about keeping on topic, we wouldn’t have brought up the Nazi link at all, would we? (I say “we” not to be coy but because I accept partial responsibility for the digression.) Obviously Hitler’s use of Luther’s anti-Jewish tract was not a cause of the Reformation, but Ani Ibi chose to bring it up. I am simply challenging him and you to make a comparative argument that says something significant about what if anything Luther added to the sad tradition of Christian anti-Judaism (not anti-Semitism, which is different though related).

I probably should have started a new thread when I first responded to Ani Ibi, clarifying that I agreed with him that some kind of simple revulsion of noble souls against corruption certainly does not explain the Reformation, given that the Reformers continued many of the things that modern people find repellent about pre-Reformation Christianity.

I think the intolerance of the Reformers WAS a cause of the Reformation. Luther was offered Christian charity at a number of turns by various Catholics; he would have none of it. Nothing but Luther as Pope would do for him. The tract against the Jews is an example of both Luther’s intolerance and his response to anyone who disagreed with him. That seems to be directly on topic.

And that is why my comparative challenge is equally on topic. If the tract against the Jews is really an example of Luther’s personal intolerance rather than of the general Christian attitude to Jews, it should be possible to show this by a comparative analysis.

 

[Contarini]

I am interested in knowing who these Catholics were who responded to Luther with “Christian charity” and how you think that was significant (I think this is actually a rather patronizing statement–Luther didn’t need Christian charity, he needed to have his substantive theological arguments addressed; charity is not a substitute for truth, and both Luther and his Catholic opponents knew that quite well). Certainly there were Catholic theologians who made reasonable and fairly irenic arguments, and Luther basically slapped them down–even the very Lutheran scholar Martin Brecht admits this in his biography of Luther. Certainly Rome’s approach to Luther was relatively slow and restrained (partly because Luther was protected by Elector Frederick and for political reasons no one wanted to tangle with him, but also I think because that’s how Rome generally does things), and Cajetan did not arrest Luther in 1518 as he could have done. But neither did he engage with the substance of Luther’s arguments–he seems to have simply appealed to authority. That wasn’t going to work for Luther (who didn’t trust Italians anyway). Both the silly Protestant claim that “Luther didn’t leave, he was kicked out” and the Catholic claim that Luther was treated with every consideration are wide of the mark. Luther and the theologians from Rome were talking past each other. They didn’t have enough common ground to come to any sort of agreement, unfortunately. And it didn’t help that the Roman theologians and canon lawyers tended to maintain a fairly extreme “papalism” in the late stages of the conciliarist controversy.

Okay, but let’s avoid more sleight of hand.

Certainly. And accusing one’s opponent of “sleight of hand” just because you don’t like his arguments is itself a form of sleight of hand It’s argument by labels.

Luther claimed to speak with the mouth of Christ, not merely to be interpreting the Gospel in a novel way.

In Luther’s theology (and I believe in orthodox Christianity generally), anyone proclaiming the Gospel is speaking with the mouth of Christ. You are making way too much of this phrase. Obviously Luther didn’t think he was interpreting the Gospel in a novel way (though he certainly was), he thought he was recovering something that had been long obscured and in recent centuries even denied.

When one claims to be the mouthpiece of the Lord, one’s conduct and what one says need to be put to the test.

Obviously this would apply at least as much to the Popes, and we’re back to the tired old “bad Pope” argument. Can’t we actually talk about ideas for a change?

Does it trouble you that Luther said and wrote what he did while claiming to speak with Christ’s mouth? Do you think Luther spoke with Christ’s mouth?

Anyone who proclaims the Gospel speaks with Christ’s mouth, so you are simply asking if I think Luther correctly proclaimed the Gospel. And my answer is that in some ways he did, and in some ways he didn’t–like every other Christian theologian. But his arrogant claims to have gotten the Gospel right when most other people around him (and most theologians for centuries) had gotten it wrong, he put himself outside the checks and balances of Christian tradition and wrought devastating havoc on the Church.

Well, fair enough, but the Reformers make claims and those claims must be tested. If someone claims to have discovered a higher morality,

Which Luther did not.

That is what we’re doing. If it feels like a bludgeon, might it not be because it’s an effective rather than unfair line of inquiry?

No, it feels like a bludgeon because it’s crude, clumsy, and irrelevant. When a confessional Lutheran who really thinks Luther was a great prophet who basically got everything right shows up on this board, you can use your bludgeon all you like. Until then put the bludgeon up and try having a serious conversation about theology and history. Wouldn’t that be fun?

Edwin

 

[Janet_S]

I’m sure all the atheists and agnostics–those who blame Christianity for all the atrocities in history–are loving this exchange. I’m sure it confirms their worst suspicions.

Of course, those of us aware of the reality of original sin view history in a different light.

As far as Hitler goes, he was his own God. He didn’t give a hoot either for what Catholicism taught or for what Luther taught unless he felt it supported his dogma. If Luther were alive during Hitler’s time, he probably would have ended up in a work camp.

 

[Teflon93]

For that matter, Hitler was a Catholic insofar as he was anything–he was certainly never a Lutheran. And his initial base of operations was in heavily Catholic Bavaria. Luther mattered to him as a great national hero, certainly (and undoubtedly German nationalism was Hitler’s real religion–I am not claiming that he was Catholic by profession or belief or practice, and apparently even his baptism is somewhat in doubt, although it’s probable that he was baptized). But not all Germans were/are Protestants by any means, and Hitler was in fact one of the ones who wasn’t. So I think these links between Luther and Hitler can easily be taken too far. And there were quite a lot of German Catholics who supported Hitler, presumably not because he had Luther on his side. . . .

Edwin

I encourage everyone once again to read Shirer, who is quite thorough in his treatment of the subject (although necessarily brief) and is still the gold standard for Nazi history.

The point of the notation was to highlight Luther’s intolerance and its tragic history.

One should also note that based on the excerpt from Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies” the Nazis weren’t simply inspired by Luther—they implemented his plan. That’s quite different than whatever Nazi support you wish to ascribe to German Catholics (and which you haven’t provided supporting evidence of as of yet).

The unchallenged answer to the thread question, once again, seems to be, “The intolerance of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.”

 

[Teflon93]

I’m sure all the atheists and agnostics–those who blame Christianity for all the atrocities in history–are loving this exchange. I’m sure it confirms their worst suspicions.

Of course, those of us aware of the reality of original sin view history in a different light.

As far as Hitler goes, he was his own God. He didn’t give a hoot either for what Catholicism taught or for what Luther taught unless he felt it supported his dogma. If Luther were alive during Hitler’s time, he probably would have ended up in a work camp.

Have you read Luther’s tract or Shirer’s account of how it played into the Nazi program, Janet?

Again, the point of the linkage is not to engage in argumentum ad hitlerum, but to point out that Luther and the other Reformers’ epic lack of tolerance is the root cause of the Reformation. The reason for all the very interesting rabbit trails seems to be the inability of those who have read the Reformers in their own words to refute this argument.

It is an important one because many of us were raised on a mythology of the Reformation and are unaware of some basic facts regarding the men who led it and their conduct.

Given that these events occurred a full millennium and a half after Christ’s resurrection, how does that reasonably impact atheists and agnostics as it changes not one jot the essential truth of Christianity?

 

[Teflon93]

If we really cared about keeping on topic, we wouldn’t have brought up the Nazi link at all, would we? (I say “we” not to be coy but because I accept partial responsibility for the digression.) Obviously Hitler’s use of Luther’s anti-Jewish tract was not a cause of the Reformation, but Ani Ibi chose to bring it up. I am simply challenging him and you to make a comparative argument that says something significant about what if anything Luther added to the sad tradition of Christian anti-Judaism (not anti-Semitism, which is different though related).

I probably should have started a new thread when I first responded to Ani Ibi, clarifying that I agreed with him that some kind of simple revulsion of noble souls against corruption certainly does not explain the Reformation, given that the Reformers continued many of the things that modern people find repellent about pre-Reformation Christianity.

And that is why my comparative challenge is equally on topic. If the tract against the Jews is really an example of Luther’s personal intolerance rather than of the general Christian attitude to Jews, it should be possible to show this by a comparative analysis.

Well, post your references and people may read them side-by-side.

Are you claiming Luther was not intolerant, and that his intolerance was not a root cause of the Reformation?

 

[Teflon93]

I am interested in knowing who these Catholics were who responded to Luther with “Christian charity”

How about Pope Leo X and Erasmus for starters? Let’s not pretend this isn’t widely known among academics. The correspondence exists and people can read it for themselves.

Certainly Rome’s approach to Luther was relatively slow and restrained (partly because Luther was protected by Elector Frederick and for political reasons no one wanted to tangle with him, but also I think because that’s how Rome generally does things), and Cajetan did not arrest Luther in 1518 as he could have done.

Okay, let’s apply your standard here. Show me comparitively where Rome’s stance toward rebels was worse than 16th century secular rulers.

Luther and the theologians from Rome were talking past each other. They didn’t have enough common ground to come to any sort of agreement, unfortunately. And it didn’t help that the Roman theologians and canon lawyers tended to maintain a fairly extreme “papalism” in the late stages of the conciliarist controversy.

Rank revisionism. Why did Rome issue the 41 corrections to Luther’s 95 Theses? Why didn’t they simply excommunicate him then and there? Or after many of his screeds were circulated? You might want to refer to a chronology.

Certainly. And accusing one’s opponent of “sleight of hand” just because you don’t like his arguments is itself a form of sleight of hand It’s argument by labels.

Throwing out non sequiturs by the bushel is not an argument. Sleight of hand is when you knowingly shift frames of references to avoid engagement on the points of an argument. I explain where you do it. Anyone reading can judge for themselves, but should note you have yet to address the argument.

I’ll put it quite simply:

What really caused the Reformation is the intolerance of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.

Possible lines of attack on this argument include:

1. Luther, Zwingli and Calvin were not intolerant.
2. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin’s intolerance did not cause the Reformation.

In Luther’s theology (and I believe in orthodox Christianity generally), anyone proclaiming the Gospel is speaking with the mouth of Christ. You are making way too much of this phrase. Obviously Luther didn’t think he was interpreting the Gospel in a novel way (though he certainly was), he thought he was recovering something that had been long obscured and in recent centuries even denied.

Please feel free to provide contemporary examples of deacons claiming to speak with the mouth of Christ. It is an extraordinary claim in any age.

Please highlight from Luther’s voluminous writings where he claimed that his Gospel interpretation of sola scriptura or sola fide was in no way novel. Reading him in his own words is to be preferred to yours as you are not Luther. Luther thought many contradictory things at many different times and was renowned for his inconstancy. You do know that, right?

Obviously this would apply at least as much to the Popes, and we’re back to the tired old “bad Pope” argument. Can’t we actually talk about ideas for a change?

Here’s another example of sleight of hand. Notice how you try to change the subject, first to the conduct of popes (relevant only if you think Pope Leo X caused the Reformation, which you haven’t explained), then completely to a nebulous exchange of ideas.

We are discussing ideas. The idea that the intolerance of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin caused the Reformation.

Anyone who proclaims the Gospel speaks with Christ’s mouth, so you are simply asking if I think Luther correctly proclaimed the Gospel. And my answer is that in some ways he did, and in some ways he didn’t–like every other Christian theologian. .

Here’s a prime example of sleight of hand. I asked you if you thought Luther spoke with Christ’s mouth. You redefined “speaking with Christ’s mouth” to be “reading the Gospel.” I did not ask whether Luther read the Gospel.

No, it feels like a bludgeon because it’s crude, clumsy, and irrelevant. When a confessional Lutheran who really thinks Luther was a great prophet who basically got everything right shows up on this board, you can use your bludgeon all you like. Until then put the bludgeon up and try having a serious conversation about theology and history. Wouldn’t that be fun?

Edwin

By now, everyone’s seen this trick a hundred times, so I don’t need to explain it.

Please refer above to the argument, and either engage it, or find some other audience for your magic show, Edwin.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Teflon93:

Again, the point of the linkage is not to engage in argumentum ad hitlerum, but to point out that Luther and the other Reformers’ epic lack of tolerance is the root cause of the Reformation.

The Reformation in turn laid the foundation for many revolutionary upheavals in Western society.

Above and beyond that, as you have pointed out, Hitler did not merely take advantage of those social changes, Hitler appropriated Luther’s anti-Jewish program. In fact the burning of the synagogues was in commemoration of Luther’s birthday!

Some folks have said that Hitler was Catholic. Some have said he was pagan. The relevant factor is that Hitler could not have done what he did without the lasting political and spiritual upheaval caused by the Reformation; one of the most critical aspects of which was caesaropapism and nationalism run amok. The Reformist leaders were autocrats. Dissent meant death.

Teflon93:

Given that these events occurred a full millennium and a half after Christ’s resurrection, how does that reasonably impact atheists and agnostics as it changes not one jot the essential truth of Christianity?

Shall we hide what happened so that atheists and agnostics may look at Christianity in a rosier light? Tell me, if we sit here smiling while ignoring the elephant in the room, what kind of impression does that give atheists and agnostics of Christianity? How can we expect them to trust us if we withhold information from them and thus, seek to erode their free will?

[SIGN]
People who have nothing to hide
hide nothing!
[/SIGN]

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them.

Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. Mt 7:15-20 Read more

Catholics have made mistakes. We have confessed them and are still in the process of confessing them. We are sorry for our mistakes. We are making amends for our mistakes. Why are some folks holding up the founders of Reformism to a different standard?

Christianity is about repentance and surrendering our sins and frailties to God. It is by God’s grace that sinful lives are transformed into blessed lives, examples for others to follow. God does not choose good people. God makes good people.

 

[estesbob]

Have you read Luther’s tract or Shirer’s account of how it played into the Nazi program, Janet?

Again, the point of the linkage is not to engage in argumentum ad hitlerum, but to point out that Luther and the other Reformers’ epic lack of tolerance is the root cause of the Reformation. The reason for all the very interesting rabbit trails seems to be the inability of those who have read the Reformers in their own words to refute this argument.

It is an important one because many of us were raised on a mythology of the Reformation and are unaware of some basic facts regarding the men who led it and their conduct.

Given that these events occurred a full millennium and a half after Christ’s resurrection, how does that reasonably impact atheists and agnostics as it changes not one jot the essential truth of Christianity?

What Luther said about the Jews is not nearly as troubling as what he did to Christians.

 

[Teflon93]

What Luther said about the Jews is not nearly as troubling as what he did to Christians.

Good point. What he said left a paper trail, what he did a trail of blood.

Unfortunately, we cannot question the 100,000 dead German peasants interred after Luther encouraged their slaughter.

We do, however, have the document in which he did so, “Agains the Murderous Peasants”. Here is a taste of it:

Let all who are able, cut them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret, and remember that there is nothing more poisonous, noxious and utterly devilish than a rebel… For we are come upon such strange times that a prince may more easily win heaven by the shedding of blood than others by prayers.

It is this epic, unChristian intolerance which so characterized Luther and led to the Reformation. His writings are rife with such things, as anyone who cares to read them may attest.

It is his hatred of those who disagreed with him, in matters large, small, or trivial, and his willingness to act upon these hatreds which were the engine of the Reformation.

 

[estesbob]

Good point. What he said left a paper trail, what he did a trail of blood.

Unfortunately, we cannot question the 100,000 dead German peasants interred after Luther encouraged their slaughter.

.

Not to mention the untold millions & millions of souls put in jeapordy.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

estesbob:

What Luther said about the Jews is not nearly as troubling as what he did to Christians.

To Catholics to be sure. But to fellow Reformers! Disproportionate took on a whole new meaning.

+ Luther: If you understand the Gospel rightly, I beseech you not to believe that it can be carried on without tumult, scandal, sedition … The word of God is a sword, is war, is ruin, is scandal …

Calvin to Melanchthon: It is indeed important that posterity should not know of our differences; for it is indescribably ridiculous that we, who are in opposition to the whole world, should be, at the very beginning of the Reformation, at issue among ourselves."

Melanchthon to Calvin: All the waters of the Elbe would not yield me tears sufficient to weep for the miseries caused by the Reformation.

Auguste Comte: The intolerance of Protestantism was certainly not less tyrannical than that with which Catholicism is so much reproached…

What makes, however, Protestant persecutions specially revolting is the fact that they were absolutely inconsistent with the primary doctrine of Protestantism - the right of private judgment in matters of religious belief!

Nothing can be more illogical than at one moment to assert that one may interpret the Bible to suit himself, and at the next to torture and kill him for having done so!

+ Inspired by the writings of Luther and others, which declared the Freedom of the Christian Man, and led by Thomas Muntzer, an ex-pupil of Luther’s, German peasants demanded to be freed from Serfdom, joining in the Great Peasants Revolt.

They hoped for Luther’s support. But Luther owed his protection and high position to the German aristocrats. So instead, in a pamphlet entitled Against the Murderous Peasants, Luther [said]

Let all who are able, cut them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret, and remember that there is nothing more poisonous, noxious and utterly devilish than a rebel… For we are come upon such strange times that a prince may more easily win heaven by the shedding of blood than others by prayers.

[Here I am not going to quote the extraordinary savagery with which these poor innocents were cut down.] In all more than 100,000 peasants were slain. Embittered with Luther, the German peasants named him Dr Lugner, or “Dr Liar” in English. The advance of Lutheranism in Germany stopped.