When was the belief in the Bible alone first mentioned?

[benjohnson]

I think you are being at least as unfair to the Reformed as the Catholics are being to you.

Edwin

You caught me! Sorry Reformed!

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

The sentence of degradation against Hus by the Council of Constance pretty clearly implies that Hus had refused to accept the Council’s authority. If he had, he wouldn’t have been handed over to the secular authorities as an impenitent heretic.

Of course, the problem with the authority of Councils is that one can always say that a given Council isn’t a true one. Eck got Luther in a corner by pointing out that a particular well-established Council had condemned ideas identical to those Luther was maintaining. And Luther, after vainly trying to wriggle out of this, appealed to the authority of Scripture over Councils.

I don’t think we basically disagree here. I think that given Wyclif and Hus’ ecclesiology, in which only the Church of the elect really matters, it’s fair to say that they, like Luther later, rejected the authority of both Pope and Councils. But perhaps I’m wrong. It wasn’t my main point.

I don’t think we basically disagree either. I said that nobody prior to Luther rejected the authority of BOTH Councils and the Pope and of course I meant except for those whom the Church judged to be heretics.

What I find astonishing about Leipzig is how easily Eck maneuvered Luther into declaring a heretical position. For at least 16 months Luther knew that Eck was going to try to paint him into a corner on the matter of being a Hussite. And he STILL waltzed right up to the edge of the cliff and jumped off. Even more astonishing is how this was done.

You would think that given 16 months to prepare for the very much hoped for debate, Luther would have taken the time to look into the teachings of Huss, and Constance’s findings against him, at least a little bit. But he didn’t. In my opinion we learn much about Martin Luther from the record of the Leipzig Debate.

“During the debate he changed his opinion on the authority of Councils, and thereby injured his cause in the estimation of the audience. **Being charged by Eck with holding the heresy of Hus, he at first repudiated him and all schismatic tendencies; but on mature reflection he declared that Hus had held some scriptural truths, and was unjustly condemned and burned by the Council of Constance; that a general council as well as a Pope may err, and had no right to impose any article of faith not founded in Scriptures…
**
(After Leipzig): Luther himself was greatly dissatisfied, and regarded the disputation as a mere waste of time…

The importance of this theological tournament lies in this: that it marks a progress in Luther’s emancipation from the papal system, Here for the first time he denied the divine right and origin of the papacy, and the infallibility of a general council. Henceforth he had nothing left but the divine Scriptures, his private judgment, and his faith in God who guides the course of history by his own Spirit, through all obstructions by human errors, to a glorious end.” Philip Schaff, “The History of the Christian Church”, Chapter III, 37

Thus Lutheranism was forged out of one man’s Private Interpretation.

What was this ‘mature reflection’ that caused Luther to completely change his position to one which even he knew would brand him as a blatant heretic? After being accused of being a Hussite and calling Eck a liar for it at the end of a morning session, Luther spent his lunch break at the University of Leipzig library (finally) read the findings of Constance against Hus. He returned after this ‘mature reflection’ and completely changed his position.

“One of Luther’s difficulties, as his protest gained momentum, was **how to counter the accusation that he was nothing but a Bohemian and a Hussite. **It was an electrifying and important moment at the Disputation of Leipzig (1519), where his opponent, Johann Eck, had opportunistically accused him of being tarred with Hus’s brush, **when Luther returned to the fray after some reading over lunch to announce that, so far as he can see, some of the doctrines of for which Hus had been condemned were Christian and Evangelical. We were all Hussites without knowing it, or at least we ought to be. This was as much to say that not only popes but a General Council such as Constance could err.” **Patrick Collinson, “The Reformation – A History”, pg. 30.

There is a great deal more detail of the Leipzig Debate which fleshes this out. As we know Eck defeated Luther at Leipzig. If Protestantism could even remotely portray Luther as having won, the Leipzig Debate would be a well-known event. My guess is that not 1% of Protestants have ever heard of it.

What is important is the reason why Luther was defeated by Eck. It wasn’t because Eck was a better debater, or a better Scholar, or more intelligent, or better educated. Although he was all of that and more, what sealed Luther’s fate was that he entered Leipzig with several very key misunderstandings of Christian history. Had he understood Christian history better he might not have found it possible to come to the ‘conclusions’ that he did at Leipzig and before.

It was here at the most important debate in Christian history that Luther was cornered into admitting something that Eck knew 16 months earlier – that Luther’s beliefs could lead only to a position that was completely incompatible with Catholic teaching. Eck knew that and a couple of dozen Catholic Theologians had warned Luther that this was the case, but he didn’t see it until Leipzig, and never being one to back down, at Leipzig and after, all he could do was double down.

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Goya]

Hi Edwin,

…What I find astonishing about Leipzig is how easily Eck maneuvered Luther into declaring a heretical position. For at least 16 months Luther knew that Eck was going to try to paint him into a corner on the matter of being a Hussite. And he STILL waltzed right up to the edge of the cliff and jumped off. Even more astonishing is how this was done.

You would think that given 16 months to prepare for the very much hoped for debate, Luther would have taken the time to look into the teachings of Huss, and Constance’s findings against him, at least a little bit. But he didn’t. In my opinion we learn much about Martin Luther from the record of the Leipzig Debate.

…

Thus Lutheranism was forged out of one man’s Private Interpretation.

What was this ‘mature reflection’ that caused Luther to completely change his position to one which even he knew would brand him as a blatant heretic? After being accused of being a Hussite and calling Eck a liar for it at the end of a morning session, Luther spent his lunch break at the University of Leipzig library (finally) read the findings of Constance against Hus. He returned after this ‘mature reflection’ and completely changed his position.

“One of Luther’s difficulties, as his protest gained momentum, was **how to counter the accusation that he was nothing but a Bohemian and a Hussite. **It was an electrifying and important moment at the Disputation of Leipzig (1519), where his opponent, Johann Eck, had opportunistically accused him of being tarred with Hus’s brush, **when Luther returned to the fray after some reading over lunch **to announce that, so far as he can see, some of the doctrines of for which Hus had been condemned were Christian and Evangelical. We were all Hussites without knowing it, or at least we ought to be. This was as much to say that not only popes but a General Council such as Constance could err.” Patrick Collinson, “The Reformation – A History”, pg. 30.
…

It was here at the most important debate in Christian history that Luther was cornered into admitting something that Eck knew 16 months earlier – that Luther’s beliefs could lead only to a position that was completely incompatible with Catholic teaching. Eck knew that and a couple of dozen Catholic Theologians had warned Luther that this was the case, but he didn’t see it until Leipzig, and never being one to back down, at Leipzig and after, all he could do was double down.

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

Informative post, Topper.

It never ceases to amaze me, how the protestants disdain the veneration of the Saints…while venerating Martin Luther, and the founders of the Reformation.

So many of our separated brethren get down right defensive about Luther–yet the way he conducted himself, was simply embarrassing. He was an immature child. While Steve B’s use of the world ‘merely’ about that letter Luther wrote, got so much attention–here’s what caught mine:

I will not allow the papists to judge for their ears continue to be too
long and their hee-haws too weak for them to be critical of my translating…

   They know it less than even*** the miller's donkey*** for they have
   never tried it....

   ...
   Returning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a
   great fuss about the word "alone" (sola), say this to him: "Dr.
   Martin Luther will have it so and he says that ***a papist and an ***
   are the same thing***."  ...I will brag over ***these asses of mine!***  ...

    Please do not give ***these asses*** any other answer to 
    ***their useless         braying***   about that word "sola" than simply 
    "Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors."
   Let it remain at that.  I will, from now on, hold them in contempt, and have
   already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of
   people that ***they are - asses***, I should say.  And there are ***brazen
   idiots*** among them who have never learned their own art of
   sophistry - like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose, and such like them.

…

   ***An *** truly does not have to
   sing much as he is already known for his ears***.

…
And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same
time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -
…

I will not tolerate some papal *** or mule as my
critic, or judge.

…

   So out with it, ****you papal asses!****  ...

   Martin Luther,
   Your good friend.
   The Wilderness, September 8, 1530

No wonder he failed out of law school. Can you imagine hiring an attorney who can’t control his emotions, who immaturely represents your cause, couched in *** jive turkey street smack***–maybe appropriate for a message board, but hardly betraying any dignity, let alone the dignity appropriate to the subject matter–the Word of God?

His immaturity, narcissism, and egocentric orientation, were fertile grounds for the devil’s work. He was a clown and a buffoon.

…and yet some would dare suggest that I owe such a fool, any degree of respect at all? As if he ever showed anyone else, any degree of respect?

How about I say a little brayer for him–in honor of the respect he showed his adversaries (and how it reflected on him).

 

[SyroMalankara]

What exactly was the Hussite heresy? I keep seeing that “Huss was unjustly burned at the stake” from anti-Catholic and even some Catholic sites, but what was Huss’ and his followers actual heretical position - which is rarely mentioned. He is usually upheld as a martyr by non-Catholics, including some Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Goya]

What exactly was the Hussite heresy? I keep seeing that “Huss was unjustly burned at the stake” from anti-Catholic and even some Catholic sites, but what was Huss’ and his followers actual heretical position - which is rarely mentioned. He is usually upheld as a martyr by non-Catholics, including some Eastern Orthodox.

From St. Alphonsus de Liguori’s History of Heresies:

ARTICLE V. - HERESIES OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. - THE HERESY OF JOHN HUSS, -]AND JEROME OF PRAGUE. - 39.-John Huss’s character, and the commencement of his Heresy./-] 40.-His Errors. 41. -He is condemned in a Synod. -]42.-Council of Constance he is obliged to appear at it. 43. -He comes to Constance, and endeavours to escape. 44, 45. -He presents himself before the Council, and continues obstinate. 46.-He is condemned to death, and burned. 47.-Jerome of Prague is also burned alive for his obstinacy. 48.-Wars of the Hussites they are conquered and converted./-]

…

1. He next translated some of Wickliffe’s works into Bohemian, especially the Trialogue, the worst of them all. He was joined at once by several Priests of relaxed morals, and also by several Doctors, discontented with the unjust distribution of church patronage, which was too often conferred on persons whose only qualification was nobility of birth, while humble virtue and learning was neglected. Among the Doctors who joined him was Jerome of Prague, who, in the year 1408, had, like Huss, condemned the errors of Wickliffe, but now turned round, and even accused the Council of Constance of injustice, for condemning them. Sbinko, Archbishop of Prague, summoned a Synod, which was attended by the most famous Doctors, and condemned the propositions broached by Huss, and he was so enraged at this, that he endeavoured to stir up the people to oppose it; the Archbishop, accordingly, excommunicated him, and sent a copy of the condemnation of his doctrine to Pope Alexander V., but Huss appealed to the
   Pope, who was badly informed, he said, of the matter, and in the meantime, the Archbishop died, and thus Bohemia became a prey to heresy. Huss was now joined by Jacobellus of Misnia, and Peter of Dresden, who went about preaching to the people against the error the Church was guilty of, as they said, in refusing the people communion under both kinds, and proclaimed that all who received under one kind were damned. John Huss and his followers took up this new doctrine, and so deeply was the error implanted in the minds of the Bohemian Hussites, that even all the power of the Irrfperial arms
   could scarcely eradicate it. (3) Nat. Alex. sec. 15, c. 2, a. 1, sec. 2.
   
2. Noel Alexander enumerates the errors of Huss under thirty heads (3). We will only take a succinct view of the most important ones. The Church, he said, was composed of the predestined alone (Art. 1, 3, 5, 6); and the two Natures, the Divinity and the Humanity, are one Christ (Art. 4). Peter neither was nor is the head of the Catholic Church (Art. 7, 10, 11); and Civil and Ecclesiastical Lords, as Prelates and Bishops, are no longer so while in mortal sin (Art. 30); and he says the same of the Pope (Art. 20, 22, 24, 26). The Papal dignity is derived from the power of the Emperor (Art. 9); and Ecclesiastical obedience is an invention of the Priests (Art. 15). Everything the wicked man does is wicked, and every thing the virtuous man does is virtuous (Art. 16). Good Priests ought to preach, though they be excommunicated (Art. 17, 18); and in Art. 19, he reprobates Ecclesiastical censures. It was an act of iniquity to condem the forty-five Articles of Wickliffe (Art. 25). There is no necessity of a head to rule the Church, for the
   Apostles and other Priests governed it very well before the office of Pope was introduced (Art. 27, 28, 29). These are, in substance, the errors of John Huss. Van Ranst (p. 275) remarks, that it appears from his own works, that he always held the belief of the Real Presence, and when, in the Fifteenth Session of the Council, he was accused of teaching that, after the consecration, the substance of bread remained in the Eucharist, he denied that he ever either taught or believed so. He also admitted Sacramental Confession,
   with its three parts, as we do Extreme Unction, and all the other Sacraments prayers for the dead the invocation and intercession of Saints. How unjustly, then, says the same author, do the Lutherans and Calvinists condemn in the Church of Rome these dogmas held by Huss himself, whom they venerate as a witness of the truth, and through whom they boast that they have derived the original succession of their Churches.

 

[Contarini]

Informative post, Topper.

It never ceases to amaze me, how the protestants disdain the veneration of the Saints…while venerating Martin Luther, and the founders of the Reformation.

So many of our separated brethren get down right defensive about Luther

I will defend anyone who is being treated unfairly. Also, I study this period. Luther is a friend to me–an annoying, obnoxious, loud-mouthed friend. But a fascinating guy with a lot of great insights and a burning desire to serve God and other people. I am not going to elt him be caricatured if I can help it.

yet the way he conducted himself, was simply embarrassing. He was an immature child. While Steve B’s use of the world ‘merely’ about that letter Luther wrote, got so much attention

Only from me. And only because it wasn’t true.

Telling the truth is important, wouldn’t you agree? (Not that Steve meant to do anything else, of course–he just didn’t quite succeed in this instance.)

–here’s what caught mine

So if someone is rude it’s OK to say things about him that aren’t true?

Also, you have no idea of the cultural context. While Luther was belligerent and offensive in language even by the standards of his time, those standards were very different from ours. Over-the-top rhetorical flourishes where par for the course, and in vernacular polemic this typically took the form of crude jokes, plays on words, etc. Luther did it “better” (if that’s the right word) than most of his contemporaries. But lots of them did it–St. Thomas More, for instance, in writing against Tyndale (and Tyndale right back, of course).

Again, I’m not denying that Luther clearly had some serious issues. But I remain amazed by how obsessed with this Catholics are, and how blindly focused many folks on this forum are on tearing down Luther as a person. That’s just shameful. It’s the sort of thing Luther would do

…and yet some would dare suggest that I owe such a fool, any degree of respect at all? As if he ever showed anyone else, any degree of respect?

Absolutely. I dare suggest it. I am horrified that you would question it. Everyone deserves the respect of being characterized truly and fairly.

Luther did not “merely respond ‘Dr. Luther will have it so.’”

That remains true no matter what personal faults Luther had.

We owe it to all people to speak fairly of them and to put the most charitable construction possible on their actions. But even more we owe it to the dead, who cannot defend themselves, cannot be brought to repentance by our denunciations, and have an influence in our society that we will only understand through empathy.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

I will defend anyone who is being treated unfairly. Also, I study this period. Luther is a friend to me–an annoying, obnoxious, loud-mouthed friend. But a fascinating guy with a lot of great insights and a burning desire to serve God and other people. I am not going to elt him be caricatured if I can help it.

Only from me. And only because it wasn’t true.

Telling the truth is important, wouldn’t you agree? (Not that Steve meant to do anything else, of course–he just didn’t quite succeed in this instance.)

So if someone is rude it’s OK to say things about him that aren’t true?

Also, you have no idea of the cultural context. While Luther was belligerent and offensive in language even by the standards of his time, those standards were very different from ours. Over-the-top rhetorical flourishes where par for the course, and in vernacular polemic this typically took the form of crude jokes, plays on words, etc. Luther did it “better” (if that’s the right word) than most of his contemporaries. But lots of them did it–St. Thomas More, for instance, in writing against Tyndale (and Tyndale right back, of course).

Again, I’m not denying that Luther clearly had some serious issues. But I remain amazed by how obsessed with this Catholics are, and how blindly focused many folks on this forum are on tearing down Luther as a person. That’s just shameful. It’s the sort of thing Luther would do

Absolutely. I dare suggest it. I am horrified that you would question it. Everyone deserves the respect of being characterized truly and fairly.

Luther did not “merely respond ‘Dr. Luther will have it so.’”

That remains true no matter what personal faults Luther had.

We owe it to all people to speak fairly of them and to put the most charitable construction possible on their actions. But even more we owe it to the dead, who cannot defend themselves, cannot be brought to repentance by our denunciations, and have an influence in our society that we will only understand through empathy.

Edwin

Edwin,
I noticed your change of profile. I know this is something you have pondered for a long time, and I pray all of God’s blessings as you make this move. In some ways, I wish I could do the same. Not there…yet.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

I will defend anyone who is being treated unfairly.

A noble cause for sure.

Also, I study this period. Luther is a friend to me–an annoying, obnoxious, loud-mouthed friend. But a fascinating guy with a lot of great insights and a burning desire to serve God and other people. I am not going to elt him be caricatured if I can help it.

If you don’t mind me saying, that’s a whole lot of contradiction.

1. 
   *]Jesus qualifies who it is that loves Him. John 14:15 , John 14:24 . Causing division, which he did, is condemned by scripture. Such a person does NOT desire to serve God or neighbor.
   *]As Paul said, those who cause division do NOT serve God but Satan. Romans 16:17-20 and since Paul is writing under the influence of the HS, that means Paul’s warning ultimately comes from Jesus John 16:12-15
   
   As you say, let’s not create a caricature of Luther, that is not warranted
   C:
   

   Telling the truth is important, wouldn’t you agree? (Not that Steve meant to do anything else, of course–he just didn’t quite succeed in this instance.)

   Peel away all his sneers, snide remarks, & bravado what’s left? Where is his argument?
   
   Speaking of justification #42 St James flat out contradicted Luther, James 2:24
   C:
   

   Also, you have no idea of the cultural context. While Luther was belligerent and offensive in language even by the standards of his time, those standards were very different from ours. Over-the-top rhetorical flourishes where par for the course, and in vernacular polemic this typically took the form of crude jokes, plays on words, etc. Luther did it “better” (if that’s the right word) than most of his contemporaries. But lots of them did it–St. Thomas More, for instance, in writing against Tyndale (and Tyndale right back, of course).

   I posted the official Church letters to Luther by the pope. One listing his errors, and one excommunicating him. The letters were direct but respectfully worded documents to Luther.
   
   I would view those documents as evidence of the current cultural context as well.
   C:
   

   Again, I’m not denying that Luther clearly had some serious issues.

   Wait a minute.
   
   SOME???
   
   is that like me saying “Merely”?
   
   Me thinks you protest tooooooooo much on the word “merely” but that’s just me thinking outloud
   C:
   

   But I remain amazed by how obsessed with this Catholics are, and how blindly focused many folks on this forum are on tearing down Luther as a person. That’s just shameful. It’s the sort of thing Luther would do

   IMV He tears himself down with his own words and what he did… No body is putting words in his mouth after the fact.
   C:
   

   We owe it to all people to speak fairly of them and to put the most charitable construction possible on their actions.
   
   But even more we owe it to the dead, who cannot defend themselves, cannot be brought to repentance by our denunciations, and have an influence in our society that we will only understand through empathy.
   
   Edwin

   Let’s not forget, he is a heretic, and we aren’t to lionize heretics either…true? If we go strictly by what Paul taught
   
   Tit 3:10
   “As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”
   
   Open the link for the definition of that word “factious” in Greek. It’s heretic. A man who is a heretic. Okay, one asks… define heretic (see definition of heresy 2089). IOW, one who has been baptised, and then embraces heresy, is condemned by God,
   
   Luther knew that warning from Paul was there.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

The amusing thing for us Lutherans about the ‘Alone’ controversy is that historically Luther was in good company with stalwart Catholics who translated it as such as well:

From here: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

I am glad that you are amused. A few years ago I looked into this quote from Fitzmyer. I wanted to find out whether these Fathers actually supported the Protestant concept of Salvation by Faith Alone (SBFA). I searched for the actual quotes and finally gave up before I got to Augustine because previous 13 quotes or so were not available online. (they might be now) I also found a comment from a frequent poster on Dave Armstrong’s excellent blog about the Fitzmyer quote:

“Adomnan said… Protestants like to comb through the Fathers and look for places where they use “faith alone” in connection with justification. Vermigli was playing that game in those links you provided. Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, in his commentary on Romans, provides a list of such citations from the Fathers.

However, when you read them in context, they never carry the implications that Protestants give to “faith alone.”” Adomnan

This makes perfect sense. Over the years I have noticed that Protestants are especially fond of the argument that Luther’s SBFA had been taught previously somewhere by someone. If that were actually true, it would not have clanged so badly when Luther began to teach it. In addition, we would not have all of the various Protestant and Catholic Scholars admitting that Luther’s belief on Salvation was ‘radical’ and a ‘discontinuity’. (References available of course). If there are reputable Scholars who disagree, I would love to see their quotes.

Quite frankly, I don’t put much stock in the Fitzmyer quote since it is not clear what Fitzmyer is really claiming about those various Fathers. On the other hand if those Fathers actually could be (credibly) interpreted as supporting the Protestant (Martin Lutheran) concept of SBFA, we would certainly have heard them shouted from the mountaintops constantly by Protestant apologists for hundreds of years. But we haven’t.

It is possible that Fitzmyer actually wrote what the quote seems to say. Only a fair reading of the surrounding text would prove that point and the fact that it was not included should be telling. On the other hand, it is not exactly impossible to believe that in a Church of 1.1 billion people, one could find a liberal scholar who is attracted to a version of Salvation with less ‘obligations’.

All that being said Ben, you posted the Fitzmyer quote with confidence. I have my doubts. Have you read the Fitzmyer quote in context or did you just pass it along from a blog? Past that, have you read any of the quotes listed in context?

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[Contarini]

Hi Ben,

I am glad that you are amused. A few years ago I looked into this quote from Fitzmyer. I wanted to find out whether these Fathers actually supported the Protestant concept of Salvation by Faith Alone (SBFA).

Of course they don’t support Luther’s doctrine, because they are (not that I’ve read all of them, but I did do a paper in grad school that dealt with Ambrosiaster and other pre-Augustinian theologians in comparison with Augustine) talking about initial justification.

But the point is that Luther’s translation in Romans 3:28 is not in itself an outrageous choice or an obvious heresy.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

A
If you don’t mind me saying, that’s a whole lot of contradiction.

I mind not because I’m personally offended but because you are locking yourself in a kind of mental prison by your attitude. You are refusing to make judgments of charity against a figure whose historical influence you regard as bad.

1. 
   *]Jesus qualifies who it is that loves Him. John 14:15 , John 14:24 . Causing division, which he did, is condemned by scripture. Such a person does NOT desire to serve God or neighbor.

1. 
   According to the teaching of the Church, mortal sin * requires full knowledge and deliberate consent. Luther did not think he was causing division. He thought that the Papacy was Antichrist–a kind of parasite on the Church. He thought that scholastic theology had abandoned the Gospel for Aristotle. It is pretty clear that he was sincere in these beliefs. Now that doesn’t get him off the hook–you can be sincere because you have deluded yourself and seared your conscience. But we can’t know that. We don’t know the state of his soul, but based on his writings it seems pretty clear to me that he genuinely loved God and wanted to serve Him.
   

   *]As Paul said, those who cause division do NOT serve God but Satan.

   Indeed. And in vilifying Luther and refusing to try to understand the Lutheran point of view, you are perpetuating division among Christians. But I don’t think you are doing so deliberately.
   
   No doubt that many of the things Luther did hurt the Church and in that sense “served Satan.” But he clearly did not intend to do so.
   
   Even Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict, said that it was hard to discern the reality of the Church in Luther’s time.
   

   As you say, let’s not create a caricature of Luther, that is not warranted

   Then stop.
   

   Peel away all his sneers, snide remarks, & bravado what’s left? Where is his argument?

   Well, have you read On Christian Liberty or the Galatians commentary? Have you looked at Chemnitz or Melanchthon, both of whom make the Lutheran points more clearly and systematically than Luther himself did?
   
   You won’t find his argument in On Translating. That’s my point. It didn’t have to be a long multi-post argument. It was a simple correction of a hasty, careless, inaccurate remark on your part.
   
   The argument in a nutshell is that the “law” Paul is speaking of must be interpreted as God’s moral law, so that justification cannot at any point in a Christian’s life be based on any action in obedience to a command of the moral law (the “Law/Gospel” distinction).
   
   But I don’t want to argue the point. Trying to persuade people of the validity of theological insights they are determined to mock and undermine is a thankless task, and I’d prefer to do this for theological views I can wholeheartedly endorse. Luther’s doctrine was, at best, one-sided and he ought not to have divided the Church over it. But he had a number of valuable insights which the Catholic Church badly needs to embrace, as Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa and Pope Emeritus Benedict have both recognized.
   

   St James flat out contradicted Luther

   Not if you take the justification St. James is speaking of to be justification “before men,” i.e., actions that demonstrate to the world that a person has been justified by faith. That’s certainly an interpretation that one brings to the text of James rather than getting from it, but the same is true of many Catholic interpretations.
   
   Personally, I find 1 Corinthians 13 to be a more decisive refutation of Luther than James. Also, I think N. T. Wright and other “New Perspective” scholars have raised significant doubts about Luther’s interpretation of Paul in general.*

 

[Contarini]

I would view those documents as evidence of the current cultural context as well.

Calling someone a wild boar is respectful in your book?

Never mind that Exsurge Domine also condemned him for saying that the Holy Spirit didn’t want heretics executed. Burning people at the stake is, no doubt, very respectful

But of course formal Church documents had a different style from popular polemic.

Have you read any popular Catholic tracts against Luther?

Do you know that the Catholic theologian Cochlaeus spread the story that Luther’s mother was a prostitute who had had sex with the devil to produce Luther?

Or is that scurrilous poison OK because Luther was such a bad guy and no vitriol is bad enough for him?

Wait a minute.

SOME???

is that like me saying “Merely”?

No. My statement was accurate–you object to it because it is sober and not extravagant.

Your statement was blatantly inaccurate.

Me thinks you protest tooooooooo much on the word “merely” but that’s just me thinking outloud

I don’t like inaccuracy, especially when it is serving the cause of division among Christians and slandering a dead person who can’t defend himself and who has long since gone to the judgment of God. May God have mercy on him.

You can’t defend your statement, so instead of simply saying “OK, I goofed” you write post after post blowing smoke and accusing me of “protesting too much.” You’re the one defending an obvious inaccuracy.

Let’s not forget, he is a heretic, and we aren’t to lionize heretics either…true?

Telling the truth is not lionizing anyone. And heretics who rejected the teachings of Paul are a bit different from someone who rejected the likes of Tetzel and Leo.

]Luther knew that warning from Paul was there.

Yes, and he thought–as many serious Christians of his time did–that the warning applied to the mendicants who were faking apparitions and getting each other burned at the stake in the service of their theological squabbles; to the scholastics who were arguing about abstruse points of doctrine while laypeople lived in ignorance and the Turks were at the gates; to princes who fought against other Christians instead of governing their people with justice and defending them against the Turks; and so on.

We all find it easy to see how the warnings of Scripture apply to others, and hard tos ee how they apply to ourselves. Luther, alas, was no different.

Edwin

 

[commenter]

Edwin,
I noticed your change of profile. I know this is something you have pondered for a long time, and I pray all of God’s blessings as you make this move. In some ways, I wish I could do the same. Not there…yet.

Jon

I am praying.
Actually if I did more praying, and less analyzing and ranting on the internet, and more loving actions towards individuals I bump into, I might be a tiny factor towards encouraging a few to take swimming lessons…

 

[steve_b]

I mind not because I’m personally offended but because you are locking yourself in a kind of mental prison by your attitude. You are refusing to make judgments of charity against a figure whose historical influence you regard as bad.

What I refuse to do is call bad, good.
C:

According to the teaching of the Church, mortal sin * requires full knowledge and deliberate consent. Luther did not think he was causing division.
He knew exactly what he was doing.
C:

He thought that the Papacy was Antichrist–a kind of parasite on the Church. He thought that scholastic theology had abandoned the Gospel for Aristotle. It is pretty clear that he was sincere in these beliefs.

Sorry Edwin, but St Paul would say it’s Luther who wasn’t serving God but Satan.
Romans 16:17-20
C:

Now that doesn’t get him off the hook–you can be sincere because you have deluded yourself and seared your conscience. But we can’t know that. We don’t know the state of his soul, but based on his writings it seems pretty clear to me that he genuinely loved God and wanted to serve Him

.

Your opinion is duly noted. But given the chances Luther was given, he chose excommunication and division, over correction and unity, and he caused others to divide as well. That is NOT loving and serving God, scripturally speaking. Jesus already told us what He wants John 17:20-23 . Hr went against that. Therefore John 14:15 , John 14:24 . Faith like love are demonstrated, not just said.
C:

Indeed. And in vilifying Luther and refusing to try to understand the Lutheran point of view

, you are perpetuating division among Christians. But I don’t think you are doing so deliberately.

I’m perpetuating division among Christians? Really?

All The Great Heresies had/have their POV. Is the reason any of them continue, because people aren’t being sensitive to their POV?
C:

No doubt that many of the things Luther did hurt the Church and in that sense “served Satan.” But he clearly did not intend to do so.

How can it be said he didn’t intend to do what he did?
C:

Even Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict, said that it was hard to discern the reality of the Church in Luther’s time.

If he said that, would you have the actual quote properly referenced?
C:

Well, have you read On Christian Liberty

or the Galatians commentary? Have you looked at Chemnitz or Melanchthon, both of whom make the Lutheran points more clearly and systematically than Luther himself did?

I’ve read the Gal commentary. What specifically are you refering to?

Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535),

Maybe we can consider the following as an example of what we’re talking about

(all emphasis mine)

Gal 5:

• VERSE 9. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Paul’s concern for them meant nothing to some of the Galatians. Many had disowned him as their teacher and gone over to the false apostles. No doubt the false apostles took every occasion to defame Paul as a stubborn and contemptuous fellow who thought nothing of disrupting the unity of the churches for no other reason than his selfish pride and jealousy.
Others of the Galatians perhaps saw no harm in deviating a trifle from the doctrine of justification and faith. When they noticed that Paul made so much ado about a matter that seemed of no particular importance to them they raised their eyebrows and thought within themselves: “What if we did deviate a little from the doctrine of Paul? What if we are a little to blame? He ought to overlook the whole matter, and not make such an issue out of it, lest the unity of the churches be disturbed.” To this Paul replies: “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.”
Our opponents record the same complaints about us. They put us down as contentious, ill-tempered faultfinders. But these are the crafty passes of the devil, with which he seeks to overthrow our faith…[snip]

in effect, Paul was actually talking about guys like Luther, and Hentry VIII, and Calvin etc. etc etc

and Catch the comment “our opponants” ? I assume that’s pointing to the Catholic Church. I would suggest he knew full well what he was doing.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Even though your comments were addressed to someone else, for some reason I feel ‘compelled’ to respond.

We have a great deal in common, but it seems that we do not have a common opinion about Martin Luther.

I will defend anyone who is being treated unfairly. Also, I study this period. Luther is a friend to me–an annoying, obnoxious, loud-mouthed friend. But a fascinating guy with a lot of great insights and a burning desire to serve God and other people. I am not going to let him be caricatured if I can help it.

I have not come to my opinions about Luther without study. The Truth is not unfair, in fact there is nothing more fair than the Truth. In fact, I consider the version of Luther that I was taught growing up as a Protestant to be the real caricature. That version made Luther look far more ‘attractive’ than does the Truth.

So if someone is rude it’s OK to say things about him that aren’t true?

Edwin, Luther was a little more than ‘rude’ to the Jews, the Peasants, the Anabaptists, and of course the Catholics. All of the ‘rudeness’ he inflicted was accompanied with the furious spouting of Scripture to justify his outrageous ‘teachings’. Let’s be honest, Luther was not exactly ‘merely’ rude. His treatment of these groups are a demonstration of both his theological ‘abilities’ and his ‘version’ of Christian charity. His teachings on these groups do not speak well of him, and in fact, challenge his reputation as a Christian Exegete.

Personally, I have not seen anything said of Luther here that was untrue. If you believe otherwise, I would like to know what that might be and would also like to know how important those things might be in the whole scheme of things.

Instead of dealing with the fact that Luther said that he was committed to the destruction of the Church as early as May of 1518, we are getting hung up on the use of a single word by a Catholic Apologist?

Also, you have no idea of the cultural context. While Luther was belligerent and offensive in language even by the standards of his time, those standards were very different from ours. Over-the-top rhetorical flourishes where par for the course, and in vernacular polemic this typically took the form of crude jokes, plays on words, etc. Luther did it “better” (if that’s the right word) than most of his contemporaries. But lots of them did it–St. Thomas More, for instance, in writing against Tyndale (and Tyndale right back, of course).

For the record, I think I have a pretty decent understanding of the ‘cultural context’. We do agree though that Luther did it ‘better’, probably ‘better’ than any Theologian in Christian history. As you know, many Scholars have commented on how much ‘better’ Luther ‘did it’ and also why. I would have to see the actual quotes from More before I would consider him a serious ‘challenger’ to Luther’s right to claim that ‘nobody did it better’.

Again, I’m not denying that Luther clearly had some serious issues.

I appreciate the understatement.

But I remain amazed by how obsessed with this Catholics are, and how blindly focused many folks on this forum are on tearing down Luther as a person. That’s just shameful. It’s the sort of thing Luther would do.

It seems that we do have a real disagreement on this aspect of the subject. Edwin, what is the intent of using such extremely strong terms like ‘obsessed’, ‘blindly focused’, ‘tearing down’ and ‘just shameful’?

For the record, the way that ‘some people’ here deal with Luther is at least a dozen times more charitable than the way that he dealt with his opponents, which by the way ended up being just about everyone. In fact, I am reminded here of how intolerant Luther towards people who did not share his views.

It seems that we also do not share an understanding of Luther’s influence. As you know, I see his development of SS and PI as having a hugely negative impact on Western Christendom, specifically in terms of Christian unity. I also see many of his ‘less well known’ teachings as evidence of his abilities as a Theologian and Scriptural Exegete.

We owe it to all people to speak fairly of them and to put the most charitable construction possible on their actions. But even more we owe it to the dead, who cannot defend themselves, cannot be brought to repentance by our denunciations, and have an influence in our society that we will only understand through empathy.

As you know Edwin, Luther hated the Catholic Church and he hated Catholics as individuals. You might disagree here but then would also disagree with Mark Edwards.

“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as the agents of Satan.” Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36

In other words, he hated the Church that you plan to join and he hated what you intend to become. And yet you consider him to be a friend?

BTW, I would suggest that it is not necessarily empathy for Luther that will result in understanding, but the bare unvarnished truth about the man. It seems to me that the best possibility of achieving unity is with a solid understanding of why, specifically and exactly, we are NOT united. This requires an understanding of Martin Luther the man and why he did what he did.

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[steve_b]

Never mind that Exsurge Domine also condemned him for saying that the Holy Spirit didn’t want heretics executed. Burning people at the stake is, no doubt, very respectful

From Exurge Domine

"33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. "

In error #33, Keep in mind those are Luther’s words. Is execute people or burning people at the stake mentioned? No

So let’s look at the statement from the Church position.

what happens to souls who die in mortal sin? Revelation 20:15

• and where does it say that heretics are exempt from this punishment… i.e. NOT tossed into hell… or NOT into the lake of fire…i.e. NOT burned?

Scripture says in many places, that one who is condemned, (i.e. dies in mortal sin) won’t have heaven in their future. i.e. they go to hell. Ergo this is not contrary to the HS

Example:

Tit 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( [αἱρετικὸν (http://bibleapps.com/greek/141.htm) heretic), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

So yes even a heretic ends up in hell, burned for eternity, if they die in that mortal sin.
C:

No. My statement was accurate–you object to it because it is sober and not extravagant.

Like me saying “merely”?

Again, me thinks you protest toooooo much
C:

I don’t like inaccuracy, especially when it is serving the cause of division among Christians and slandering a dead person who can’t defend himself and who has long since gone to the judgment of God. May God have mercy on him.

We are still dealing with his errors and the aftermath he originated 500 years later. There is no inaccuracy or slander going on here.
C:

You can’t defend your statement, so instead of simply saying “OK, I goofed” you write post after post blowing smoke and accusing me of “protesting too much.” You’re the one defending an obvious inaccuracy.

Nice try
C:

Telling the truth is not lionizing anyone. And heretics who rejected the teachings of Paul are a bit different from someone who rejected the likes of -]Tetzel /-]and Leo.

I would suggest Luther DID reject Paul’s teachings certainly regarding heresy and division & the teaching of the Catholic Church. He committed a 2fer.
C:

Yes, and he thought–as many serious Christians of his time did–that the warning applied to the mendicants who were faking apparitions and getting each other burned at the stake in the service of their theological squabbles; to the scholastics who were arguing about abstruse points of doctrine while laypeople lived in ignorance and the Turks were at the gates; to princes who fought against other Christians instead of governing their people with justice and defending them against the Turks; and so on.

Here’s some history.

200+ years before Luther was even a thought, the 4th Lateran council met and I draw your attention to canons 3 & 18 out of 70 canons.
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2.htm

bottomline

• The Church does NOT exterminate / kill / burn / murder / nor any call for murder is made / … of heretics or anyone else. It’s prohibited.

So those canons ALSO need to be considered when I’m answering your understanding of error #33 at the top of the page. It doesn’t mean some people don’t go rogue, but as for the Church, such activity you mention is condemned.
C:

We all find it easy to see how the warnings of Scripture apply to others, and hard to see how they apply to ourselves. Luther, alas, was no different.

Edwin

Excommunication is not meant as a permanent decree. It’s a wakeup call that one is in grave sin and needs immediate correction. Did Luther ever recant?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Just a few comments on the a couple of things, which hopefully provide some perspective.

Calling someone a wild boar is respectful in your book?

I want to make sure that I understand this. You are upset that Luther was called a ‘wild boar’? This knowing that he recommended that the peasants be slaughtered without mercy and 100,000 were? Knowing that Luther recommended that rabbis be executed by the state for the crime of teaching the Jewish faith to Jewish people? Knowing Luther recommended that wives who would not grant their husbands ‘access’ to their bodies should be executed by the state?

Never mind that Exsurge Domine also condemned him for saying that the Holy Spirit didn’t want heretics executed. Burning people at the stake is, no doubt, very respectful

It is very true that Luther claimed that the Holy Spirit didn’t want heretics executed when he thought he was in danger of being executed. However, less than 10 years later when he felt more safe, and the results of his teaching on SS+PI were ‘bearing fruit’, he recommended that the Anabaptists be executed for the ‘crime’ of teaching differently than he did. Some were, and in Wittenberg no less.

As you know well, Luther called for the blood of the “Romanists”:

“If we punish thieves with the gallows, robbers with the sword and heretics with fire, why do we not all the more fling ourselves with all our weapons upon these masters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and all this sink of Roman sodomy that ceaselessly corrupts the church of God and wash our hands in their blood so that we may free ourselves and all who belong to us from this most dangerous fire.”

And you are concerned that he is being treated unfairly, and that the Catholics should not have been ‘rude’ to him by calling him a ‘wild boar’.

These things, rather than being ‘unfair’ to Luther, are factual.

There is a huge difference between these things that Luther did and taught (along with many others) and people being rude to him and calling him names. It is a matter of degree or magnitude.

In addition, those people who were ‘rude’ didn’t start their own versions of Christianity and as such, should not get the same scrutiny as should Luther. Because Luther took SO MUCH authority on to his own shoulders, we absolute MUST determine if he did so ‘rightfully’. We also must delve into ALL of his teachings to see how much of it can be viewed as actually being ‘Scriptural’. After all, if we find ‘too much’ that is not, it might cause us to wonder about the foundational principles of the ‘reformation’.

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Contarini]

I started to answer steve b line by line, but lost the post, and that’s just as well. This is one of those conversations that goes nowhere fast. I’ll ignore steve’s eye-rolling and “nice try” comments and respond to the substantive points that both he and topper have made:

1. First of all, my original point stands and steve and topper have stopped disputing it. Luther was not, in the first place, giving a theological defense of sola fide in his letter “On Translating,” and in the second place the remark “Tell them that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,” was a rhetorical flourish prefacing his actual argument for why he used the word “allein” in translating Romans 3:28. Steve’s claim that he “merely” responded “Dr. Luther will have it so” and that this was the basis for sola fide is therefore false on two counts. Steve and topper seem very annoyed with me for pointing this out. But it’s true, and it needed to be said.
2. It needed to be said because of the bigger issue, which is the propensity of some Catholics on this forum for vilifying Luther personally as a way of tearing down Protestantism. This is a foolish as well as uncharitable tactic. Steve and Topper seem to think that Luther should be treated badly (posthumously, when it can’t do him any good) because he treated others badly. That is not what Jesus said. . . .we are to treat others the way we would like them to treat us. Topper, I get that you used to admire Luther unreasonably, as many Protestants do, and now you’ve swung to the opposite extreme. But that’s excessive–you need to come back to a more balanced and accurate appraisal. You call for telling the truth–exactly. Steve b’s remarks about Luther were not the truth. I called him on it, and you have both fought me tooth and nail for this simple and obvious correction. That doesn’t reflect a desire to tell the “unvarnished truth” about Luther. It reflects a desire to make Luther look bad. In fact you just make yourselves (and, more seriously, the Church) look bad.
3. The subject of burning heretics came up (I raised it as part of the historical context to flesh out the world in which Luther said the nasty things he did), and steve has made two completely indefensible arguments:

a. That Exsurge Domine condemns not the denial that heretics should be burned at the stake but the denial that they would go to hell. This is obviously wrong, first of all because Luther never questioned that heretics would go to hell (like all heretics until very recently, he didn’t think he was one), but also just because the phrase “heretici comburendi” (heretics should be burned) was common shorthand for the standard civil punishment for heretics: burning at the stake. That’s the standard and natural meaning of the words. There’s no reason at all to think that they refer here to eternal punishment after death. That’s obviously a whitewashing interpretation, and no one who understood the period would entertain it for a minute.

b. That IV Lateran, instead of commanding that heretics be handed over to civil rulers for execution, actually forbids the execution of heretics. Steve cites a translation of the Lateran decrees that (in canon 3) tells civil rulers to “expel” (rather than the more common “exterminate”) heretics. Talk about translations with theological bias. Certainly “exterminare” in this context has the connotation of getting rid of them from the territory. It could refer either to expulsion or execution, but to translate it as “expel” implies non-lethal means. And we know, historically, that lethal means were used with the full approval of the Church. We have plenty of records of Church courts handing people over (Hus is one of the famous examples) for execution. Steve points out rightly that canon 18 forbids church officials from directly issuing death sentences. But they got around this by handing the condemned person over to civil authorities. This wasn’t some few people who “went rogue.” It was the standard practice of serious, godly church officials. It was explicitly defended by St. Thomas Aquinas:

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be** exterminated thereby from the world by death**.

This is somewhat of a tangent, I know. But it’s relevant because it’s another example of an “apologetic” that denies clear historical evidence, twists passages out of their context, vilifies the “bad guys” without any care for accuracy, and just generally promotes religious partisanship under the guise of piety. I believe that steve b and Topper are sincere, pious people who are doing this in good faith. I also believe that what they are doing is destructive and needs to be opposed for the sake of the truth. Methods like these tell non-Catholics that Catholics don’t really care about truth and are just interested in blindly “defending the Church” and smearing anyone who disagrees.

For the sake of the love I know you bear to the Church, please stop.

Edwin

 

[commenter]

Catholics who go to great effort trying to prove Luther (or any other reformer) was evil, drive people away from the Catholic Church. From what I know of him, he was a complex man, not all good or bad, who did what he thought was right at different times in his life, in the midst of historical circumstances he influenced, but could not predict or control.

Proving he was totally evil would not make Catholicism any more true to me, nor probably anyone else. If someone finds a writing of his to lead them closer to God, that’s good. Catholics bashing Luther merely convinces people that Catholics are uncharitable. It draws their attention away from considering the merits of the Magisterium, which I think is getting more obviously important with each year; (think about the doctrinal changes in half the denominations, and the erosion of the New Testament Canon, for instance). But Protestants won’t consider the Magisterium if all they see of Catholics is the desire to smash our “opponents”, especially one who is deceased.

Our real opponents are the living secularists, not Protestants who genuinely are trying to follow Christ. I’m not worried about Protestants who are excessively attached to Luther, as much as those attached to Huffington Post or the NY Times. We need to confront and oppose secularism (not the secularists personally), whether we find it in the Catholic Church, Protestant churches, or the larger society.

Commenter
Cradle Catholic, 65 today, love the Catholic Faith!
still ranting

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

1. First of all, my original point stands and steve and topper have stopped disputing it. Luther was not, in the first place, giving a theological defense of sola fide in his letter “On Translating,” and in the second place the remark “Tell them that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,” was a rhetorical flourish prefacing his actual argument for why he used the word “allein” in translating Romans 3:28. Steve’s claim that he “merely” responded “Dr. Luther will have it so” and that this was the basis for sola fide is therefore false on two counts. Steve and topper seem very annoyed with me for pointing this out. But it’s true, and it needed to be said.

Just speaking for myself, what Luther was doing in his “On Translating” is not a point that I was discussing. The point of my posting his letter to Trutfetter was that even as early as May of 1518, Luther was committed to the destruction of the Catholic Church. But then, you have not disputed that.

This fact is of course far different from the ‘Legend’ of the man - which is that he was committed to ‘reforming’ the Church. Personally, I cannot see how this fact can be seen as irrelevant.

1. It needed to be said because of the bigger issue, which is the propensity of some Catholics on this forum for vilifying Luther personally as a way of tearing down Protestantism. This is a foolish as well as uncharitable tactic. Steve and Topper seem to think that Luther should be treated badly (posthumously, when it can’t do him any good) because he treated others badly. That is not what Jesus said. . . .we are to treat others the way we would like them to treat us.

This is a completely false representation! Please show me where either Steve or I have said that we think that Luther should be treated badly. What is it, specifically and exactly, that is the goal of making such a statement?

Topper, I get that you used to admire Luther unreasonably, as many Protestants do, and now you’ve swung to the opposite extreme. But that’s excessive–you need to come back to a more balanced and accurate appraisal. You call for telling the truth–exactly. Steve b’s remarks about Luther were not the truth. I called him on it, and you have both fought me tooth and nail for this simple and obvious correction. That doesn’t reflect a desire to tell the “unvarnished truth” about Luther. It reflects a desire to make Luther look bad. In fact you just make yourselves (and, more seriously, the Church) look bad.

I would suggest that the reason that many Protestants ‘admire’ Luther is because they don’t know the truth. Maybe what I do is simply intended to even out the record a little bit, to bring balance to the heretofore unbalanced depiction of Luther.

In fact you just make yourselves (and, more seriously, the Church) look bad.

I recognize that this is your opinion and disagree, and while we disagree I do believe that you have a right to express your opinion. Are you willing to grant the same?

I believe that steve b and Topper are sincere, pious people who are doing this in good faith. I also believe that what they are doing is destructive and needs to be opposed for the sake of the truth. Methods like these tell non-Catholics that Catholics don’t really care about truth and are just interested in blindly “defending the Church” and smearing anyone who disagrees.

I am more than a little perplexed here. The revealing of the truth “should be opposed for the sake of the truth”? Most of the quotes that I post are from Protestant Scholars, and most of those are from Lutherans. Are you suggesting that quotes about Luther from Lutheran Scholars should not be posted here, unless they are ‘fair’? One of the reasons I tend to focus on Lutheran Scholars is because, if anything, they are more ‘pro-Luther’ than the general population (of course). As such, when they reveal things that are generally unknown about the man, their motives cannot be challenged. They cannot be accused of having an anti-Lutheran or anti-Protestant bias.

“Smearing anyone who disagrees”? That is what Luther did on a routine basis.

Martin Luther did not want people to express opposing points of view, and basically treated his opponents far more than ‘rudely’, as documented by Mark Edwards, a Lutheran Professor and former President of St. Olaf College (Lutheran):

“The targets of his ire became under his pen the vilest of hypocrites, totally wicked and insincere, minions of the devil, deserving the most horrible fate.” Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battle, Politics and Polemics, 1531-46”.

Of course, this is the opposite of the Luther that I learned about. In speaking of Luther’s dealings with his opponents, Richard Marius comments that:

“It does not require much insight to infer that he countered this frustration with a barrage of vehement language, railing on an on for page after ugly page as if he could hold all his fears and doubts at bay only by pouring liquid fire onto his foes, dissolving them and his doubts in one mighty holocaust of rhetoric.” Marius, pg. 285

Edwin, I do recognize how the truth can make some people uncomfortable, including some Catholics. The goal here is not that people be uncomfortable but that they know something more than the false “Legend” that they have probably learned. Personally, I believe that we all deserve to know the truth. Can you point to anything that I have said that is untrue?..

God Bless You Edwin, Topper