When was the belief in the Bible alone first mentioned?

[steve_b]

Because Luther denied that the Church’s practice of handing over heretics to be burned at the stake was in accord with the will of the Spirit. That is obviously what Pope Leo was talking about. No scholar of the sixteenth century would doubt this. You are only trying to cast doubt on it because you don’t want to admit that Leo was wrong in a papal encyclical. There is no historical reason for taking such an approach.

I would suggest Leo’s point is at the conclusion of this page.

I will add one more passage to the mix. How do you interpret this? Who is giving the instruction?

Dt 13:6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, 8 you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; 9 but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
C:

I don’t know what did or didn’t happen. I have no problem with the idea that a catastrophe overwhelmed these cities and that this was rightly handed down in Hebrew tradition as an example of divine judgment. However, God is so utterly transcendent that we should be careful about taking any language saying “God did X” too literally, especially when we are talking about suffering and destruction. In what sense God directly causes such acts of judgment, and in what sense they are the result of natural or demonic causes within God’s ultimate providential order, I’m not sure.

are you saying Sodom was destroyed by hapinstance or by Satan and NOT by God?
C:

It certainly isn’t remotely what Luther and Pope Leo were talking about, since Luther (unlike me) had no problem with the idea that God literally burns people.

If Luther had no problem with God burning heretics, why then did he say burning heretics was NOT the will of the HS.
C:

And I have explained already how that worked out. Clerics couldn’t actually pass the death sentence, but they could condemn people to be handed over to the civil authorities, who actually pronounced and carried out the sentence. It was a runaround.

As you can see from the quote above and others presented, The death penalty has been around from early OT times.
C:

When I presented it in a history class (in a secular university) one of my students (an ex-Catholic, if I remember rightly) correctly described it as appallingly hypocritical. I tried, rather unsuccessfully, to make the point that even hypocrisy pointed to the Church’s awareness that it really shouldn’t be in the killing business!

The Church isn’t in the killing business.

When passover took place, and the 1st born was taken, who knows how many were taken that night, is God now on trial?

Same with Sodom and Gomorrah?
C:

I have already pointed you to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on heresy, which lays out the historical evidence succinctly. You are denying historical facts admitted by everyone.

I’m pointing out to you that the Church through canon law, is making sure that everyone knows where the lines are drawn
C:

Steve, you need to stop assuming that I have a problem of comprehension, and you need to deal with the arguments I have presented. You have the Catholic Encyclopedia and every scholar of the Middle Ages or early modern period against you. You just don’t have a case here.

I don’t deny there was a death penalty. It’s been there since early in the OT. When I asked you over and over and over again what was the error in #33 of Luther’s errors, you finally answered. And in your answer, (up the page) you said Luther had no problem with God burning people. To which I responded, then why did Luther say burning heretics was NOT the will of the HS which was an idea deemed an error by Leo?

And when I gave you OT examples of God doing just that, you accuse me of not getting it.?
C:

And we know, historically, what that punishment was.

From the early OT we see capital punishment for that.
C:

It was the punishment to which St. Thomas referred when he said that heretics should be “exterminated from the world by death,” and to which Luther referred when he denied that burning heretics was the will of the Spirit, and to which Pope Leo was referring when he said Luther was wrong.

1. 
   *]you say Luther (unlike me) had no problem with the idea that God literally burns people.
   *]then you say Luther denied that burning heretics was the will of the Spirit,
   
   While the Church used canon law to make clear her position on heretics, it is NOT against the will of the HS to burn heretics, which is Leo’s point, because God has done that before…as I pointed out from scripture.

 

[JonNC]

Steve and Edwin,

1.you say Luther (unlike me) had no problem with the idea that God literally burns people.
2. then you say Luther denied that burning heretics was the will of the Spirit,
While the Church used canon law to make clear her position on heretics, it is NOT against the will of the HS to burn heretics, which is Leo’s point, because God has done that before…as I pointed out from scripture.

What am I missing here? There seems to me to be a clear difference between what God does regarding condemnation at judgement, and what the Church Militant is to do. If so, statements 1 and 2, are in no way contradicting. Agreed?

Jon

 

[Contarini]

I’m going to respond in a separate thread, since this has gone off topic. I will say, though, that I was trying not to respond to you line by line, since I was trying to focus on the substantive points at issue and not get bogged down in trading insults. I thus missed the fact that you genuinely thought I hadn’t made clear what I thought Leo was condemning in #33. I don’t see how you could have missed this, since it was the starting point of the discussion. But I apologize for not reading your posts more carefully.

Edwin

 

[Topper17]

Hi Contra,

Thanks for your response.

That you are trying to discuss. In other words, because Steve’s completely inaccurate statement (inaccurate on two levels, in a way that makes any serious discussion of sola fide impossible) makes Luther look bad, it’s OK with you.

OK. That was the 11th post in which you make reference to Steve’s ‘inaccurate statement’. It seems a little over the top to me. Also, you again have mischaracterized my position, it’s all about accuracy. In fact, it’s all about the blatantly inaccurate “Legend” of Luther which makes him look SO much better than does history. It doesn’t seem that you have anywhere near as big a problem with that as you do with that one word.

I’m trying to discuss Luther in a fair and historically accurate way. My ultimate goal, like yours, is to show Protestants that they are wrong. But unlike you, I don’t think accuracy is some kind of irrelevancy to this.

Again, you make a statement, not as an opinion but as a fact that I don’t care about accuracy. That is exactly the way that Luther would have handled it. When people accuse me of putting words into their mouths and say that I should instead ask them what they think, I always back off and ask them. You just continue to create straw men in regards to what I supposedly think.

That isn’t how he thought about it, Topper.

That’s true. He actually thought that once people had been ‘broken loose’ from the chains that bound them to Rome, and had been ‘exposed’ to his interpretations of Scripture (actually his PI), they would all see things from his perspective. He believed that Scripture was ‘clear’ enough that everyone would agree (with him). That was incredibly foolish. IF Scripture had been that clear, everyone would have always believed what Luther believed and there would not have been any need for him to point it out. In fact, it truly shocked him that people actually disagreed with him. Their disagreement frightened him and that is why he always reacted with such anger and hatred.

He thought about it in terms of the Word of God, which he believed was self-evident but which people resisted because they were deluded by Satan. He was wrong–indeed, seriously delusional–in identifying his own ideas with the Word of God. But he was able to delude himself that way because he really did have powerful insights which wise and learned Catholics in modern times have found extremely valuable (including Pope Benedict). Anyway, the point is that, especially early on, he was confident that if the Word of God was let loose a reformed church would emerge which was guided by the Word. That didn’t happen. He was clearly wrong. But he wasn’t, in his mind, trying to impose his own interpretations. Nor was he really thinking about it in terms of “private” interpretation. He simply assumed that anyone who was guided by the Holy Spirit and listening to the Word would agree with his basic insights.

I agree, he was seriously delusional. I also agree, he didn’t think of them as being Private Interpretation, but that is exactly what they were. He thought of them as being the clearly obvious teachings of Scripture and was genuinely shocked when it became obvious that not all agreed. In fact, as you well know, he actually could not believe that people could honestly disagree with him, because they Scriptures were THAT obvious. The only thing that could possibly account for their disagreement and their rejection of his teachings was that they were lying. They actually agreed with him but were lying in saying that they didn’t. I would agree – that is, to use your term, ‘seriously delusional’. And somehow, some would have us believe that the SS+PI that came from that delusion could be God’s Absolute Truth.

So “the Church” is something other than the baptized? It’s this way of putting it that, in part, caused Luther and other Protestants to react the way they did.

I am sure that you know exactly how this was meant. And yet, you chose to put the worst possible construct on what I said. That is exactly what Luther would do. My point was that the ‘church of the baptized’ which is one of the legitimate definitions of the church, is NOT the ‘arm’ of the Church which is authorized to teach and establish doctrine.

The fact that you think an accurate description of the origins of sola fide is insignificant indicates that you have absolutely no idea how to go about refuting Protestantism.

Again you mischaracterize my position and in fact, as you should know, I have made no indication that I am interested in discussing sola fide on this thread. I am also wondering why your comments about me have to be so ‘persona’. Why is that? I recognize that you consider Martin Luther to be your ‘friend’ and that you are in defense mode, but attacking me is necessary why exactly? Is it because Luther would and he isn’t here?

Spare me the silly psychologizing. It’s not about an “infraction,” it’s about a persistent habit on this forum of saying things about Luther that are false or distorted, and then getting defensive when the error is pointed out.

Are you going to spare me the personal attacks? In your last post I think you said that I had not said anything false about Luther. That has not changed.

How on earth are you going to refute Luther’s ideas if you can’t even describe them with basic accuracy in the first place?

Very personal and for no reason. I would like to get this straight. You would like for me to be more charitable towards Luther and in the process insult me personally? That’s exactly what Luther would do.

 

[Topper17]

I see that. But I’m a church historian. This is my field. Historians care about the trees, because if you get the trees wrong you have a different forest entirely. And the question of whether Luther’s doctrine of sola fide is really based on his mere say-so, or whether there’s something more to be understood, is hardly an insignificant point.

That’s great. So tell me, what have you written about Luther and the Reformation. I would like to read it. Please post or PM me a link to your work, or PM me that name so I can go to Amazon and make a purchase.

If you are ‘in transition’ are you changing employment? I would agree your comments about the trees and the forest, but only as long as one doesn’t get too focused on one leaf on one tree that one looses perspective in regards to the forest.

As a church Historian I’ll bet that you are pretty happy to be here on these threads where you can learn things about your chosen field of study.

Well, that’s often true. Luther wasn’t a conventional Renaissance rhetorician, but he was a Renaissance rhetorician, among many other things.

Much about him was unconventional.

Completely irrelevant. We aren’t discussing Luther as a poster on this forum. We are discussing him as an important historical figure from an era 500 years before our own–an era when people routinely killed each other over religious ideas. Comparing his rhetoric to your rhetoric is just silly. We aren’t discussing whether Luther’s rhetoric was good or bad. Hopefully we are trying to understand him. Or aren’t you really interested in that?

Over the years I have come to understand that Lutheran apologists find my comments about Luther to be totally relevant. Relevant to the point where they chastise me with great zeal. You have even mentioned that Luther was called a ‘wild boar’ as if that accusation was of some importance. And while you did not disagree with my claim to be FAR more charitable that he was (and how could you), you have claimed that Luther’s outrageous behavior towards his opponents is ‘completely irrelevant’. I do understand though that you are simply defending your friend.

Which biographers do you have in mind?

Oberman? Bainton? Brecht? Those are probably the three standards.

Let’s be honest, if we wanted to understand Luther vs the Jews, we would NOT go to Bainton. I see both Bainton and Brecht as ‘droolers’, always ready to ‘find the best’ in their hero. Marius accuses Bainton of this exactly. Oberman is not as bad. As for the ones that I like – Marius of course, Grisar, (Lutheran) Kittleson. Although not biographies, I like anything by McGrath, anything by Edwards or Ozment. I also like (Lutheran) Kolb on Luther. I am also quite partial to (Lutheran) Schweibert’s excellent tome of a biography. What is your impression of Schweibert?

Agreed. But especially with regard to the early Luther, this isn’t easy, because people keep arguing over when the big “breakthrough” happened (I think this is because they are putting way too much stock in Luther’s much later account, and are looking for a single “breakthrough”–as you point out, there were clearly several).

Agreed. Many people take Luther’s later ‘memories’ far too literally, when in reality, Luther’s delusions were really even more on display in his later remembrances. This especially applies to his memories of his days in the monastery.

Yes, but some people have good reasons for their opinions, while others have less good ones

I agree 100%, but I’m sure we disagree on which is which.

Sure, if you’re approaching Luther from a modern perspective.

It seems odd to me that you would admit that your ‘friend’ was ‘seriously delusional’ and then criticize Marius for his belief that Luther was driven by fear. If you can recognize Luther’s problems from 500 years downstream, why can’t Marius chip in his opinion? Or me for that matter?

There’s no “despite” about it. An ex-Protestant (indeed ex-Christian) like Marius is going to find it very easy to beat up on Luther:shrug:.

Actually Marius had a degree in Divinity, and had a MA and a PhD in Reformation History, from Yale no less. As you know he taught at Harvard. My affection for Marius is based on his insights, his lack of equal lack of ‘reverence’ for Luther and the Church, and his extraordinary prose. Of course, Lutherans and other ‘defenders’ of Luther absolutely hate him, as they do Erikson. In general, the more critical a Scholar is about Luther, the disdain Lutherans show them. Luther would be proud.

And again, it seems that your main criterion is whether someone makes Luther look bad. If someone or something makes Luther look bad, it’s good. If it doesn’t, it’s bad or “insignificant.” Your methods just aren’t well adapted to discovering the truth.

If it serves your purposes to poison the well in this manner then all you are really doing is exposing your biases. From my perspective, I am finding this dialogue with a newly stated Catholic to be rather schizophrenic, and in fact, I am beginning to wonder about underlying motives.

 

[Topper17]

Agreed. It was a beautiful book (and a haunting book given that Marius died just after it was published). I just think it was more about Marius than about Luther.

As I said, Lutherans (and defenders of Luther) could not possibly think much of Marius, but at the same time would first recommend Bainton KNOWING that he is even more biased (in the other direction).

Oberman’s isn’t perfect by any means, but I think he gets a lot of key things right, including the fact that “reform” isn’t really the best category in which to put what Luther was doing.

He also was rather blunt in his assessment of the probability of Luther not being viewed as being judged as mentally healthy enough to be given a university Professorship today.

Brecht is invaluable for what Luther did when, although it’s heavily biased and is the most guilty of whitewashing Luther of any of the standard biographies, I think. And it’s totally unreliable for the medieval background, because he just takes Luther at face value.

Schwiebert does an excellent job of providing background without falling into fawning over the subject.

Bainton’s is also very well written and I still recommend it to people as a starting point, with heavy reservations. But it’s pretty heavily invested in the “Whig narrative” (i.e., the kind of approach to Luther you were taught and are reacting against).

Why in the world would you recommend Bainton knowing that it is so blatantly biased? Could your ‘friendship’ with Luther be the reason and if so, then you really can’t object when other people have a bias can you? Please notice that I did not tell you what you think, because I think that is rude. I asked you what you think.

Personally I believe people (including Protestants) deserve to know the whole truth and they are not going to get that if they read one book on Luther and they happen to read the one that you recommend they read first. As stated earlier, if all a person reads is Bainton, they won’t know much of anything about Luther vs the Jews. Is that ok with you?

Depending on the nature of your response I might pare this dialogue back to one degree or another.

 

[commenter]

ISTM that in the end, the entire idea of apologetics is to put forward a positive presentation of one’s faith, a presentation so positive that someone outside that communion is willing to stop and consider it. OTOH, the apologetics of attack only creates a defensive response, or worse, a response of attack in return.
ile our confessions may not have been completely codified until 1580, that certainly doesn’t mean that the basic understanding of faith which we hold was not there.

… Apologetics is a defense of the faith one believes in. ISTM that first and foremost, one should speak about their own faith, and why it is correct, far more often than speaking in a negative way about the other.

Jon

Unlike the other poster, I would love to convert JonNC (and GKC, and others).
But:

1. This forum does not allow proselytism. (See my new apologetics organization Sheepstealers. In a future post I’ll give the address for your checks.)
2. A lazy apologist like me, whose “research” consists of reading maybe every 3rd paragraph in the other guy’s post and in extreme situations 5 minutes on Wikipedia, would never bring me even close to the kind of preparation needed to handle the big issues head on.
3. I don’t know what God has planned for those other posters. I don’t have access to the guidance their guardian angel might be whispering in their ear - or what witness God might have for them in their present churches.
4. Believe me I am not minimizing the importance of doctrine, I read and try to live Chesterton’s book Orthodoxy. But it has to focus on persons, persons currently living, and include learning by me, about them; not just their ideas but their feelings.
5. I try to point out something they may not be aware of, that might shed light on the need for the Magisterium in 2014, and/or the weakness of the alternative, such as SS. I try not to beat a good argument into the ground by repetition (though when I found out about the new movement to add new books to the NT Canon, and likely drop some existing ones, I saw the ramifications to SS. I beat that issue so annoyingly on every forum including the Christian Cooking Class, to the point people were preparing the (virtual) noose.)

 

[JonNC]

=commenter;12081218]Unlike the other poster, I would love to convert JonNC (and GKC, and others).

Thank you. A few comments.

But:

1. This forum does not allow proselytism. (See my new apologetics organization Sheepstealers. In a future post I’ll give the address for your checks.)

Proselytism is overt. I think a good apologist can, as I expressed to Topper, present a positive expression of his/her communion, and that can do more to “sheepsteal” than any overt proselytizing could.
I am a public school teacher. Therefore, my checks are usually not worth much.

1. A lazy apologist like me, whose “research” consists of reading maybe every 3rd paragraph in the other guy’s post and in extreme situations 5 minutes on Wikipedia, would never bring me even close to the kind of preparation needed to handle the big issues head on.

Sometimes common sense and Christian love are highly valued.

1. I don’t know what God has planned for those other posters. I don’t have access to the guidance their guardian angel might be whispering in their ear - or what witness God might have for them in their present churches.

Agreed.

1. Believe me I am not minimizing the importance of doctrine, I read and try to live Chesterton’s book Orthodoxy. But it has to focus on persons, persons currently living, and include learning by me, about them; not just their ideas but their feelings.

Agreed

1. I try to point out something they may not be aware of, that might shed light on the need for the Magisterium in 2014, and/or the weakness of the alternative, such as SS. I try not to beat a good argument into the ground by repetition (though when I found out about the new movement to add new books to the NT Canon, and likely drop some existing ones, I saw the ramifications to SS. I beat that issue so annoyingly on every forum including the Christian Cooking Class, to the point people were preparing the (virtual) noose.)

One can do this, and never personally attack a dialogue partner or an important leader in their communion.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Steve and Edwin,

What am I missing here?

When Edwin said

1. Luther (unlike me) had no problem with the idea that God literally burns people.
2. Luther denied that burning heretics was the will of the Spirit,
   I saw conflict in those 2 statements

I do see that Edwin has a problem with God burning people. Which is probably why he doesn’t accept Sodom and Gomorrah as literal. Genesis 19:24-25 in a previous post he said

Contarini:

I don’t know what did or didn’t happen. I have no problem with the idea that a catastrophe overwhelmed these cities and that this was rightly handed down in Hebrew tradition as an example of divine judgment. However, God is so utterly transcendent that we should be careful about taking any language saying “God did X” too literally, especially when we are talking about suffering and destruction. In what sense God directly causes such acts of judgment, and in what sense they are the result of natural or demonic causes within God’s ultimate providential order, I’m not sure. It certainly isn’t remotely what Luther and Pope Leo were talking about, since Luther (unlike me) had no problem with the idea that God literally burns people.

From post #117

Maybe this is the crux of the issue. I asked him several questions about his answer. I’m particularly interested in his comment “we should be careful about taking any language saying “God did X” too literally, especially when we are talking about suffering and destruction In what sense God directly causes such acts of judgment, and in what sense they are the result of natural or demonic causes within God’s ultimate providential order, I’m not sure.”

Do you see what I mean?
J:

There seems to me to be a clear difference between what God does regarding condemnation at judgement, and what the Church Militant is to do. If so, statements 1 and 2, are in no way contradicting. Agreed?
Jon

I’m not restricting judgement, to “final judgement” only

If it WAS restricted to “final judgement” only, then how is the following explained?
.
the following are all judgements of God…agreed?

1. Sodom and Gomorrah? (previous post)
2. the passover in Egypt? (previous post)
3. Dt 13:6-10 ? (previous post)
4. Exodus 32:25-27 I’ll add this
5. Mt 25:31-46 ? I’ll add this for clarification to your point “at judgement”

When the commandment from God to us says “shall not kill” , the word kill is actually murder. If it meant literally kill, we couldn’t defend ourselves individually from others who are intending to kill us, or defend others from being killed, or the state from executing violent criminals, or enter into any war.

in the list of 5 examples, only one talks about the final judgement. Which means God before that event comes, did/does not wait for final judgement to reduce the population of wicked people.

I’ll just add to the 5 already listed, Noah and the great flood. Fire, flood, sword, etc, were all used. Which ones were NOT of God?

Bottomline, I see Leo’s point.

As soon as Luther involved the Holy Spirit in his statement, one had to look at the whole of salvation history prior to Luther. That’s why Luther’s error #33, was truly an error.

 

[steve_b]

I’m going to respond in a separate thread, since this has gone off topic. I will say, though, that I was trying not to respond to you line by line, since I was trying to focus on the substantive points at issue and not get bogged down in trading insults.

I never took anything you said to me as an insult. I try my best never to be insulting to anyone. I’m sorry if you took our exchange that way.

I was the one to bring up Exsurge Domine in a link. You commented specifically to error #33. I “merely” responded. It went that direction back and forth for awhile, and In a way though, it is all tied together with the topic imv.
C:

I thus missed the fact that you genuinely thought I hadn’t made clear what I thought Leo was condemning in #33. I don’t see how you could have missed this, since it was the starting point of the discussion. But I apologize for not reading your posts more carefully.

:tiphat:No problem.

 

[Contarini]

Hi Contra,

Thanks for your response.

OK. That was the 11th post in which you make reference to Steve’s ‘inaccurate statement’. It seems a little over the top to me.

I fail to see how the number of times is relevant. Truth is relevant. The statement was inaccurate. It was inaccurate in a way that gets to the heart of what is wrong with your and Steve’s approach to Catholic apologetics. You are not the arbiter of what is important

Also, you again have mischaracterized my position, it’s all about accuracy.

If it’s all about accuracy, then why are you so blase when someone engaged in inaccuracy while attacking Luther? Why are you ridiculing me for caring about accuracy? Does accuracy only matter when it serves your purposes?

In fact, it’s all about the blatantly inaccurate “Legend” of Luther which makes him look SO much better than does history. It doesn’t seem that you have anywhere near as big a problem with that as you do with that one word.

Because this “Legend” is not being propounded or defended by anyone on this thread. Where has anyone in this thread said anything positive about Luther that is inaccurate?

You aren’t even very clear on what the “Legend” is or how it is inaccurate. I have my own ideas as to how the “Luther Legend” is inaccurate, but they may not be the same as yours.

I very much wish not to mischaracterize your position. But you have not really explained your position beyond very vague generalities. You disagree with the claim that Luther wanted to “reform the Church” and maintain instead that he wanted to “destroy the Church.” I think that this is a false dichotomy in the first place, but certainly Protestants (and sometimes ecumenical Catholics) have said things about Luther’s desire to “reform the Church” or “stay within the Church” that are inaccurate due to a misguided sense of charity. But you haven’t pointed to any specifics.

Again, you make a statement, not as an opinion but as a fact that I don’t care about accuracy.

If you cared about accuracy “in itself” you would not keep criticizing me for the number of times I have pointed out Steve’s inaccuracy. You would either give solid reasons for defending Steve’s statement, or join me in persuading Steve that his statement is wrong, or simply stand back. The fact that you seem annoyed by someone pointing out inaccurate attacks on Luther seems to indicate that accuracy in itself isn’t your concern. Please explain what is wrong with my logic here?

That’s true. He actually thought that once people had been ‘broken loose’ from the chains that bound them to Rome, and had been ‘exposed’ to his interpretations of Scripture (actually his PI), they would all see things from his perspective. He believed that Scripture was ‘clear’ enough that everyone would agree (with him). That was incredibly foolish.

In hindsight, yes.

IF Scripture had been that clear, everyone would have always believed what Luther believed and there would not have been any need for him to point it out.

Not if, as he believed, Satan had deceived people for centuries.

In fact, it truly shocked him that people actually disagreed with him. Their disagreement frightened him and that is why he always reacted with such anger and hatred.

Basically I agree with this. Or another way of putting it is that in Luther’s worldview any serious disagreement with him must be the work of Satan. He could put up with a certain amount of disagreement, especially if the person disagreeing with him also attacked common enemies (he is reported to have said, for instance, that “we”–the Lutherans–should put up with a lot from Calvin because of Calvin’s eloquent defense of Protestantism against Sadoleto). But basically he didn’t have a paradigm that handled disagreement well.

On the other hand, the conservative scholastics of his era were also prone to accuse each other of heresy over fairly small points. The Franciscans and Dominicans were at each other’s throats over the Immaculate Conception. I think Erasmus (one of the sanest, if not always the most glamorous, figures of the time) was right in suggesting that many of Luther’s bad habits were those of late scholasticism. But late scholasticism combined to a very fiery, imaginative, and unstable personality and without the regard for tradition and careful thought that were the great virtues of scholasticism.

 

[Contarini]

And somehow, some would have us believe that the SS+PI that came from that delusion could be God’s Absolute Truth.

If you want to attack sola scriptura, you will have to widen your focus beyond Luther. That’s the one point where we disagree that is actually relevant to the OP. I don’t think sola scriptura was Luther’s “invention” in the way sola fide was. It was simply what happened when people lost confidence in the Church but retained confidence in Scripture.

The Reformed had a much more rational, defensible form of sola scriptura than Luther. Luther’s sola scriptura was always mostly about defending his own unique theological vision. So I agree with you that this was indefensible, but I think it’s not true that all of Protestantism depends on Luther’s unique ideas here, as it does with sola fide. Some Protestants, in fact (such as the “Restorationists” of the 19th century) essentially dropped sola fide because of their commitment to sola scriptura. Dialogue with those folks (the "Christian Church/Church of Christ, etc.) has little to do with Luther.

And this is the basic problem I have with your approach, which is a venerable (by years) approach among Catholics but has for good reasons been mostly abandoned by mainstream Catholic scholars and theologians. You can’t just reduce Protestantism to Luther, even though you can’t understand Protestantism without understanding Luther. Luther’s craziness is relevant because it has been replicated over and over again (including in my own grandmother, may she rest in peace, who had downright disturbing similarities with Luther in many ways, although she didn’t express her ideas as crudely). But Protestantism does not stand or fall on Luther.

I am sure that you know exactly how this was meant. And yet, you chose to put the worst possible construct on what I said. That is exactly what Luther would do. My point was that the ‘church of the baptized’ which is one of the legitimate definitions of the church, is NOT the ‘arm’ of the Church which is authorized to teach and establish doctrine.

Clergy aren’t baptized?

I’m not trying to put the worst construction on what you are saying. I see what seems to me to be a thoroughly poisonous clericalism still reigning in Catholicism, and Luther is the person who has most thoroughly criticized this and offered an alternative. I don’t think Luther is right where he actually contradicts Catholic doctrine (as in denying the “indelible character” or the necessity of apostolic succession), but his understanding of the Church as the company of the baptized, and his stress on baptism generally, was very much needed and is still needed. And that’s relevant to our general disagreement. You want to discredit Luther. I want to see Protestants stop absolutizing their ahistorical “Luther Legend” as an excuse for schism, and so far we agree. But I also want to see Catholics take Luther’s ideas more seriously, so that what should have happened in the sixteenth century (and began to happen, in fits and starts, in the past century or two, particularly with Vatican II) can finally happen: Luther’s positive ideas can be integrated with Catholic theology and be a source of renewal.

Luther’s personal faults are simply irrelevant to this.

Again you mischaracterize my position and in fact, as you should know, I have made no indication that I am interested in discussing sola fide on this thread.

Fair enough. Steve introduced that theme.

I am also wondering why your comments about me have to be so ‘persona’.

I don’t mean it personally. I am sure you are a very admirable person. But your approach to the discussion of Luther is wrong. For one thing, it’s very hard to pin down just what you are saying. You simply seem interested in making sweeping general statements about how arrogant and destructive he was. I find this method of discussion extremely frustrating.

I’m not actually sure we fundamentally disagree. It would help if you would say in one sentence just what your thesis is.

Edwin

Very personal and for no reason. .

You have a pretty inconsistent standard of “personal attacks.”

For one thing. I wasn’t talking about what you yourself said. I was talking about a persistent habit of posters on this forum, most recently exemplified by steve b. You defended him and said a few posts ago that I was free to lump you together with him. So I’m doing so, with your permission. It’s not you as an individual but the style of approach to Luther with which you have chosen to identify yourself. But at any rate, what’s odd is that you find an accusation of “inaccuracy” to be unacceptably personal, and then you call me “schizophrenic” and question my motives. I think this is the pot calling the kettle black. I am not attacking you personally, except in suggesting that accuracy doesn’t seem to matter to you (unless it serves your purposes). And I was justified in suggesting this by the fact that you find my criticism of steve’s inaccuracy regarding Luther to be excessive. You have said several times that you don’t think the point is very significant. That does, in fact, obviously indicate that you don’t care that much about accuracy.

However, I have never questioned your motives, as you have questioned mine. I am simply questioning your methods and the extent to which you allow your zeal for the big picture to overwhelm the concern for accuracy on specifics which you ought to have. (And again, that’s about your defense of Steve, not about what you have yourself said.)

Edwin

 

[Goya]

Contarini;12075921]

So making ***blatantly false statements ***about what sola fide is based on, and ignoring the actual argument Luther made about translation, isn’t unfair? Come on. You guys are just digging yourselves in deeper the more you try to defend this.

Blatantly false? Nonsense. “Merely” goes to the substance of his defense–the linguistic/semantic spin, is commonly viewed as a smokescreen. It may very well read more appropriately in German–but that wasn’t the only reason he sought to infuse ‘sola’ before ‘fide’–apparently not even the primary reason–certainly not after he developed a distinct theology on it.

You may be a relativist. I am not. Nor I think are most people here. Some things are true. Others are false. So spare me the silly postmodern “just another opinion” gambit.

Apparently, you are every bit a relativist, if you buy Luther’s spin, hook, line and sinker, as you appear to have done.

No. It’s not. “Merely” means that he didn’t do anything else. Since the “Dr. Luther will have it so” remark was merely a rhetorical flourish introducing his actual argument, to say that he “merely” said this is simply false, as is the claim that any part of “On Translating” gives the basis for sola fide.

Again, “merely” goes to the substance of his defense–the linguistic/semantic spin, was a smokescreen.

But isn’t it more important to inquire whether he was right or wrong? There are excellent reasons to think he was wrong. But neither you nor Topper nor steve b seems interested in actually discussing those reasons.

Luther had his day in Court. It’s called the Council of Trent. If he believed in the substance of his argument, he could have presented it to the Church. The properly appointed successors of the successors…of the Apostles–i.e.–the Bishops of [almost] all the dioceses in the world–converged on Trent, to discuss Luther’s proposed theological amendment to the Catholic teaching.

Luther declined to attend–despite having been invited, more than once.

…and when an opportunity was afforded to reconcile the differences–which one of Luther’s disciples who did attend, was inclined to accept–Luther refused, pitched a hissy fit, and in a fit of rage, confessed that to do so, would serve to undermine 20 years of labor in establishing his religion.

Of course, that’s just according to St. Alphonsus Liguori, a doctor of THE Church.

But you sooner dismiss what St. Liguori says–while claiming that we should all carefully consider what the heretic, Martin Luther says.

That’s ridiculous.

Luther has his day in court–his theology had its day in court.

They lost.

Issue resolved.

True. You might have all sorts of profound understanding that for some reason you choose not to express, pretending instead to be a very naive polemicist who judges all ages by your own and has no patience to understand anything with which you are unsympathetic. But if you go to so much effort to pretend not to understand, it’s too much to blame me for rewarding your effort

Ok…so go ahead and show us where St. Thomas Moore called his adversaries ‘braying asses’, as such.

I’ll reconsider my position Luther’s abrasiveness, if you can produce.

I have no idea on what basis you accuse me of failing to defend the honor of Our Lady.

Actually, the ‘accusation’ was of you defending Luther–not failing to defend 'Our Lady (that was directed at ‘most protestants’, not directly at you.

…but since you triggered it:

Please do provide a link to a thread, or other forum if you must, where you’ve taken up for Our Lady, even a fraction of what you done in this thread, for Martin Luther–over an issue like “merely”–or any issue for that matter.

Surely you can prove me wrong here–even though that allegation wasn’t expressly directed at you—but surely you can show us just how off base I was, by showing us a where you’ve blown up a thread 8+ pages defending Our Lady, or taking pains to clarify an inaccuracy, or a ‘blatant falsehood’, or such. Feel free to take your time, to comb through your browser history, as I probably wont be able to check back in, until early-middle of next week.

The point, again, is that someone made inaccurate statements about Luther–and these weren’t just minor, incidental errors, but constituted a wholly erroneous attempt to debunk sola fide through a misinterpretation of one sentence in Luther’s letter “On Translating.”

That’s your spin. From my vantage point, you’ve taken a minor issue (“merely”), and turned it into some hugely unfair affront to Luther, and further championed that Luther should be taken more seriously than the very Church that Christ founded (ref. Council of Trent) or a Doctor of the Church (ref. St. Liguori)–and again, I doubt very seriously that you’ve ever stood up for the honor of Our Lady, over such a small, minor issue, as ‘merely’.

Prove. Me. Wrong.

And you and Topper, instead of saying, “Well yes, steve, you did misunderstand that passage–now let’s move on to the substantive reasons why Luther was wrong,” have piled on to defend the indefensible and condemn me for daring to point out the inaccuracy. Why? Because you can’t stand anyone “defending” Luther.

Reading Luther is a waste of time. If anyone wants to know why Luther was wrong, read the documents from the Council of Trent.

…[cont’d]…

 

[Goya]

…[cont’d]…

I agree that Catholics as a whole are not “obsessed” with Luther. But some Catholics on this forum are, and you are continuing a long and dishonorable tradition of Catholic polemic, going back to Cochlaeus who accused Luther of being the product of an unholy union between the devil and a bathhouse attendant. This tradition of polemic has to be debunked and crushed in order for any serious conversation about the problems of Protestantism to take place. It poisons the discussion as soon as it’s introduced. It’s the Catholic equivalent of Lorraine Boettner and Jack Chick.

Dignifying an error that was already, long ago, declared heresy, is silly.

Shall we dignify Arius’ heresy, contesting Christ’s divinity, over and over again?

The issue was resolved. By and through the Church that Christ founded, and bequeathed to us, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, at the Council of Nicea.

Just as Luther’s contentions were at the Council of Trent.

Case closed.

 

[Goya]

…

All human beings deserve the basic “respect” of not being misinterpreted and misrepresented. All human beings deserve our empathy, because they are human.

You can whip up polemical fury against the “bad guys” if you choose, but you will only be doing the devil’s work.

Edwin

I almost forgot this last one.

Thousands, if not millions of people have been misinterpreted, or misrepresented…

…such as Our Lady, particularly vis a vis veneration of her.

Tell you what–you show me where you have defended, or taken up for Our Lady–or promoted veneration to her–somewhere, anywhere (as long as it’s date-stamped before my post about it in this thread)–even a fraction of what you’ve done here for Luther–and I’ll sincerely and earnestly engage you in a discussion on the substance of Luther’s contentions, vis a vis Sola Fide.

 

[Topper17]

Hi com,

Unlike the other poster, I would love to convert JonNC (and GKC, and others).

For the record, I would love for Jon and GKC and all the others to convert. However, I object to the idea that it would be methat would convert them, which is sort of what your comment infers. If they are to convert it will be the work of the Holy Spirit, not an apologist.

That does not mean that what we do has no influence, because I think it does. I think of it more like planting seeds that have to land on fertile ground, and if germinated, must be allowed to grow into a mature plant. I think that we Apologists (of all stripes) should be more in the business of provoking thought, offering alternative ways of thinking about things, and also providing information that may not have been known by others previously.

In other words, it is not my job to ‘convince’ someone to convert. It is on the other hand my job as a Catholic Apologist to provide people with reasons which they might choose to reflect upon and might make a difference along with a lot of other things in a potential ‘swim’. I doubt if I have explained this well but hope that you understand.

God Bless You com, Topper

 

[steve_b]

Actually the reverse is the case. “Expel” is a fine translation of “extermino” in the abstract. But it doesn’t fit the historical context here. I would prefer a translation such as “wipe out from” or “utterly remove.” The point is that there shouldn’t be heretics there any more. I’m not basing my argument on “extermino” per se–rather, I’m saying that translating it as “expel” doesn’t do justice to what we know of how it was used elsewhere in the thirteenth century (as in Aquinas’ “exterminate them from the world by death”).

Now that we’ve settled, exterminate ≠ kill

then the point is, “scrupulously expel”…heretics is how the canon put it.

Let’s not eliminate a false definition for exterminate, only to bring that false definition back in through some back window.

As an aside, I wasn’t accusing you of having comprehension problems as you thought when I asked you to reread the canons. I never even suggested that…anywhere in our conversation. I’m asking you to just reread the canons without the polemic of exterminate = killing. Rather read exterminate = expel.

Extermination in this case is a complete and thorough (expelling, removing perfectly, the word used was scrupulous) the heretics from all the territories.

And It appears you now agree “expel” is the proper translation for exterminate as used by the Lateran 4 council.
C:

Furthermore, the context of IV Lateran was the Albigensian Crusade which was still going on at the time. The cause of the Crusade was Raymond of Toulouse’s toleration of the Cathars. The crusading armies were commanded by a papal legate, Arnaud-Amaury, sent by the same Pope Innocent III who would summon Lateran IV a few years later. The crusading armies sacked the town of Beziers and, according to the legate’s own report to the Pope, killed about 20,000 people. It’s true that the legate says that the attack was spontaneous and took place while negotiations were ongoing for the release of Catholics in the town (this in contrast to the report a few decades later of the chronicler Caesarius of Heisterbach that the legate had ordered the crusaders to kill Catholics and heretics indiscriminately). But he speaks of the destruction of the town as divine vengeance. There’s no indication that he condemned the crusaders for their massacre, and he was certainly not disciplined by the Pope for his involvement.

[CHAPTER XXI](Internet History Sourcebooks Project XXI) , & [CHAPTER XXII](Internet History Sourcebooks Project XXII)

When they came to the great city of Beziers; which is said to have contained more than a hundred thousand men, they laid siege to it ; and in the sight of them all the heretics defiled in an unspeakable manner the book of the sacred gospel; and then cast it from the wall towards the Christians, and sending arrows after it, cried: " There is your law, miserable wretches!" But Christ, the author of the gospel, did not suffcr such an insult to be hurled at Him unavenged. For some of His followers, burning with zeal for the faith, placed ladders against the wall, and like lions, after the example of those of whom we read in the book of the Maccabbees (2 Macc.xi.ii), fearlessly climbed the walls, and while the hcretics were stricken with panic from on high and fled, they opened the gates to the others, and so gained possession of the city.
When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said the toeh abbot “Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.” The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied "Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain.
[snip]

And we see why Lateran 4 put those canons together that we’re discussing. And we can also see these heretics were often combatants. Which means there is a government issue with them as well.
C:

I’m baffled by this request. This part of our controversy began by my stating this clearly: Luther was condemned for saying that heretics should not be burned at the stake. Clearly Pope Leo thought he was wrong about that. Equally clearly, Pope Leo was not only fallible in that declaration but downright wrong. On that one point, at least, Luther was absolutely right.

Edwin

Among other statements, I found your following statements confusing.

1. Luther (unlike me) had no problem with the idea that God literally burns people.
2. Luther denied that burning heretics was the will of the Spirit,

I “merely” wanted clarification of your view

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

I fail to see how the number of times is relevant. Truth is relevant. The statement was inaccurate. It was inaccurate in a way that gets to the heart of what is wrong with your and Steve’s approach to Catholic apologetics. You are not the arbiter of what is important.

That might be. However, I said earlier that Steve’s choice of a single word is not 1/1,000,000th as important as Luther’s expressed desire in 1518 to destroy the Church. The individual reader is free to make their own value judgment.

If it’s all about accuracy, then why are you so blase when someone engaged in inaccuracy while attacking Luther? Why are you ridiculing me for caring about accuracy? Does accuracy only matter when it serves your purposes?

It’s not being blasé so much as it is boredom. You have made your point over and over and over again. I get it. I actually agree with your basic point to some extent but am really tired of it. In addition, this ‘attack the Luther attacker’ tactic is rather trite. Over the years I have seen Lutherans do this hundreds of times. In an effort to take the focus off of Luther and some historical fact about him, Lutherans will often try to make the questioner of Luther the focus of attention. The reason that they do this, as you have ably demonstrated, is that it works.

Rather than discussing Luther’s early stated desire to destroy the Church, we have been taken down a rabbit hole that is not 1/10,000,000th as important. That rabbit hole though is extremely important if the goal is to cause people to ‘watch the other hand’ and focus on some supposed wrong doing of some Catholic.

Because this “Legend” is not being propounded or defended by anyone on this thread. Where has anyone in this thread said anything positive about Luther that is inaccurate?

I will make sure to point it out the next time it happens. That being said, there are many here who have a definite reluctance to accept as valid ANY, criticism of Martin Luther. Specifically, we have not seen anybody (Protestant) be able to accept the fact that it was Luther who introduced SS+PI into Western Christianity, and how destructive they have been to Christian unity and this is in spite of what the Scholars say. I have noticed over the year that they just cannot ‘go there’.

You aren’t even very clear on what the “Legend” is or how it is inaccurate. I have my own ideas as to how the “Luther Legend” is inaccurate, but they may not be the same as yours.

And yet you have indicated that you were also taught that (false) legend. To summarize – Luther was: extremely intelligent, an excellent theologian and Scriptural exegete, very well educated, very wise, tolerant, kind, focused on abuses, etc. (Anything good he was it and anything bad was what he wasn’t). None of these things were true except for possibly the first, and yet for all of his supposed wisdom he had literally no foresight and very little ability to understand how various doctrines impacted each other.

I would be interested in your take on the ‘Legend’.

In hindsight, yes.

I said that: “Luther actually thought that once people had been ‘broken loose’ from the chains that bound them to Rome, and had been ‘exposed’ to his interpretations of Scripture (actually his PI), they would all see things from his perspective. He believed that Scripture was ‘clear’ enough that everyone would agree (with him). That was incredibly foolish.”

Then you said that ‘in hindsight, yes (he was incredibly foolish). Hindsight?

**There were at least a couple of dozen Theologians who had enough foresight to be able to accurately warn Luther that he was headed towards heresy. **They also warned him that his beliefs on Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation were going to lead to doctrinal divisions. Given that he was warned repeatedly, and refused to heed those very wise warnings, he was not foolish in ‘hindsight’. If he had ANY foresight he would have known that his teachings were going to cause disunity, but he apparently had absolutely none.

**Given that so many warned him, it absolutely cannot be said that he was foolish in ‘hindsight’. That word portrays an extremely ‘inaccurate’ impression and obviously I take issue with the use of that word. **

 

[Topper17]

Not if, as he believed, Satan had deceived people for centuries.

You have already admitted that Luther was ‘seriously delusional’. Granted that people have been deceived by Satan for centuries, but Luther’s delusion involved his claims to authority. People who are ‘seriously delusional’ should NOT be allowed for forge new and radical directions in Christian doctrine. The Church in fact refused to allow him to do so, but he did it anyway. Luther claimed an authority that he did legitimately have, and taught his own beliefs. As we have seen, it has not turned out well, with almost 30% of Christendom divided into tens of thousands of doctrinally independent competing and conflicting factions.

Basically I agree with this. Or another way of putting it is that in Luther’s worldview any serious disagreement with him must be the work of Satan. He could put up with a certain amount of disagreement, especially if the person disagreeing with him also attacked common enemies (he is reported to have said, for instance, that “we”–the Lutherans–should put up with a lot from Calvin because of Calvin’s eloquent defense of Protestantism against Sadoleto). But basically he didn’t have a paradigm that handled disagreement well.

His extraordinary claims to authority were part and parcel of his extreme arrogance, but again, the term ‘seriously delusional’ is important.

On the other hand, the conservative scholastics of his era were also prone to accuse each other of heresy over fairly small points. The Franciscans and Dominicans were at each other’s throats over the Immaculate Conception. I think Erasmus (one of the sanest, if not always the most glamorous, figures of the time) was right in suggesting that many of Luther’s bad habits were those of late scholasticism. But late scholasticism combined to a very fiery, imaginative, and unstable personality and without the regard for tradition and careful thought that were the great virtues of scholasticism.

But on the other hand, Luther had refuted at least 50 major doctrines of the Church even before he was excommunicated, and of course it was after he was excommunicated that he really went off the rails in terms of what he taught as being Scriptural (the Jews, the Peasants, execution of the Anabaptists, etc,).

The disputes between the Franciscans vs. the Dominicans were absolutely nothing (1/1,000,000th) in terms of the importance of what Luther did in terms of damage to Christian unity.

If you want to attack sola scriptura, you will have to widen your focus beyond Luther. That’s the one point where we disagree that is actually relevant to the OP. I don’t think sola scriptura was Luther’s “invention” in the way sola fide was. It was simply what happened when people lost confidence in the Church but retained confidence in Scripture.
Contarini;12082930:

The Reformed had a much more rational, defensible form of sola scriptura than Luther. Luther’s sola scriptura was always mostly about defending his own unique theological vision. So I agree with you that this was indefensible, but I think it’s not true that all of Protestantism depends on Luther’s unique ideas here, as it does with sola fide. Some Protestants, in fact (such as the “Restorationists” of the 19th century) essentially dropped sola fide because of their commitment to sola scriptura. Dialogue with those folks (the "Christian Church/Church of Christ, etc.) has little to do with Luther.

I understand your point. Of course SS was ‘used’ prior to Luther. The Fathers mention the concept of SS by warning against it and criticizing those who thought it within their rights to interpret Scripture apart from or against the Church. So, technically, Luther was not the first who promoted SS, but all of those previous to him were also judged by the Church to be heretics.

 

[Topper17]

And this is the basic problem I have with your approach, which is a venerable (by years) approach among Catholics but has for good reasons been mostly abandoned by mainstream Catholic scholars and theologians. You can’t just reduce Protestantism to Luther, even though you can’t understand Protestantism without understanding Luther. Luther’s craziness is relevant because it has been replicated over and over again (including in my own grandmother, may she rest in peace, who had downright disturbing similarities with Luther in many ways, although she didn’t express her ideas as crudely). But Protestantism does not stand or fall on Luther.

Here we disagree. Protestantism was founded on the Private Interpretation of one man and it was with that PI that Luther defied the authority of the Catholic Church. Either he was right to do so or he was wrong. If he was wrong, then anyone who used that same ‘authority’ as Luther did was also wrong.

Furthermore, if Luther introduced SS into Western Christianity and SS has been PROVEN to lead to error, then Protestantism DOES stand or fall on Luther. After all, it stands or falls on SS and Luther is responsible for Protestantism’s foundation of SS.

I’m not trying to put the worst construction on what you are saying. I see what seems to me to be a thoroughly poisonous clericalism still reigning in Catholicism, and Luther is the person who has most thoroughly criticized this and offered an alternative. I don’t think Luther is right where he actually contradicts Catholic doctrine (as in denying the “indelible character” or the necessity of apostolic succession), but his understanding of the Church as the company of the baptized, and his stress on baptism generally, was very much needed and is still needed.

Protestantism is dependent upon the denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. In the denial of the necessary relationship between laypeople and the Church, the relationship which correspondingly had to increase, was that between Christ and the individual believer. This is the beauty of Protestantism and this is the lesson that the Church still needs to incorporate more fully. Bouyer points this out much more eloquently (of course). We Catholics are trying to take advantage of this ‘gift’ from Protestantism, and like you, I see it as still being a goal.

One of the valid definitions of ‘the Church’ is the ‘company of the baptized’, but in the beginning of his revolt, Luther overemphasized that definition and then, very reluctantly, had to backtrack back towards the Catholic understanding of the Church which ALSO included a visible hierarchical, organized, structured, identifiable Church. Of course, since that Church could NOT be the Roman Catholic Church, he basically had to invent one of his own, and then have THAT ONE be authoritative.

Every Catholic has the right to complain about abuses of authority, but individual Catholics do not have the right to develop their own doctrines. There is a huge difference between the two, one that does not seem to be well understood by many Protestants. It seems that they believe that since Luther was right to object to abuses, he was then automatically right in his doctrinal ‘reformulations’.

And that’s relevant to our general disagreement. You want to discredit Luther. I want to see Protestants stop absolutizing their ahistorical “Luther Legend” as an excuse for schism, and so far we agree. But I also want to see Catholics take Luther’s ideas more seriously, so that what should have happened in the sixteenth century (and began to happen, in fits and starts, in the past century or two, particularly with Vatican II) can finally happen: Luther’s positive ideas can be integrated with Catholic theology and be a source of renewal.
Contarini;12082930:

Luther’s personal faults are simply irrelevant to this.

Spoken like a true friend. As you know I believe that we will be better prepared to heal our divisions if we know what caused those divisions. Because Luther is greatly at the heart of those divisions, studying him and his motivations should better equip us to deal with those divisions. In my experience Lutherans simply cannot admit that Luther is even partially responsible for the doctrinal uncertainty and division that we see in Protestantism.

I’m not actually sure we fundamentally disagree. It would help if you would say in one sentence just what your thesis is.

How about a paragraph?

The Martin Luther of Legend is nothing like the Martin Luther of actual history. Protestants tend to simply presume that Luther was right to do what he did in refuting the authority of the Church. If they knew the truth they would have no choice but to wonder whether he was right (in God’s Eyes) to do what he did. The facts of his career, and many of his lesser known ‘teachings’ prove that he should not have been trusted to ‘reform’ the Church then and he should not be trusted today to have correctly chosen which doctrines to refute and which to rebuke. In his rebellion of the Church Luther found it necessary to come up with an alternative to the authority of the Church. He seized upon Sola Scriptura, Scripture as interpreted by Himself. That combination of Sola Scriptura plus Private Interpretation has proved deadly to Christian unity. Given Luther’s role in the promulgation of SS+PI, and his very public and outrageous claims to authority, the justification for his claims to authority should be scrutinized. When he so publically challenged the authority of the Church he made it necessary for us to analyze his career and his teachings, hoping that we can find a way to heal the wounds to Christianity that he had a huge part in creating.

God Bless You Cont, Topper