Hi ben,
Thanks for your very polite response.
Thanks for info. Is that full context of the author , simple hate or the deeds and representations ? Does not Jesus commend a church for hating the deeds of the Nicolatians (Rev 2:6) ?
First of all, as always you deserve a respectful response.
It seems that you are questioning the context of the (Lutheran Scholar) Edwards quote. The surrounding text is just as revealing as the short sentence I posted. In this text Edwards is describing “Luther’s talents as a polemicist, as a shaper of passions and emotions through words”:
**“Moreover, with their impassioned language, abusive characterization of opponents, and almost summary discussions of the theological issues involved…………” **Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36
Ben, you will probably find it surprising that Luther used abusive language and characterizations of his opponents, and also that he really didn’t do much to respond to their arguments other than a generalized summary of his opinions (additional documentation on this point is available – as always). In fact, in general, when people disagreed with Luther, he vilified them. When they persisted in spite of his abuse, the claimed that they were lying, (documentation available here also if requested). Of course they MUST have been lying. After all, the truth was SO clear to Martin, it HAD to be just as clear to everyone. Therefore, if you disagreed with Luther, he had no choice but to conclude that you were lying about your disagreement.
Edwards continues: “………they (his polemics) were obviously intended to be treatises of exhortation rather than explanation. They may have deepened convictions already held, but they were unlikely to have converted anyone from outside the Protestant ranks. In short, their intended audience was Protestant, not Catholics or any third party. And their intended purpose was to rally Protestants to the defense of their faith, not to convince them to resist passively an unjust attack by the Catholic Emperor. They were political polemics. They were written at the request of Landgrave Philipp or Luther’s Elector. They served the interests of these Protestant leaders of the League of Schmalkalden and were reprinted whenever there was a threat of Catholic attack. Publication statistics for the older Luther’s works suggest that his audience had become more narrowly Lutheran, territorilly defined. The polemics on resistance fit this pattern.
Of course there is nothing surprising about polemics of this sort, more exhortation than explanation, aimed at the converted rather than the unconverted, written in response to political circumstances. They are just what one would expect in the consolidation phase of an ideological movement.
What is surprising, perhaps, is that they were written by Martin Luther. While it is almost a cliché in Luther studies to point to Luther’s delight in paradox and his ability to hold a creative tension seemingly conflicting ideas, what we find in the question of resistance is a paradox, a tension of a sort. Here we see his ability to really say one thing but to say it in a manner that conveyed a different message. I do not think we should label this hypocrisy, as many of his Catholic opponents did. Yet it requires some explanation.” Edwards, pg. 36
That explanation, which is necessary in order to comprehend Luther’s inherent contradictions of thought, are the subject of the very next text in Edward’s book, as I quoted earlier:
**
“Luther hated the pope as the antichrist and Catholics as the agents of Satan.” **
Ben, my guess is that you probably struggle with the fact of Luther’s hatred. It doesn’t really seem all that ‘Christian’ does it? But, as Edwards (and many others also) point out, Luther’s hatred was a central element in his theology. Whether it be the Jews, the Peasants, the Pope, Catholics……… that particular ‘emotion’ drove him to excess after excess. Unfortunately, that ‘emotion’ is also reflected in the Lutheran Confessions still to this day.
**What I find especially interesting about the above quote is the idea that Luther vilified his opponents while at the same time really not dealing with their specific arguments. **In essence, he was always playing defense, attempting to keep his ‘converts’ from defecting back to the side of the Antichrist. When challenged, Luther tended to get pretty ugly pretty fast, and tended to NOT deal with the specifics being posed against his positions.
I hope this is helpful ben.
God Bless You, Topper
This thread was being conducted in an entirely civil manner UNTIL your attack, and it will be again.
Topper