Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[TertiumQuid]

A good prediction by you James. Your answer was not ‘satisfying’. I remembered that Luther exhorted the princes to slaughter the peasants BEFORE they did so - from the very first moment that I read it. That is not exactly an ‘insignificant detail’ of the history of the Peasant’s War. If I can remember it, it would make sense that others can. It goes directly to the issue of credibility.

I have explained to you that we are not going to be dialoging. Write whatever you want, but if you insist on addressing me as if you expect me to dialogue with you, I will explain my position to you, in detail.

You asked me a question, and I gave you a full response. Frankly, I’ve grown quite accustomed to you not explaing the majority of the factual and contextual issues I’ve raised about the material you’ve post, In the last episode with you, one of your favorite sources, Marius, says the opposite of what you believe about Luther. You quoted him to support your belief, I then demonstrated he arrived at the opposite belief. In these repeated situations you produce, your lack of response acheives a worthwhile result. So, there really isn’t any need for you to respond to me.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Of course he made a vow, but he’d probably say it was a vow that was invalid from the first because hardly anyone can be celibate, etc. That has no bearing on the binding nature of the vow. He freely made it.

I hear he was a very loving husband. They had no children. His wife was a former nun, who would have also made a vow.

They had six children (I believe it was six). From what I understand, his descendants are still known.

 

[DaveArmstrong]

They had six children (I believe it was six). From what I understand, his descendants are still known.

Ah! Big mistake on my part. I do remember now Luther going through a terrible period of one of his children dying at a young age. I think I was going by hearing that he had no direct descendants (?).

 

[TertiumQuid]

Book him, Lou!

No, but seriously, I’m not condemning your action but it does seem a little redundant.

Thanks for understanding, I’m grateful to be able to share my opinion here on a subject (the Reformation) which is ultimately just a hobby of mine. I realize I’m somewhat alone in this discussion, so I do appreciate the few of you that have taken the time to read what I’ve posted without getting caught up in the rhetoric or personal stuff.

One thing I think is interesting, is how so many people here pour a lot of thought and emotion into the events of the Reformation. In other words, while I may disagree with perhaps most of you, I do appreciate your concern for what happened .

 

[guanophore]

One thing that has not been looked at on this thread is his marriage. He was a priest, yet he married. Wasn’t there a vow? Was it contingent? Did he make a good hubby and daddy?

He was formally released from his monastic vows. By the time he married, I think he had so little respect for the ecclesial authority that if he was not laicized it would not have mattered.

He did not believe in priestly celibacy anyway.

His marriage was not a factor in his excommunication, I don’t think, just his assertion that priestly celibacy was wrong,

 

[benjohnson]

They had six children (I believe it was six). From what I understand, his descendants are still known.

Yes - Luther and Katharina also raised four orphans as well.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Yes - Luther and Katharina also raised four orphans as well.

I have never heard that, thanks for the tidbit.

One of my favorite drawings- I recall seeing it in a Christian History magazine, is a picture of Luther holding his hands over his ears in his study while his wife and kids are surrounding him to get his attention

I also recall hearing once that Katie had the door to his study removed so he couldn’t shut the family out. I don’t recall if this was just one of those myths that has come down to us, and I’m not able to go check it out at the moment. It certainly seems plausible with so many children and orphans around!

 

[guanophore]

Apparently under Luther’s “guidance”, you actually be tortured if you were merely suspected of holding Anabaptist views. That is a perfect example of Lutheran “tolerance”.

This seems quite disingenuous, Topper. Luther and Melancthon were just taking a page from the Catholic book.

Torture and execution had been used for centuries, since there was no separation between Church and state.

 

[mayogirl25]

Cut and dry answer he was excommunicated because he refused to follow orders from his current Papal authority so he went renegade and started a new Christian religion. Basically he went off the reservation and did what he thought was right according to himself. There were other renegades at the same time all going off and spouting what they thought was correct regarding the Roman Catholic Church which one has to admit was pretty corrupt at the time and that allowed all this to happen.

 

[Megan7]

A primer on indulgences:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIMINDU.htm

This proved by The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, “An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins.” The Church does this not just to aid Christians, “but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity” (CCC 1478).

Thanks for the link.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Dave,

Luther (as is well known) firmly believed in the Real Presence (but not transubstantiation) and even said that other Protestants (like Zwingli and Oecolampadius) were damned and no Christians at all, due to rejecting it (when he argues against them – except for denying they are Christians – , he is wonderful and spot-on; I love it!). What Luther didn’t like was the motion of a meritorious Mass and the Sacrifice of the Mass.

As for Luther’s beliefs on the Real Presence, and the Mass, we need turn no further than Daniel Preus, writing as the then First VP of the LCMS:

“Luther and the Mass, Justification and the Joint Declaration”, by Daniel Preus

**As Luther viewed it, the one responsible for this weaving together of the mass and the sacrament is none other than Satan himself. **

Such sacrificing and reception of the sacrament the devil has mingled together so inseparably in the mass, even as dishonest innkeepers mix water and wine with one another and as deceitful minters mix silver and brass……… Just as the devil has constructed his own chapel next to the church of God, so he has imitated also God’s sacrament and established the mass as its substitute. **And just as the church of antichrist is a hypocritical and false church, so his mass is an idol and an abomination. For since the false church of antichrist attacks the church of Christ by robbing it of the gospel, the false “sacrament” of antichrist must also deprive the church of her inheritance…. **

The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was not simply an ancillary issue when considering Luther’s understanding of the nature of Antichrist and the eschatological struggle of the church. ….Thus the battle between Christ and antichrist rages nowhere more intensely than in the struggle between sacrament and mass when two conflicting soteriologies confront each other, one of grace and one of works.

It is because Luther saw the contention between the mass and the sacrament as a struggle between two mutually exclusive soteriologies, and therefore,** the site of battle between the true church and the false church, that he viewed the mass as crucial to the survival of the papal office. Since the mass is a denial of the atonement, its loss would have a profoundly significant impact upon the office of the antichrist, whose chief objective is to suppress the gospel and destroy faith in Christ.** Just as Luther believed that the entire gospel is encompassed within the sacrament of the altar, so he viewed the sacrifice of** the mass as, “the basis of all blasphemy in the papacy.**” **Every celebration of the mass is a proclamation of the central doctrine of the antichrist, that is, salvation by works. To remove the mass would be to topple antichrist from his throne. Therefore, said Luther, it is not possible for the papists to yield on the article of the mass. “The papists are well aware that if the mass falls, the papacy will fall with it”/B] (SA ii ii, 10; Tappert, 294).

Already in 1522, foreshadowing his later distinction between the words “mass” and “sacrament,” Luther recognized how essential the mass is to papal soteriology. He declared in a treatise against Henry VIII: “After the mass has fallen, I believe that we will have triumphed over the entire papacy. For upon the mass, as upon a rock, the entire papacy is founded.” In 1524 Luther confessed that he had even been tempted to interpret the words of institution symbolically in order deal a greater blow to the papacy.” Preus

(Topper: I could not make this stuff up. That Luther, out of his hatred of the Church, would think, for even a moment to misrepresent the Eucharist is astonishing, and extremely telling.)

“Luther defended the real presence, attacking Karlstadt…[in] ‘Against the Heavenly Prophets’… a tedious work for all but those most persuaded that Luther was right in all his acts and deeds………It is informed by Luther’s convictions that in the essentials of Christian doctrine he was right in everything and that anyone who disagreed with him was a tool of the devil.” Marius, pg. 410

What amazes me is the degree to which Luther is honored by most of Protestantism today, when the fact is that he believed that most of Protestantism ‘were damned and no Christians at all’. Anyone who disagreed with him was a tool of the devil, which would include everyone who would not hold to the Real Presence. Of course, he is a hero to those who consider Catholics to be un-Christian, and is even defended by those whom HE would consider to be un-Christian and tools of the devil. It’s perplexing.

God Bless You Dave, Topper

Stop by anytime. **

 

[Peter_J]

If not, no worries I will figure it out eventually. So now I owe the whole thread an apology for shameless abuse. This will be an off topic post, but it seems to be owed to everyone.

There is a small group of us fledgling apologists who decided to make Dave Armstrong’s fundraising appeal our Fall quarter challenge.

I have to confess I’m more familiar with CA-fundraising appeals than with DA-fundraising appeals. Since you asked.

 

[JonNC]

I just wanted to post a word of thanks to both Dave and James for bringing their knowledge to the thread, even if they don’t agree with each other. I’ve often enjoyed both of your websites.

Jon

 

[DaveArmstrong]

I just wanted to post a word of thanks to both Dave and James for bringing their knowledge to the thread

Thanks, Jon!

 

[spina1953]

The more I delve into who Luther was and why he was excommunicated, I see that there is two Luther’s; One of Legend and the real Luther. In the legend of Luther we see a hero who stood up to the CC defending his teachings and doctrines. A man who refused to the Cc to dictate to him what he was to teach. The real Luther we find a man who because of his severe scrupulosity his stubborn mindless who thought himself far superior to the Cc and learned men of his time, who he had no tolerance for anyone who disagreed and questioned his teachings.

St. Bernard once said “he who constitutes himself his own master, becomes the disciple of a fool.” Luther wrote the following in his “Against the Spiritual Estate and the Bishops falsely So Called in 1522: I now let you bishops know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you or even an angel from heaven to judge my teachings or examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility and it has not helped. For since I am certain of my teachings, I shall be your judge, so that whoever does not accept my teachings many not be saved, for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s.”

This quote from Luther shows I think a man who considers his thinking to be superior to anyone else’s. This is a man whose arrogance shines through to the point of self pride. It seems to me that Luther not allowing any one to examine or even question his teachings is really saying that not only is his teaching so far superior but that there is no one not even angels from heaven who are capable of or even in a position to question anything Luther says or teaches because Luther’s word is final and unchangeable. Luther is also saying by his quote that only he and he alone knows and understands Scripture and what it is saying and what it means. All others especially the CC has not real understanding of what Scripture says and means and that all along the CC has been teaching wrongly and that God gave him and only him the intelligence to know without any doubt whatsoever to know and understand Scripture and it was and is God’s will that he Luther is given the right to speak for God.

Luther did not just come to his theology out of the blue but over the course of his studies pursuing his doctorate in 1512 when he was studying Paul and lecturing on the Psalms, Romans, Galatians and Hebrews where he began to form his alien righteousness as coming outside of ourselves showing that even then Luther was heading in a direction far from CC teaching. By 1518 Luther had developed the teaching and theology of justification by faith alone. Why? because Luther needed the assurance of salvation and not the hope that he would be saved. Hoping that he would be saved was not good enough. He needed that assurance that he was actually saved. he had already tried everything else and for him nothing worked never being able to overcome his tormented mind and his scrupulosity told him that he would never be saved.

It was when he decided that in Roman’s that he was justified by faith alone, he felt freed from his scrupulosity because he no longer needed to do anything because since he believed he was already saved so had no need to do good works. What Luther failed to realize is that it was not good works that saved in the first place and doing good works as some sort of punishment to atone for sins to a vengeful God who was unmerciful, but that doing good works was that a person becomes an instrument of God’s good works being done through man. That doing good works meant that one was open to God’s grace cooperating with God and not by how well did good works but how much love one did it with. Luther could not see this because his scrupulosity got in the way and would not allow him to see anything differently. nothing was going to relieve his torture he experienced of never being saved till he decided that only by justification by faith alone was the answer he had been seeking.

Luther convinced himself that he was correct and everyone else was wrong and he was not going to allow anyone to tell him differently and no one was going to question him nor would he allow anyone to examine his teachings thereby exposing the flaws in his thinking. He had already concluded in his mind that he was correct and anyone disagreeing with him merited his contempt wrath. Is it no wonder then that Luther was excommunicated? Luther’s deciding that no one not even the CC was to question his teachings, he left the CC no choice but to excommunicate him.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Dave,

As for Luther’s beliefs on the Real Presence, and the Mass, we need turn no further than Daniel Preus, writing as the then First VP of the LCMS:

“Luther and the Mass, Justification and the Joint Declaration”, by Daniel Preus

**As Luther viewed it, the one responsible for this weaving together of the mass and the sacrament is none other than Satan himself. **

Such sacrificing and reception of the sacrament the devil has mingled together so inseparably in the mass, even as dishonest innkeepers mix water and wine with one another and as deceitful minters mix silver and brass……… Just as the devil has constructed his own chapel next to the church of God, so he has imitated also God’s sacrament and established the mass as its substitute. **And just as the church of antichrist is a hypocritical and false church, so his mass is an idol and an abomination. For since the false church of antichrist attacks the church of Christ by robbing it of the gospel, the false “sacrament” of antichrist must also deprive the church of her inheritance…. **

The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was not simply an ancillary issue when considering Luther’s understanding of the nature of Antichrist and the eschatological struggle of the church. ….Thus the battle between Christ and antichrist rages nowhere more intensely than in the struggle between sacrament and mass when two conflicting soteriologies confront each other, one of grace and one of works.

It is because Luther saw the contention between the mass and the sacrament as a struggle between two mutually exclusive soteriologies, and therefore,** the site of battle between the true church and the false church, that he viewed the mass as crucial to the survival of the papal office. Since the mass is a denial of the atonement, its loss would have a profoundly significant impact upon the office of the antichrist, whose chief objective is to suppress the gospel and destroy faith in Christ.** Just as Luther believed that the entire gospel is encompassed within the sacrament of the altar, so he viewed the sacrifice of** the mass as, “the basis of all blasphemy in the papacy.**” **Every celebration of the mass is a proclamation of the central doctrine of the antichrist, that is, salvation by works. To remove the mass would be to topple antichrist from his throne. Therefore, said Luther, it is not possible for the papists to yield on the article of the mass. “The papists are well aware that if the mass falls, the papacy will fall with it”/**B] (SA ii ii, 10; Tappert, 294).

Already in 1522, foreshadowing his later distinction between the words “mass” and “sacrament,” Luther recognized how essential the mass is to papal soteriology. He declared in a treatise against Henry VIII: “After the mass has fallen, I believe that we will have triumphed over the entire papacy. For upon the mass, as upon a rock, the entire papacy is founded.” In 1524 Luther confessed that he had even been tempted to interpret the words of institution symbolically in order deal a greater blow to the papacy.” Preus

(Topper: I could not make this stuff up. That Luther, out of his hatred of the Church, would think, for even a moment to misrepresent the Eucharist is astonishing, and extremely telling.)

“Luther defended the real presence, attacking Karlstadt…[in] ‘Against the Heavenly Prophets’… a tedious work for all but those most persuaded that Luther was right in all his acts and deeds………It is informed by Luther’s convictions that in the essentials of Christian doctrine he was right in everything and that anyone who disagreed with him was a tool of the devil.” Marius, pg. 410

What amazes me is the degree to which Luther is honored by most of Protestantism today, when the fact is that he believed that most of Protestantism ‘were damned and no Christians at all’. Anyone who disagreed with him was a tool of the devil, which would include everyone who would not hold to the Real Presence. Of course, he is a hero to those who consider Catholics to be un-Christian, and is even defended by those whom HE would consider to be un-Christian and tools of the devil. It’s perplexing.

God Bless You Dave, Topper

Stop by anytime.

Hi Topper: It seems to me that it is more the legend of Luther as a hero of reformation than the real Luther.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I just wanted to post a word of thanks to both Dave and James for bringing their knowledge to the thread, even if they don’t agree with each other. I’ve often enjoyed both of your websites.

Jon

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the kind words. My hope would be that people wouldn’t base their knowledge of Luther on anything I write or someone with a blog or website. Rather, people should go to the sources quoted or read Luther in context, especially noting the historical context. It’s often quite revealing to read the actual context of what’s being quoted on the internet.

 

[GKC]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the kind words. My hope would be that people wouldn’t base their knowledge of Luther on anything I write or someone with a blog or website. Rather, people should go to the sources quoted or read Luther in context, especially noting the historical context. It’s often quite revealing to read the actual context of what’s being quoted on the internet.

Yep.

GKC

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

An excellent post by you!

The more I delve into who Luther was and why he was excommunicated, I see that there is two Luther’s; One of Legend and the real Luther. In the legend of Luther we see a hero who stood up to the CC defending his teachings and doctrines. A man who refused to the Cc to dictate to him what he was to teach. The real Luther we find a man who because of his severe scrupulosity his stubborn mindless who thought himself far superior to the Cc and learned men of his time, who he had no tolerance for anyone who disagreed and questioned his teachings.

St. Bernard once said “he who constitutes himself his own master, becomes the disciple of a fool.” Luther wrote the following in his “Against the Spiritual Estate and the Bishops falsely So Called in 1522: I now let you bishops know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you or even an angel from heaven to judge my teachings or examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility and it has not helped. For since I am certain of my teachings, I shall be your judge, so that whoever does not accept my teachings many not be saved, for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s.”

This quote from Luther shows I think a man who considers his thinking to be superior to anyone else’s. This is a man whose arrogance shines through to the point of self pride. It seems to me that Luther not allowing any one to examine or even question his teachings is really saying that not only is his teaching so far superior but that there is no one not even angels from heaven who are capable of or even in a position to question anything Luther says or teaches because Luther’s word is final and unchangeable. Luther is also saying by his quote that only he and he alone knows and understands Scripture and what it is saying and what it means. All others especially the CC has not real understanding of what Scripture says and means and that all along the CC has been teaching wrongly and that God gave him and only him the intelligence to know without any doubt whatsoever to know and understand Scripture and it was and is God’s will that he Luther is given the right to speak for God.

Luther did not just come to his theology out of the blue but over the course of his studies pursuing his doctorate in 1512 when he was studying Paul and lecturing on the Psalms, Romans, Galatians and Hebrews where he began to form his alien righteousness as coming outside of ourselves showing that even then Luther was heading in a direction far from CC teaching. By 1518 Luther had developed the teaching and theology of justification by faith alone. Why? because Luther needed the assurance of salvation and not the hope that he would be saved. Hoping that he would be saved was not good enough. He needed that assurance that he was actually saved. he had already tried everything else and for him nothing worked never being able to overcome his tormented mind and his scrupulosity told him that he would never be saved.

Luther convinced himself that he was correct and everyone else was wrong and he was not going to allow anyone to tell him differently and no one was going to question him nor would he allow anyone to examine his teachings thereby exposing the flaws in his thinking. He had already concluded in his mind that he was correct and anyone disagreeing with him merited his contempt wrath. Is it no wonder then that Luther was excommunicated? Luther’s deciding that no one not even the CC was to question his teachings, he left the CC no choice but to excommunicate him.

Excellent post Spina. I agree 100%.

All of this points to the question as to the legitimacy of Luther’s ‘authority’. What is it, specifically and exactly (of course) that we can look at that justifies such an amazing amount of presumed authority to teach and correct virtually everybody.

Was it Luther’s extraordinary education? Actually there were many in his time who held more impressive credentials, like Eck, but including amazingly, Carlsadt.

Was it his position as a university Professor? That can’t be it either because he was only a young Professor at a relatively insignificant university.

Was it his holiness?

Was it his uncommonly excellent and often demonstrated exegetical abilities? That can’t be it when he quoted Scripture so furiously to justify his recommendation that the Jews, Anabaptists, peasants, and yes, even ‘reluctant wives’ be put to death. All those things do is demonstrate a misunderstanding of the Christian gospel.

So what was it, specifically and exactly, that should cause us to believe that Luther was right to refute SO MUCH of established Christian doctrine. (This is one of those questions that is normally avoided rather than addressed.)

Was his authority self-proclaimed only or was it somehow – actually from God? If it was from God, then what is the rational or support for that claim?

Thank you for this well thought out summary of the situation. BTW, if you ever get an answer to the questions above, please let me know ASAP.

I happen to agree that the popular Legend of Luther is SO different from the actual history of the man because the actual Luther cannot bear the scrutiny.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: First of all there is no legitimacy to Luther’s authority. Luther’s self-proclaimed authority came from Luther himself and not from anyone else. It was Luther’s scrupulosity that drove him to the point where he was grasping for anything that would help him to relieve his tortured mind. He studied day and night for hours and hours on end till he could find a passage in Roman’s that he could make it mean that he was justified by faith alone and thereby assured of salvation. Luther so desired to find an easy way to salvation where he no longer needed to work at it, it was not hard to find something he could fix his mind on and weave it to mean whatever he wanted it to mean.

                From reading so much on this scrupulosity and its effects as well as how abusiveness in one's home life often causes one to continue the behavior one had been subjected to, so Luther's dominating parents punishing Luther for even the most minor of infractions in the most severe manor who were not to be questioned, its not hard to see that Luther first developing scrupulosity in his early adult life and then going from there seeking relief from it by whatever means that never worked for him. it was only when he began studying Scripture for his doctorate for hours and hours on end day and night that he was able to find a passage in Romans that seemed to make sense to him; though he reached the wrong conclusions about it, nonetheless he was able to make it mean what he so desperately  wanted it to mean and convinced himself it meant what he wanted it to mean thereby freeing his tortured and scrupuluious mind.

            As so often the case one who has been abused as Luther was and having developed severe scrupulosity seeing sin where no sin exists, Scripture then become the avenue to freedom by making it mean and say what one wants it to mean and say. It becomes so fixed in the mind that nothing will dislodge it and stubbornness of mindset is formed to the point that  anyone trying to debasing one of those types of thinking becomes the enemy 

            Often one becomes convinced that God is speaking through them and whatever they say is really God speaking and not them. One convinces themselves that it is so. coupled with a violent temper, single mindless and stubbornness refusing to listen to anyone who disagrees and holds a different view contrary to accepted thinking by more learned minds, is it any wonder then as to why he was excommunicated?  yet, people will hold on to the legend of Luther as it is better than the real Luther. it is better to think of Luther as a hero than a villain.