Saturday, May 23, 2015

Recent Discovery of Luther's Notes, Even BBC News Makes Mistakes

Just when I thought Luther's written corpus couldn't get any bigger, BBC News has reported:  Protestant reformer Martin Luther's 16th Century notes found. The recent discovery appears to involve Luther's notes to revisions to the first edition of his 1520 treatise, On The Freedom of the Christian. Of the volume discovered, BBC News states, "It includes around 50 notes written in red by Luther himself, indicating changes he wanted for a second edition." They also say it was an American "James Hirsten" who made the discovery "in The Humanist Library in Selestat, in the north-east of France."

I was curious about the discoverer, so I Googled around with key terms in reference to the "American" "James Hirsten" and only came up with the same sparse information provided by the BBC. This link (which I could not open) says "James Hirsten, Latin professor of the University of Strasbourg," so I wouldn't be surprised if this other link was that which the BBC used.  The reason why I couldn't find any information on the person mentioned by the BBC is because it appears to me they misspelled the name of the discoverer, as I think "James Hirstein" is the actual name. Note this link: Un ouvrage de Martin Luther annoté de sa main découvert en Alsace.

None of the links I've gone through mention if there are any significant changes Luther wanted to make to the second edition. The Freedom of the Christian already exists in two versions, Latin and German, so when English versions are consulted, there could already be some slight variances depending on which was used for the translation (most English translations are based on the German). These newly discovered changes appear to refer to the Latin version. Given the chaotic and intense time period in which this treatise was written, that these changes never made it to print leads me to conclude that Luther was not overly concerned about them, so I would be surprised if anything of substance is found in this recent discovery.

Friday, May 22, 2015

Dr. Dan Wallace and Dr. White respond to Yusuf Ismail's mis-quoting and mishandling of Dan Wallace's Greek Grammar text

Dan Wallace and Dr. White respond to Yusuf Ismail's mis-quoting and mis-construing of John 1:1 comments in Dan Wallace's book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. (page 269)

Please listen carefully to the Garage Band sound file that Dr. Wallace sent to Dr. White.

1.  Yusuf Ismail mis-quoted Dan Wallace and butchered the quote.
2.  Yusuf Ismail added the word necessarily, making it, "not necessarily" and left out "not at all"; conveying a totally opposite meaning.
3.  He did not give the page number so people can look it up.
4.  He based his argument on an English idiom that we sometimes use, "this food is divine".
5.  He did not base his argument on the Greek text, but made it seem that he was.
6.  He ignored the part of Dan Wallace's argument that Dr. Wallace specifically wrote that the English "this food is divine" is not valid because it is not the meaning of the Greek text.

For more on John 1:1, see here:
1.  Muslim admits that John 1:1 means "God" by nature.
2.  Greek Grammar points to the doctrine of the Trinity and Sola Scriptura

To see the full debate in October of 2014:

Friday, May 15, 2015

This is Powerful

Another passage to add to the verses that Pastor Piper mentioned are:
Matthew 18:15-35, especially verses 34-35.
Matthew 18:34-35

The verses he mentioned:
Matthew 6:15
Matthew 5:21-26

Ephesians 4:32

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Announcement: I have crossed the Tiber

 I crossed the Tiber, first by Taxi, then on foot.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

The Liberal Media's Rules for Self-Identification - Lutheran Satire

Hilarious and true and epic!  Lutheran Satire does it again!

Be sure to watch it all the way until the end.  Hilarious!

Saturday, May 09, 2015

Hillary Clinton and the Supreme Court upcoming ruling on "same sex marriage" and the "Gay Agenda's" threat to Christian colleges and Universities and churches

Hillary Clinton said that deep seated religious beliefs have to be changed.

No Mrs. Clinton, you must repent of your sinful position.  Luke 13:1-5

She is saying this to her base, and showing them that she is against Christians who believe abortion is murder and evil, and that homosexuality and so called "same sex marriage" is wrong.

She seems to deliberately mix in things about women's rights in other countries with code speech for other issues she wants to change in the USA.  (abortion; homosexuality; so called "same sex marriage")

Her context talks a lot about other countries and the dangers to girls and women in other countries and cultures.  I wonder why she doesn't come out clearly and say anything about the fact that most of these problems and unjust treatment of women are in Muslim countries, which we have no authority to change their own laws and cultures.  We can agree that women suffer great injustices in Muslim countries, but liberals and leftists mix that in with abortion and homosexuality here in USA to try and bolster their base and sway the middle of the road voters.

I tried maybe 100 times, it seems, to embed the fox news video clip below, but I was unable to get it to work.  So be sure to go to click on it and watch it, if you have not seen this.

This report points out that the lawyer admitted to Justice Sam Alito that Christian colleges and Universities and organizations (and probably churches) are going to be hit with lawsuits and this will become a real issue if the Supreme Court rules that "same sex marriage" should be legal in all 50 states.

Friday, May 08, 2015

Biblical Response to Transgenderism

Understanding Trans-genderism - Denny Burk - "When Psychological identity trumps Bodily Identity"

See the video message at the end by Denny Burk.

Trans-gender Contradiction at Smith College

Thursday, May 07, 2015

Reason #789 Why to Use Comment Moderatiom

Here's a sample of why comment moderation is turned on." Simply click on the image below for a closer look.

Wednesday, May 06, 2015

Piper's insightful analysis of the homosexual / "same sex marriage" issue

Two of John Piper's "Ask Pastor John" podcasts; one recent and one from 2013:

1.  What to say to a pastor who wants to officiate a "gay wedding".   (April 30, 2015)

The same can be said of Transgenderism - it is a disorder in the soul and rebellion of the way God created the person.


"The emotional and physical sensations that we call same-sex attraction are disordered emotions and disordered sensations. And that disordering of the soul’s emotions and the body’s sensations are rooted in the fall of humanity into sin and, more specifically, they are rooted in the sin that is understood as exchanging God’s glory for images (Romans 1:23). So the exchange of woman as the glory of man for another man is a parable of the exchange of God for images like ourselves.
A person who experiences this disorder — this disordering of the emotions of the soul and the sensations of the body — may or may not himself exchange God for images. He may be a Christian. But the disordering he is experiencing is rooted in that original sin and in that ongoing human bent of soul that we all have, all of us.
The issue becomes: What do we do with the disordering effects of sin in our lives? I say our lives. And you will see why in a minute — John Piper’s life. The Bible says that if we embrace the disordering as good and normal and live our lives in accord with the disordered inclinations, then we will be living and affirming a parable of rebellion against God. And the Bible says those who live out that kind of rebellion do not enter the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9)."

Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral [that is fornication, because it is distinguished from the next two], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–10)
In other words, if you embrace and live out as normal and good any of these, you perish, because you are living a parable of rebellion.  . . . 
Officiating at a so-called same-sex “wedding” is the same as putting your blessing on the choice of two people to commit eternal suicide. The pastor is solemnizing and making official and blessing their choice not to enter the kingdom of heaven. . . . 
“American society is in the midst of a passionate pursuit of self-destruction.” 

"Now I would say that if a pastor asks his board if he can do that, he has given a signal that he is disqualified from his role of leading the sheep into the kingdom of heaven. And so he has put himself in a position of needing church discipline. And his board should follow the principles of Matthew 18 to seek his repentance as gently and patiently as they can. And then if he does not repent of his willingness to bless people’s eternal suicide and thus lead them out of the kingdom of heaven and into destruction, he should be dismissed as a false shepherd from both the pastorate and the church."
(John Piper; embolding and italics are my emphasis)

2.  Would you attend a "gay wedding"?   (October 10, 2013)

Listen to the voice of broken-ness and compassion, but holding firm to the truth of the Scriptures.  No Christian should attend a "gay wedding"; but we can still love our family members and friends who take this route, talk to them, share the gospel with them, have them over for a meal, etc.

Politicians need to listen to Piper on his issue.

Tuesday, May 05, 2015

Denny Burk's excellent JETS article "On the Ethics of Sexual Attraction (Same-Sex and otherwise)"

I made a couple of comments in the com-boxes:

Excellent article. Definitely needed and thorough. Unfortunately, 20 pages of in-depth analysis like yours will not be analyzed in the sound bite media and “yes or no” questioning of modern journalism.
The problem seems to me that the majority of our western culture, regular man on the street, and secular non-Christians, journalists, politicians, etc. do not consider any kind of thoughts, desires, fantasies, imaginations as sinful. We hear people say all the time, “nothing wrong with looking, as long as we don’t touch”, and phrases like “eye candy”, etc.
This kind of thinking goes against the Biblical analysis of the heart of human beings and the roots of sin – Genesis 6:5Matthew 5:21-30Mark 7:20-23Jeremiah 17:9Romans 7:14-8:13; Colossians 3:5-10.
One thing I disagreed with though, is that you seemed to tie all the temptations of Jesus to His temptations in the sufferings and crucifixion (garden to cross ?) (page 103 – Hebrews 4:15 seen in the light of Hebrews 2:18, seems to overlook the 3 types of temptation in Matthew 4 and Luke 4. ) I agree that Jesus’ temptations did not include every single individual type of temptation that humans experience, but I do think that “tempted in every way” includes the 3 categories of temptations in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 – of “lust of the flesh” (food, sex, sleep, etc. – “turn the stones to bread”; 2. Lust of the eyes” – “I will give you all these kingdoms if You bow down to me” and 3. “the boastful pride of life” – “throw Yourself off the temple edge”, etc. (from Luke 4 and Matthew 4, and I John 2:15-16 and parallel with the temptation to Eve in Genesis 3 – “the fruit was good for food” (lust of flesh), “pleasing to the eyes”, and “could make one wise like God” (pride).

Your analysis of “orientation” and “temptation” and desire and the Greek term epithumia was excellent and the whole discussion of the teleological aspect of when desires are sinful – the purpose and object of the desire as the key to determining the sinfulness of the desire.
Your analysis of James 1:13-14 with Matthew 5:28 is especially helpful.
The evidence of Augustine’s earlier thought on concupiscence and lust/desire vs. his later musings was helpful – I did not know that. Thank you for digging that out for us.
On page 104 – The discussion of the fact that it is more intense of a temptation to not give in to it – and the quote from Leon Morris was very good and needs to be emphasized. (and was very convicting, when thought about my own temptations and giving in to them.)
“This points us to the glorious irony of Jesus’ sinless nature. It did not lessen his experience of temptation but only intensified it.” (page 104)
Wow! This needs to be emphasized and preached on and talked about a lot more.
This should stir all of us to consider more deeply our sinful hearts in our gluttony, anger, greed, and heterosexual lust and need for deeper internal repentance.
These other two statements stood out to me:
“Temptation had no landing pad in Jesus’ heart nor did it have a launching pad from Jesus’ heart.” (page 105)
“This aspect of Jesus’ impeccability ought to invoke worship when we really think about it.” (page 107)
The discussion of not using “orientation” was needed also. We should call it “people who experience same sex attractions and temptations” and Christians who struggle with them.
Another thing that is missing is that some Lesbians have admitted that their Lesbianism was a choice based on other up-bringing and environmental factors and responses and her feisty nature and rebellion and challenge to traditional ideas of being a girl and a lady. Camille Paglia made that point very clear on one of Dennis Prager’s radio shows. see below:
I also linked to Denny Burk's article at my other blog, Apologetics and Agape, along with the above article about Camille Paglia and also Dr. Michael Kruger's article  "What the Media is not telling you in the Judicial arguments in the same sex marriage case."

These two articles also deserve separate future blog posts.

Monday, May 04, 2015

Luther Supports the Head-covering Movement

I didn't know there was a head-covering movement, but well.... I ended up here today: The Head Covering Movement.  I was searching out something else, and landed on What Did Martin Luther Believe About Head Covering? In the link, the author says, "Luther did not see covering as optional." Of course, it might simply have been the case that 16th Century custom played a part with what's going on here.

The source for the Luther material was taken from Susan C. Karant-Nunn; Merry E. Wiesner – Luther on Women: A Sourcebook (Cambridge University Press, 2003). The authors have included a portion of Ein schöner Sermon . . . von dem Ehestande  (Sermon on the Estate of Marriage) [Jn 2:1ff] (15 Jan 1525), WA 17.1:8-12. this sermon is scheduled to be translated in full in a forthcoming edition of Luther's works. Till then, here is the snippet from Luther on Women. Decide for yourself if Luther is arguing Christians wives must always have their heads / hair covered:

For what it's worth, the comment section of the blog post in question has some interesting debate.

Saturday, May 02, 2015

Round-up of some recent videos and articles on the issues of homosexuality and so called "same sex marriage"

An Interview with Kevin DeYoung; and about his book and sermon on "What the Bible Teaches about Homosexuality"

"Top 10 Questions the Supreme Court Justices asked on the Constitutional right to "same sex marriage".

Number 2 was Justice Kennedy, who is the swing vote.
Justice Kennedy expressed concern about whether it was prudent for the Supreme Court to step in and change the definition of an institution that was as old, to use his language as “millennia.” In short, he asked whether it was is imprudent and unwise to suggest that the Supreme Court knows better than ancient history and its belief about marriage.

Denny Burk always has good articles on the issues of homosexuality, "same-sex marriage", transgenderism, etc.  (among other Biblical and cultural subjects)

Dr. James White's response to Dr. David Gushee, Part 1

A few points:
Matthew Vines, author of the book, "The Gay Christian", introduced Dr. Gushee.  See Dr. James White's response to Matthew Vines. "Gay Christianity Refuted".

Dr. Gushee is a professor of ethics, an ethicist at the liberal leaning, historically Baptist (but it formally cut ties with the Southern Baptist denomination in 2006)- Mercer University in Macon, Ga.

Dr. White made an excellent point that conservative Christians need to take time to listen to what those like Dr. Gushee are saying and be ready to respond with apologetic answers, with truth and love; and that those Christians who are just dismissing him, not listening, or calling people names; are not helping matters.

It is amazing that Dr. Gushee used Jeremiah chapter 1:17-19 as his text for his message, claiming that he is giving the "unpopular" message and that somehow Jeremiah and the Lord would agree with him.  The historical background and context of the book of Jeremiah, and the charges that Jeremiah brings against Judah and it's sins and corruption and apostasy - the breaking of God's law by the people of Judah and God's impending judgement by bringing the Babylonians to judge Judah and destroy the temple and take the people into exile; we know that Jeremiah would be on the side of those of us who continue to hold to Biblical and traditional marriage.  Indeed, the heart of the gay agenda is truly deceptive and self-deceptive. (Jeremiah 17:9)  How many passages in Jeremiah speak of the people of Judah forsaking the Lord, backsliding, apostasy, breaking God's law in idolatry, adultery, injustice, deception, murder, greed, etc (see Jeremiah 7:8-11; and also chapter 2-4)?  Jeremiah began his ministry during the time of king Josiah (Jeremiah 1:2), who led a revival, recovering God's law when the high priest, Hilkiah, Jeremiah's father (Jer. 1:1), found the book of the law in the temple, when repairing the temple.  (2 Kings 22:5-8)  The very same book of the law that has passages like Genesis chapters 1-2, chapter 19, and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in it!

Jeremiah even says that the people have become like Sodom and Gommorah in Jeremiah 23:14. (see also Jer. 49:18)  Obviously, Jeremiah himself would not agree with Dr. Gushee's twisting of his message from Jeremiah 1:17-19.

"Now, gird up your loins and arise, and speak to them all which I command you. Do not be dismayed before them, or I will dismay you before them.  Now behold, I have made you today as a fortified city and as a pillar of iron and as walls of bronze against the whole land, to the kings of Judah, to its princes, to its priests and to the people of the land.  They will fight against you, but they will not overcome you, for I am with you to deliver you,” declares the Lord."  Jeremiah 1:17-19

In Jeremiah 6:15 and 8:12 he says about the people in their sins, "did not even know how to blush" - they had no shame in their sins.  This reminds us of today's homosexual movement.

Dr. Gushee attempts to make a parallel of unjust treatment against homosexuals with the unjust treatment of Jews in church history; with the wrong interpretation of certain passages (Matthew 27:25; John 8:44; Acts 7:51-53) and treatment of Jewish people in Christian history, with the history of interpretation of texts about homosexuality and the harsh and contemptuous treatment of homosexuals in history - by the church.   It is true that some twisted those passages as meaning "all Jews", including future generations, but that was obviously wrong, because most of the Christians of the first century were Jews, the disciples and apostles were Jews, and Romans 9-11 shows that some Jews are still coming to Christ, and that many in the future will be turning to Christ.  Also, those passages do not condemn all Jews for what the Jewish leaders under Caiphas, Annas, and the Pharisees did to Jesus.  The parallel is not a good one, for the texts about homosexuality are about sinful behavior, not an ethnicity.

 I was surprised that Dr. Gushee did not also use 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 in his case.  It only means those specific Jews who persecuted the Messiah and who were persecuting the churches of the Thessalonians.   I remember years ago listening to a debate between Dr. Walter Martin, the original Bible Answer Man and author of The Kingdom of the Cults, vs. the famous atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair - where O'Hair said that those Bible texts should not even be mentioned and that when speaking of the crucifixion of Jesus, one should just say, "those guys" or "some people did it", after admitting that the texts don't say "all Jews".

Dr. White has pointed out many times, that not only are there the very clear texts against homosexual lusts and homosexual sex acts, but the Gay activists constantly call those "clobber texts" or "just a few scattered texts"; but they are missing the entire positive message of marriage all through Scripture of creation, marriage as between a man and a woman, passages in Proverbs 5 and the whole book of Song of Solomon, Jesus' quoting of Genesis 1 and 2, and . . . the image of the church as the bride of Christ and that there is only one bride and one Groom/husband - the 2 aspect of the gender binary.

One problem is that Dr. Gushee never even interacted with any of the positive Biblical texts on marriage (Genesis chapters 1-2, Matthew 19:4-6; Song of Solomon, Ephesians 5:21-33; 1 Corinthians 7, Colossians 3, Proverbs 5 . . .

The gender binary of 2 in marriage, between a man and a woman, is all throughout the Bible - man and woman, husband and wife, bride and groom, is seen and pictured in the church and God's love for His own people, His bridge, and the end of redemption history:

Revelation chapters 21-22 - "the heavenly Jerusalem, "like a bride who has made herself ready for her husband"

"And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband."   Revelation 21:2 

"they will be His peoples" - Rev. 21:3  (there is a textual variant there, but peoples seems to me to the better reading - laoi - λαοὶ - and it goes with Revelation 5:9 better. 

Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”  Revelation 21:9

"The Spirit and the bride say, "come!"  Revelation 22:17

At one point (might be in part 2, I am not taking the time right now to go back and find it), Gushee gives an illustration about the rights to get married, and it was interesting that he left out the "B" part of LGBT in his illustration, because for the "B" (Bisexuals) to have marriage rights according to their own desires and inherent attractions, they would have to be able to have the right to marry two other people, thus creating a "Three-some", not a couple.  Dr. White pointed this out and called it a "Thruple" (spelling ?) 

Dr. Gushee, not only did not engage in any of the positive marriage texts (see above) that marriage is between a man and woman, but also never engaged any of the key texts in exegesis, that are clearly against homosexual sex acts and also reveal that any kind of "same sex attraction" is a brokenness from God's original design.  

Genesis 19
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:18-28
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
1 Timothy 1:8-11

Conservative, Biblical Christians freely acknowledge that there are people who experience same sex attractions and desires and struggle with them.  We agree with Dr. Gushee that hatred and name calling and bullying is not right, and that is perhaps the big lesson that Christians have to learn today, for it seems that they current "Gay movement" and push for same-sex marriage has a lot of a spirit of revenge in it, like the incident several years ago, of homosexuals ganging up on a little old lady for expressing her views for Proposition 8 that marriage is only for a man and woman; 

for the wrongs that were done against people with these experiences.  (like the pressure put on the CEO, Brendan Eich, of Mozilla Firefox to resign, 

the pressure put on Louie Giglio to pull out of the Presidential prayer; 


the suing and taking to court the bakers, 


and florists who only did not want to participate in "same sex marriage" ceremonies.) 

Dr. Gushee never differentiates between the Biblical view of sin, repentance, and issues of church discipline vs. unjust bullying and name-calling, but rather seems to lump it all together under "contempt for LGBT people"

Part 2 of Dr. White's Response to Dr. David Gushee:

One of the best points that Dr. White made in this section was when he asked Dr. Gushee, "Do you still believe in the Deity of Christ?"  "Didn't Christ know the hearts of man-kind?"  Dr. Gushee claims that 5% of the population is homosexual.  (a larger estimate than others make at around 2.5 to 3 %) "Didn't Christ know that there are 5% of people who are homosexual in orientation, that you claim?"  "At the feeding of the 5,000, that means that at least 250 men were there were homosexual?"  What about the women who were Lesbians?  "Why didn't Jesus, the God-man, say anything about them?"  Why didn't Jesus offer them any words of comfort or compassion?

Gushed talks about the percentages of homeless children and teenagers are LGBT, but he fails to mention that much of that was caused by other factors that usually cause the homelessness - drugs, rebellion, defiant behavior, stealing, etc.

Part 3 of Dr. White's Response to Dr. David Gushee:

Dr. White pointed out, in either in part 2 or 3, Dr. Gushee talks about Christians who just quote a passage out of Leviticus 18, yet they should be focusing on the passage that says "love your neighbor as yourself", seemingly not realizing that the passage that Jesus quoted several times about "love your neighbor as yourself" is originally from Leviticus 19:18 !!

Interesting that Dr. Gushee challenged the audience to:
1.  When this message of inclusion for LGBT in the church is resisted, you "double down".
2.  "Get out there" and spread this message and make your voice known.

However, when Dr. White challenged Dr. Gushee to debate, Dr. Gushee said that he did not have time to deal with him or others who want to challenge him.

Amazing!  What better way for Dr. Gushee to get his message out (Matthew Vine's also, who also told Dr. White that he would debate, but later backed out), than for them to have a fair and moderated debate vs. either Dr. White,

or Dr. Michael Brown, 

or Dr. Robert Gagnon?  

Dr. White rightly challenged Dr. Gushee again, and told him he is under moral obligation to debate the issue, given that he is an ethicist, and given the seriousness of his accusations against the church and accusing the church of the same sins against the LGBT people as was perpetrated against Jewish people by some Christians in history.

See also Dr. White's debate/dialogue with Justin Lee. 


debate vs. Barry Lynn


debate vs. John Shelby Spong

Monday, April 27, 2015

Luther: Reason is the Devil's Greatest Whore

A frequent line of argumentation against Luther involves using his comments about "human reasoning" against either his character or the Reformation. As I've come across these arguments, they're most often used by atheists and Roman Catholics, but not necessarily limited to these groups. Here's a recent example from the depths of cyberspace. Based on other comments, the person using these quotes appears to be Roman Catholic.

Let's hear some more from the 'Hero of the Reformation'. Maybe we'll get a feel for which side he was actually playing for.
“Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and an manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom. . . . Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism. . . . She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets”
“Usury, drunkenness, adultery—these crimes are self-evident and the world knows that they are sinful; but that bride of the Devil, `Reason', stalks abroad, the fair courtesan, and wishes to be considered wise, and thinks that whatever she says comes from the Holy Ghost. She is the most dangerous harlot the Devil has.”
“Reason is contrary to faith”... “Reason is the whore of the Devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done”
All quotes taken from Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition

What intrigued me about these quotes was the vague reference, "All quotes taken from Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition." First, I find it highly unlikely the person posting these quotes used the source claimed (68 German volumes published between 1826-1857, 38 Latin writings as well). Second, there are no English volumes of  "Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition," so whoever put these quotes together, if Erlangen really was used, had to translate them.  Third, from a quick glance one might think there are only three quotes, when in fact there may be at least six to ten from three different sources, strung together to make it appear to be three quotes. For instance, notice how in the first quote, "reason" as the "Devil's whore" is over-explained. It's as if Luther is simply ranting the same thing over and over again. I've learned over the years that when quotes contain overkill, they're often not a direct citation, but rather something cobbled together at the expense of a context.

As we'll see below, these quotes have traveled a bit. They started off as a Latin / German transcription of Sermon, then translated into French, then translated into English. They were eventually a cut-and-paste grabbed from a paragraph found in  Peter F. Wiener's Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor, and appear in the form as cited above. As I mentioned previously, it's unfortunate Wiener didn't live to see how popular his book would be in cyberspace.

Secondary Documentation
These three quotes are found on page 26 of Peter F. Wiener's Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor:
This mythical, mentally unbalanced, diseased character was the hero of the Reformation. His intemperance, his persecution mania, his varying moods, were the origin of his permanent contradictions. There was nothing reasonable in him. Indeed, he admitted himself that he hated reason, and that he was guided merely by his passions, by his violent temper. More than once he condemned in his violent language, reason and a reasonable approach to matters. “Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and an manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom. . . . Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism. . . . She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets” (E16, 142-148). There are many more sayings in the same sense, though not always so dirtily phrased. “Usury, drunkenness, adultery—these crimes are self-evident and the world knows that they are sinful; but that bride of the Devil, `Reason', stalks abroad, the fair courtesan, and wishes to be considered wise, and thinks that whatever she says comes from the Holy Ghost. She is the most dangerous harlot the Devil has.” “Reason is contrary to faith”, he writes elsewhere. “Reason is the whore of the Devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done” (E29, 241) So it goes on and on.
It does not necessarily follow that simply because Wiener provides a few references, he actually read Luther and mined these quotes out from E16 and E29. Wiener notoriously used hostile secondary sources. Wiener's documentation is highly dubious (He says the reason for his sloppy documentation was the rush job demanded by his publisher). Notice that even for this first quote, it is purported to span 6 pages (142-148). That's a good indication that it's a cobbled together quote from different pages or even different sources. In other words, if you were to search out "E16" you would not find this quote verbatim. You'd have to search for each line by starting on page 142 and work through the text with a highlighter.

For the majority of this paragraph from Wiener,  it's within the realm of possibility (or rather, probability) that Wiener relied on Three Reformers (originally published in 1925) by the Roman Catholic scholar Jacques Maritain (whom Wiener refers to a number of times). On page 32 of my 1947 edition it states,
But in spiritual things [reason] is not only "blind and dark," it is truly "the whore of the devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done." [Erl., 29, 241].
 Maritain states on page 33 (In my 1947 edition):
And in the last sermon preached at Wittenberg,towards the end of his life "Reason is the devil's greatest whore, by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute,the devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is, and she ought to be, drowned in baptism...She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."(36)
36. Erl., 16, 142 to 148 (1546). Cf. Denifle-Paquier, III, 277-278. If the practical result aimed at by Luther, above all else, be to exhort his hearers to act according to faith and not according to human reason only, this does not take anything away from diseased falsity and absurdity of the formulae to which he has recourse. [Maritain, p.200]
And finally on page 33-34, Maritain states: "'Reason is contrary to faith,' he wrote in 1536" [Erl. 44 158]. All the quotes given by Wiener above are verbatim from Maritain's book.

There's some ambiguity here: Did Maritain really utilize Erl. 16, 29, and 44? Or, did he use the French translation of Denifle (Luther et le Luthéranisme, Volume 3) that he mentions in a footnote? Page 277 (cited by Maritain) can be found here:

One of the quotes used by Wiener and Maritian is found on page 278 of Denifle (Erl. 44), though the page number is off by one page:

The quotes in view are noted in footnotes #4 and #6 (with a Tabletalk reference in the middle) on page 277, with one other being used in the first paragraph on page 278. At least Denifle documents the various page numbers for the sections of the quote.  Based on the way Maritian documents his work, it's very likely Maritian constructed his quotes using the French version of Denifle's book. So to summarize, Luther's words were recorded in German and Latin by those who heard him preach, Denifle cited this text from an old German / Latin version of Luther's works, then Denifle was translated into French, then Maritian quoted the French version of  Denifle, then Maritian was translated into English, and then Wiener quoted the English version of Maritain, and then the quote was let loose in cyberspace with someone saying, "All quotes taken from Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition."

Primary Documentation
This majority of the quotes in view are from a sermon put together by two people: Georg Rörer and Stephan Tucher (It was a sermon not written down by Luther, but recorded by those who heard him). It's Luther's last sermon at Wittenberg (January 17, 1546).  I currently do not have access to Erl. 16, but the text used by Denifle was probably similar to this primary source. The sermon can also be found in WA 51:123-134 and CL 7:411-417.  WA includes the German as well as the German / Latin mix. This sermon has been translated into English: LW 51:371-380.

It's unfortunate that I can't simply link to this English translation so the complete context can be read online (most of the folks visiting here don't speak German and Latin). The sermon is based on Romans 12:3, "For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him." One of Luther's main thrusts is to exhort his hearers to live by the pure Word of God, letting it say what it says without trying to use "reason" to make it palatable. Of Romans 12:3 Luther preached:
Therefore I exhort you, says Paul, by the grace God has given me, not to think of yourselves more highly than you ought to think [cf. Rom. 12:3]. What he is saying is: You still have your own proud ideas, as well as other gross sins; therefore take heed to yourselves. Hitherto you have heard the real, true Word, now beware of your own thoughts and your own wisdom. The devil will kindle the light of reason and rob you of your faith. This is what happened to the Anabaptists and the antisacramentarians, and now we have nothing left but instigators of heresy. I have had more than thirty fanatics come to me and try to teach me; but I refuted all their arguments with this passage: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him” [Matt. 17:5]. And up to now I have by God’s grace been sustained by this passage; otherwise I should have had to accept thirty different faiths. [LW 51:377]
 Luther didn't reject reason. Rather, it was to be subject to and ruled by faith. For instance, this sentiment was suspiciously left out of the quotes in question :
Everything should be subject to faith, or rather, the fine gift of conceit should not be wiser than faith. See to it that it is in accord with it. [LW 51:379]
Reason must be subject and obedient to this faith.[LW 51:379]
With that basic gist, below are some of the broader contexts for quotes in question. A snippet of the quote is given, and then the broader context follows:

1. "Reason is the Devil's greatest whore"

2. "Usury, drunkenness, adultery—these crimes are self-evident and the world knows that they are sinful; but that bride of the Devil, `Reason', stalks abroad, the fair courtesan, and wishes to be considered wise, and thinks that whatever she says comes from the Holy Ghost. She is the most dangerous harlot the Devil has."

So there must be preaching and everyone must also take care that his own reason may not lead him astray. For, behold what the fanatics do. They have accepted the Word and faith, but then, added to baptism, there comes wisdom, which has not yet been purged, and wants to be wise in spiritual things. They want to master both the Scriptures and faith by their own wisdom, and they perpetrate heresy. If we were wholly clean, we should not need everywhere the ministry of the Word. If we were altogether pure, we should have no need to be admonished, but would be like the angels in heaven with no need for a schoolmaster, and do everything willingly of ourselves. But since we are still confined to this miserable carcass—which in time the worms will devour, though it deserves something worse, to burn in hell eternally—it is necessary constantly to resist and put off the old man and his works and put on the new man, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him [cf. Col. 3:10]. Usury, gluttony, adultery, manslaughter, murder, etc., these can be seen and the world understands that these are sins. But the devil’s bride, reason, the lovely whore comes in and wants to be wise, and what she says, she thinks, is the Holy Spirit. Who can be of any help then? Neither jurist, physician, nor king, nor emperor; for she is the foremost whore the devil has. The other gross sins can be seen, but nobody can control reason. It walks about, cooks up fanaticism [Schwärmerei] with baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and claims that everything that pops into its head and the devil puts into its heart is the Holy Spirit. Therefore Paul says: As I am an apostle and God has given me the Spirit, so I appeal to you [of. Rom. 12:1; I Cor. 4:16]. [LW 51:373–374; cf. WA 51:126]

3. "by nature and an manner of being she is a noxious whore"
No, we have been by God’s command baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews were circumcised. Therefore, just as the Jews set up all over the land their own self-chosen shrines, as if Jerusalem were too narrow, so we also have done. As a young man must resist lust and an old man avarice, so reason is by nature a harmful whore. But she shall not harm me, if only I resist her. Ah, but she is so comely and glittering. That’s why there must be preachers who will point people to the catechism: I believe in Jesus Christ, not in St. George or St. Christopher, for only of Christ is it said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” [John 1:29]; not of Mary or the angels. The Father did not speak of Gabriel or any others when he cried from heaven, “Listen to him” [Matt. 17:5].[LW 51: 375-376]

4."Throw dung in her face to make her ugly."

5. "She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism. . . ."
Therefore, see to it that you hold reason in check and do not follow her beautiful cogitations. Throw dirt in her face and make her ugly. Don’t you remember the mystery of the holy Trinity and the blood of Jesus Christ with which you have been washed of your sins? Again, concerning the sacrament, the fanatical antisacramentalists say, “What’s the use of bread and wine? How can God the Almighty give his body in bread?” I wish they had to eat their own dirt. They are so smart that nobody can fool them. If you had one in a mortar and crushed him with seven pestles his foolishness still would not depart from him. Reason is and should be drowned in baptism, and this foolish wisdom will not harm you, if you hear the beloved Son of God saying, “Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you; this bread which is administered to you, I say, is my body.” If I hear and accept this, then I trample reason and its wisdom under foot and say, “You cursed whore, shut up! Are you trying to seduce me into committing fornication with the devil?” That’s the way reason is purged and made free through the Word of the Son of God. [LW 51:376–377].

6. " She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets"
When you hear a fanatical antisacramentalist say, “There is only bread and wine in the sacrament of the altar,” or “Do you think that at your word Christ is going to descend from heaven into your mouth and your belly?” You just say to him, “Ah, I like what you say; what a learned bride the devil has! But what do you say to this: ‘This is my beloved Son, listen to him?’ And he says, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 17:5; 26:26]. Go, trot to the privy with your conceit, your reason! Shut up, you cursed whore, do you think you are master over faith, which declares that the true body and the true blood is in the Lord’s Supper, and that Baptism is not merely water, but the water of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?” Reason must be subject and obedient to this faith. [LW 51: 379].

7. "she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore."

8. "whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom. . . . "

Therefore I should stick to the catechism; then I can defend myself against reason when the Anabaptists say, “Baptism is water; how can water do such great things? Pigs and cows drink it. The Spirit must do it.” Don’t you hear, you mangy, leprous whore, you holy reason, what the Scripture says, “Listen to him,” who says, “Go and baptize all nations” [Matt. 28:19], and “He who believes and is baptized [will be saved”]? [Mark 16:16]. It is not merely water, but baptism given in the name of the holy Trinity. [ LW: 51:376]. 
Reason is and should be drowned in baptism, and this foolish wisdom will not harm you, if you hear the beloved Son of God saying, “Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you; this bread which is administered to you, I say, is my body.” If I hear and accept this, then I trample reason and its wisdom under foot and say, “You cursed whore, shut up! Are you trying to seduce me into committing fornication with the devil?” That’s the way reason is purged and made free through the Word of the Son of God. So let us deal with the fanatics as the prophets dealt with the spiritual harlots, the idolaters, the wiseacres, who want to do things better than God does. We should say to them, “I have a Bridegroom, I will listen to him. Your wisdom is utter foolishness. I destroy your wisdom and trample it under foot.” This struggle will go on till the last day. This is what Paul wants; we are to quench not only the low desires but also the high desires, reason and its high wisdom. When whoredom invades you, strike it dead, but do this far more when spiritual whoredom tempts you. Nothing pleases a man so much as self-love, when he has a passion for his own wisdom. The cupidity of a greedy man is as nothing compared with a man’s hearty pleasure in his own ideas. He then brings these fine ideas into the Scriptures, and this is devilishness pure and simple. This sin is forgiven, but when it reigns in one’s nature, not yet fully purged, then assuredly the true doctrine is soon lost, however willingly one preaches and willingly one listens. Then Christ is gone. Then they fall down before the devil on the mountain and worship him (Matt. 4 [:8–10]) [LW 51: 376–377].

9."Reason is contrary to faith"
See my earlier blog entry, here: Luther: Reason is directly opposed to faith. This quote is located in Erl., 44, 156-157; WA 47:328. It's from Luther's Sermon on Matthew 19:13-15, recently translated into English in LW 68:22-23.

10."Reason is the whore of the Devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done"

Wiener says this last quote comes from a different source,  E29, 241 (It's also cited above by Denifle in footnote #3). This quote can be found here: WA 18:164. It has been translated into English in LW 40:174-175. It's found in the treatise, Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1525). In arguing against Karlstadt, Luther states:
Let this be our answer to the arguments and reasons that Dr. Karlstadt presents for his dream from Scripture. They were threefold. First, a capital letter is found in some books, not all. Second, there was a punctuation mark. Third, the dear touto. What wonderful arguments, which no one would use except such heavenly prophets, who hear the voice of God. A fourth now is, that he cannot present a single verse of Scripture in his favor. This is the most damaging argument and will forever remain so. I shall not overthrow it but will rather strengthen it. Furthermore he teaches us what Frau Hulda, natural reason, has to say in the matter, just as if we did not know that reason is the devil’s prostitute and can do nothing else but slander and dishonor what God does and says. But before we answer this arch-prostitute and devil’s bride, we first want to prove our faith, not by setting forth capitals or periods or touto tauta but by clear, sober passages from Scripture which the devil will not overthrow. [LW 40: 174-175].

Over the years, I've put together a number of basic posts on Luther and "reason." Here are a few of them:

Luther: Reason is the Devil's Handmaid

Luther: Reason is directly opposed to faith

Luther:Philosophy Should Be Learned To Be Refuted

Luther's Use of Reason (AKA: Atheists Need To Do Some Homework)

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

How to Maneuver 2 Maccabees and Prayers for the Dead

Here are a few highlights from a blog I just skimmed. Note the clever use of the word "superstitious" (I've placed the word in bold). By the use of one word, "Poof!"mortal sin becomes venial sin.

Shameless Popery says:
The Second Book of Maccabees is completely straightforward about praying for the departed, and praying to the Saints. In 2 Macc. 12:43-46, some of Judas Maccabeus’ soldiers fall in combat. Although they’re fighting for Israel, the Israelites discover superstitious amulets on the fallen soldiers, and realize this is why they were allowed to fall. Maccabeus responds to this by praying for the dead, and offering a sin offering on their behalf:
He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 
Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin. You can’t get much clearer then that. The Bible tells us that he prayed for the dead, praises him for it, and then tells us that he thereby made atonement for them that they might be delivered from their sin. All of this is linked to the resurrection of the dead, which puts the author of 2 Maccabees ahead of the Sadducees when it comes to orthodoxy (cf. Luke 20:27).

Detractor in the comment box:
Concerning 2 Maccabees. It has been a few years since I read this book, but I think even in what you quoted you have a few problems. First, idolatry is a mortal sin and they died in their mortal sin. Prayers cannot avail those who have not done penance for such a sin. So, if you interpret 2 Maccabees as Scriptural proof of prayers for the dead, you just eviscerated your own dogma.

Shameless Popery says:
Underlying your confidence that the fallen are in Hell is the idea that they were idolaters. But it doesn’t actually say that in the Bible. Rather it says that the fallen were wearing the “sacred tokens of the idols of Jam′nia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (2 Macc. 12:40). So maybe they were idolaters, or maybe they were just superstitious. But err on the side of praying for them, obviously!

Monday, April 20, 2015

Peter F. Wiener's "Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor," a Literary Feud Revisited

This morning I re-read my earlier blog entry, Finding Contexts in Peter F. Wiener's "Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor" (2009). Now six years later, I find it interesting that little has changed with the popular online use of Wiener's book. So many of the quotes I come across find their way back to this book. I suspect Mr. Wiener is no longer living, so it's unfortunate for the author that he probably didn't live to see how popular his book would be in cyberspace. In my 2009 entry I noted how ecumenical the book is, being published by both Atheists and Roman Catholics (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

Unfortunately, the most direct response to Wiener is hard to track down. A contemporary of Wiener, Gordon Rupp, published, Martin Luther: Hitler's Cause Or Cure? (Lutterworth Press, 1945). Used copies are around from time to time.  I've utilized this book in some blog entries, but getting it online would be the best antidote to Wiener's work.

2012 saw the release of Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012). This is one of the more reader-friendly books on this subject, and what's interesting is not only is Gritsch a respected Luther scholar, he mentions in his recent book that he had been "a member of the Hitler Youth during the final days of World War II" (p. xiii). Before someone thinks that Gritsch would be sympathetic to Luther because of the events of his youth, Gritsch states, Luther is not simply "anti-Judaic" but rather "genuinely anti-Semetic" "in accordance with the broad, contemporary definition of anti-Semitism."

In the book as well he comments on the Wiener / Rupp feud. I found his analysis interesting, if only for his description of Wiener's book :
In 1945, a literary feud put the theme "Luther and the Jews" into the limelight. One year earlier, a British teacher of German and French, Peter F. Wiener, published a book contending that Luther was Hitler's spiritual ancestor. It is sheer propaganda with the intention to show that Luther's radical anti-Semitism made him "one of the darkest figures history has yet produced." This is "proven" by a chain of historical distortions: Luther tolerated Jews in order to gain their support in his struggle against the papal church, but turned against the Jews when they did not join him; his demonic anti-Semitism was not grounded in theology because his "religion" was a "Teutonic anti-Christian faith." Wiener misquotes, misinterprets, and intentionally misunderstands . His work "is nothing but a historical forgery based on ignorance and malice" [so says Gordon Rupp].
The British Luther scholar Ernest Gordon Rupp offered a devastating, yet elegantly executed critique. One cannot win the peace, Rupp observed, by reviving the propaganda of Joseph Goebbels, the late but unlamented Minister of Nazi Propaganda. "The Nazi uniforms which Mr. Wiener has put on Luther fit very oddly on the facts: they were not made for him, nor he for them. Whatever be the truth about Luther, it is not Mr. Wiener's caricature." [Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 118-119].

Saturday, April 18, 2015

The Church would have been better off without the Reformation. Agree? Disagree?

Here is the video of the recent debate between Dr. James White and Rev. Dr. Thomas Norris (Priest of the Diocese of Ossory) on the Reformation.

Part one can be found here.

Part two can be found here.

I have not listened to this debate yet (it's been one of those weeks). I'm somewhat familiar with Dr. James White, so I'm sure he did an outstanding job.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Another "The Darker Side of Martin Luther"

To the left: The cover of an English version of a 1939 short pamphlet by Bishop Martin Sasse, a Nazi propagandist

If one were to do a study on the Internet approach to Martin Luther, one genre could perhaps be dubbed, "The Dark side of Martin Luther" web pages. I recently came across yet another: The Darker Side of Martin Luther  hosted by Illinois Wesleyan University. The author states, "Martin Luther is remembered as one of the most famous religious figures in history, considered to be the founder of Protestantism. However, there was a lesser known side of him, one that was dark and full of hatred." This "lesser side" is "unknown to popular knowledge" that Luther wrote against the Jews. Contrarily to this notion, I don't think there's a conspiracy to keep these writings "unknown to popular knowledge" (especially in our age of information, even in 2008 when this paper was written). Popularly, Luther’s career begins in 1517 with the posting of the Ninety-Five Theses. For around twenty years, Luther said little about the Jews, and what he did say was generally positive (when judged by the standards of "popular" culture of his time). Luther’s overt anti-Jewish writings primarily span his last eight years (1538-1546). That his anti-Jewish writings don't "popularly" define him is due to the fact that they are dwarfed by his bold stance against the tyranny of his day earlier in his career. When someone popularly mentions Luther, chances are, they're not going focus on his lesser known writings at the end of his career.

The Dark Side of the Darker Side
While copyrighted and published in a journal from this school, the article appears to have been put together by an undergraduate in 2008 (the journal appears to consist of writings from undergraduates). I mention the undergraduate aspect because a quick search shows the article has been cited in a few books. That it was written by someone without an attained college degree does not necessarily mean the article is error-filled. In my thinking though, if I'm going to write a book and cite an authority, I'm probably going to try to cite someone with a few more credentials.  The author herself actually inadvertently admits at three different points to not being well-versed in Luther studies:
In trying to uncover the “truth” about Luther’s views, the main problem I encountered was the depth of his writings. Luther’s works fill volumes upon volumes of books. To read all of them would be nearly impossible, especially in my case where I had a limited amount of time to research. Therefore I read only the two books that most directly impacted this paper. There may be other important writings of his on this matter that I have not been able to uncover due to time constraints. Also, my readings of Luther’s work are dependent on the translated version. How much should I trust that the translator was accurate?
I can appreciate this blatant honesty, and I wish others (particularly bloggers and Facebook apologists that seemingly become experts on Luther with Google) would similarly see the complexity involved in Reformation studies. I would assume the author came in contact with not only the volume and pedigree of Luther's writings, but also the vast amount of secondary literature. To navigate through the materials on the Reformation takes more than doing a little research to write one paper during a semester.
I was raised as a Lutheran, and yet I never learned of Luther’s anti-Semitism. Now that I think about it, it makes sense that the Lutheran Church would want to keep Luther’s anti-Semitism a secret. There are also very few secondary sources that connect Luther and Hitler, and so I was not able to use a lot of these sources to aid my investigation into the truth of my claim.
I've never been a Lutheran, so I can't use experience to judge her experience. I do know though that some of the Lutheran bodies have made statements on Luther and the Jews. How well these are disseminated, I don't know.  The writer though appears to have an ax to grind with her Lutheran affiliation when she also says things like,
Lutherans are not proud of Luther’s anti-Semitic views. One way they have attempted to salvage his reputation is by alleging that he only became anti-Semitic when he grew older, perhaps due to psychological reasons. Through this and other excuses they have tried to hide the truth, in order to keep this embarrassing aspect of their religion secret.
Some examples of Lutherans using "psychological reasons" would have been useful at this point. In Luther studies, it is simply one approach to understanding Luther's later writings [see for instance, Mark U. Edwards, Luther's Last Battles (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983); see also his article here], not an attempt to "hide truth." Lutheran scholarship, particularly post-World War II Lutheran scholarship, has not tried to keep Luther's attitude toward the Jews "a secret." In fact, the English edition of Luther's Works translated and published Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies decades ago. I can appreciate the zeal this woman has against Antisemitism, but throwing the entire world of Lutheranism haphazardly under the bus demonstrates an emotional reaction rather than an informed reaction.
In the end, I believe I have uncovered a substantial amount of evidence that proves that Martin Luther was anti-Semitic. However, I believe that I have not uncovered enough truth to thoroughly support my claim that Luther significantly influenced Hitler and the Nazis. Perhaps, in the future, with more time to investigate and research sources, my claim will be proven.
This is typical of "dark side" reviews, that there is secret "evidence" being suppressed needing to be uncovered. The author appears to think she's ventured into uncharted historical waters. The "substantial amount of evidence" the author provides in her paper is the typical stuff mentioned in most treatments of this issue. On the other hand, the author has not found "enough truth" to link Luther to Hitler, because,
In this realm, “truth” is harder to find. First of all, the actual pamphlets that were written in Germany during the Third Reich are stored in archives that are not easily accessible. These pamphlets are the primary documents that would offer concrete evidence of Luther’s influence.
I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "not easily accessible." The author certainly did not have access to this site in 2008, but I find it hard to believe there is a concerted German effort to suppress Nazi propaganda linking Luther to Hitler, even in 2008. I would speculate the author was probably under a deadline to submit this paper (along with other assignments) and didn't have the time to do further research beyond the few authors she utilized ("Secondary sources such as books written by Peter Wiener, Eliot Wheaton, and Daniel Goldhagen, will also be considered in order to compare my findings to those of other scholars").

Antisemitism vs. Anti-Judaism
The author also seems to not understand the significant debate on this issue over terms like "anti-Semetic." She concludes Luther was anti-Semitic while at the same time using the other term "anti-Judaic."
Is it “true” that Luther was anti-Semitic? I have to answer with a resounding yes. However, I think the term “anti-Judaic” better describes Luther, considering the fact that “anti-Semitic” is a modern word, first used in the mid-19th century. Antisemitism also concerns the issue of race, whereas Luther’s objection to the Jews had nothing to do with their race, but their religious beliefs.
In Luther studies, this is saying two different things. There have been a number of researchers who conclude Luther's later anti-Jewish tracts were written from a position different than current Antisemitism. Luther was born into a society that was anti-Judaic, but it was not the current anti-Judaic type of society that bases it racism on biological factors. Luther had no objections to integrating converted Jews into Christian society. He had nothing against Jews as “Jews.” He had something against their religion because he believed it denied and blasphemed Christ. On the other hand, the author was correct to mention the nuances and etymology of the modern term Antisemitism. If one frames the issues with these two categories, Luther was not Antisemitic.

The contemporary use of the word "Antisemitism" though does not typically have its distinction from anti-Judaism considered. The word now has a more broad meaning including anti-Judaism. The debate centers around whether the evolved use of the term is a significant step towards describing previous history or if it's setting up an anachronistic standard for evaluating previous history [see my entry here in regard to Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012)]. As I've looked at this issue from time to time, I'm beginning to think more along the lines of Gritsch's revised view, rather than what I wrote here some years ago.

Luther and the Nazis
The section of this paper that most intrigued me was the linking of Luther to the Nazis. The author states, "The influence of Luther’s writings on the Nazis was quite profound." Yet in conclusion she states, "However, I believe that I have not uncovered enough truth to thoroughly support my claim that Luther significantly influenced Hitler and the Nazis." If I were grading this paper, the red pen would be out, in force. The paper certainly should have never made it to a journal with these two statements existing in the same paper. That blunder aside, the information she included in regard to the Nazis was interesting- some of it is quite compelling that those with Nazi sympathy cited Luther's writings.

First, the not-so-compelling information:  Hitler does mention Luther once in Mein Kampf, however the comment is in passing and does not refer to Luther's writings, particularly his anti-Jewish writings. She also cites Hitler via an introductory quote page from Peter F. Wiener, Martin Luther: Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor, but again Luther's writings against the Jews are not in view. In fact, if this quote from Hitler is supported by it's original context, it demonstrates Hitler appears to not have a clue in regard to Luther: "I do insist on the certainty that sooner or later—once we hold power—Christianity will be overcome and the German church, without a Pope and without the Bible, and Luther, if he could be with us, would give us his blessing." Luther would approve of a German church without a Bible? I don't think so.

The author appears to think that a Nazi mentioning Luther means that a Nazi was influenced by Luther's writings. A much simpler explanation is that Luther was a popular German hero, so of course the Nazis, claiming to be pure Germans will utilize his name in propaganda efforts. The author states,
Hans Hinkel, a journalist and ministerial official during the Nazi regime, was also influenced by Luther. He paid tribute to him during his acceptance speech of Goebbels’s Chamber of Culture and Propaganda Ministry, saying that “through his acts and his spiritual attitude he began the fight which we still wage today; with Luther the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun.” Again, this quote demonstrates that Luther’s works were used to justify Nazi actions. In this case, Hinkel alluded to the fact that Luther began the revolution that the Nazis continued.
Suspiciously missing is anything of substance from "Luther's works." The author has confused simply mentioning a historical figure with actually citing and expounding upon the works of a historical writer.
Not only did Luther influence important Nazi officials, but it has been suggested that he also helped inspire certain major events during the Third Reich. One of these events was Kristallnacht. On this night, November 10th, 1938, Nazis killed Jews, shattered glass windows, and destroyed hundreds of synagogues. Bishop Martin Sasse, a leading Lutheran churchman, immediately saw the connection between this event and Luther’s writing. Shortly after the event, he published a compendium of Luther’s antiSemitic works. In the foreword, he applauded the event, especially since it occurred on Luther’s birthday. He also wrote that the German people should pay attention to the writings of Luther, who was the “greatest anti-Semite of this time, the warner of his people against the Jews.” Another event in which Luther’s presence was felt was the Nuremberg rallies. During the rallies, a copy of On the Jews and Their Lies was publicly exhibited in a glass case, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher.
Missing is any evidence that Luther's writings or his birthday was that which inspired Kristallnacht. In actuality, Kristallnacht began late on November 9th, continuing onto the 10th. If one researches this tragedy, there were events prior to November 10 that led to Kristallnacht, but, to my knowledge, commemorating Luther's birthday was not one of them.

Now the compelling information: Of course it is true that there were those that did cite Luther's writings, particularly On the Jews and Their Lies. For instance, the author cites Nazi and Lutheran minister Martin Sasse. Sasse went as far as writing a book entitled, Martin Luther and the Jews (yes, that's a pdf link to his pamphlet). The German version of the book was titled slightly different, Martin Luther on the Jews: Away With Them! She also cites a pamphlet by E.H. Schulz and Dr. R. Frercks in 1934 in which Luther's anti-Jewish writings were used to support Aryan Law (also available online).

Perhaps the strongest section of her paper is pointing out that Luther was used for propaganda purposes:
Articles written during the Third Reich also used Luther to support their beliefs.Kurt Hilmar Eitzen’s article written in the party monthly for propagandists, entitled “Ten Responses to Jewish Lackeys,” is one example. This article presented counterarguments to the most common objections the Nazis encountered. These counterarguments were supposed to be used in everyday conversations among common citizens. Luther is quoted to counter argument number 5: “Argument 5: ‘Mr. Levi is not a Jew, since he has been baptized!’ — Counterargument: ‘I have no desire to convert the Jews,’ Martin Luther wrote, ‘since that is impossible.’ A Jew remains a Jew.” This is yet another instance of the Nazis’ misuse of Luther’s works. Luther very often contradicted himself on the possibility of converting Jews. However, he wrote that “whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins.” From this statement, one can conclude that Luther believed Jews could be converted. His last sentence in his treatise On the Jews and Their Lies, deals with the possibility of conversion: “May Christ, our dear lord, convert them mercifully.” Again, Luther might have seen the possibility of Jews converting to Christianity. However, this article uses Luther’s work to support the Nazis’ belief that Jews could not convert because Judaism is a race. The idea of race and the purity of blood was one fundamental belief of the Nazi party. However, not once does Luther mention the idea that Jews were a separate race. The article takes Luther’s quote completely out of context, distorting it to support their claims.
This is a helpful example of Nazi propaganda. The Nazis were not interested in Luther as a theologian. The Nazis would just as easily have killed a Jew claiming he converted to Christianity. The Jewish Virtual Library website includes a page called Martin Luther: The Jews And Their Lies. Many negative quotes are extracted from On The Jews And Their Lies, yet they include the following statement:
A number of points must, however, be made. The most important concerns the language used. Luther used violent and vulgar language throughout his career. We do not expect religious figures to use this sort of language in the modern world, but it was not uncommon in the early 16th century. Second, although Luther's comments seem to be proto-Nazi, they are better seen as part of tradition of Medieval Christian anti-Semitism. While there is little doubt that Christian anti-Semitism laid the social and cultural basis for modern anti-Semitism, modern anti-Semitism does differ in being based on pseudo-scientific notions of race. The Nazis imprisoned and killed Jews who had converted to Christianity: Luther would have welcomed them.

I've taken the time to review The Darker Side of Martin Luther to demonstrate that simply because something is copyrighted and published in journal doesn't necessarily mean it's solid and quotable information. I know nothing about the author of The Darker Side of Martin Luther. She may have gone on to do more research. She may have gone on to achieve a Master's or a PhD in Reformation studies, or history in general. If she comes across this review, she may actually see the weaknesses of her earlier work. Overall, the task of dissecting Luther's attitude on the Jews and it's relation to Nazi Germany is probably not possible to do in a short paper. There are many full-length treatments on the subject. I would recommend these titles to her:

Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012).

Christopher J. Probst, Demonizing the Jews, Luther and the Protestant Church in Nazi Germany (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012).

Uwe Siemon-Netto, The Fabricated Luther: Refuting Nazi Connections and Other Modern Myths [Concordia Publishing; 2nd edition (October 1, 2007)]. Also available in Kindle.

Someone may ask me an obvious question at this point: why should my review be taken as solid and quotable? It's just a blog entry. The simple answer is, it should not. People should do their own research, and check facts as they come across them, whether I write them or someone from Illinois Wesleyan University. While the Internet has opened up a world of information, there's far more distortion now than if the information was sitting in a library on shelves. While one may think the Internet has made research easier, at times it does not. The Darker Side of Martin Luther is for me, an example of something creating noise rather than truth.