Question 1.
Luther tried unsuccessfully to get some inspired books of the New Testament kicked out of the Bible. Which NT books did he try to remove?
-James
-Revelations
-Hebrews
-Jude
Roman Catholic Answer: Luther tried to remove all four of these books from the Bible (because of their plain and clear teaching of Catholic doctrines)
My Answer: Overlooking the misnaming of Revelation, it is a verifiable historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521 and released a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he finished them. He (and his team) finished the entire Bible by 1534. There was never an attempt or plan on Luther’s part to leave James, Jude, Hebrews, or Revelation out of his published Bible. For further information, see: Luther's View of the Canon of Scripture.
Question 2.
When Martin Luther wrote his German translation of the Bible, he added a word where it had never appeared in the text previously. What word was it?
-acorn
-alone
-ascetic
-asteroid
Roman Catholic Answer: THE ANSWER IS….alone. In Romans 3:28, Luther added the word “alone” after “faith” in his German translation of the Bible. Fortunately, this did not seep into our English version of the Bible. For more info, read “Where We Got the Bible” by Henry Graham. When people gave Luther grief for his adding of the word “alone” to the Bible, Luther replied: “If your Papist annoys you with the word (alone), tell him straightaway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Amic. Discussion, I, 127, “The Facts About Luther” O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p.201).
My Answer: First, notice the Roman Catholic answer doesn't directly cite Luther. It refers to three hostile secondary Roman Catholic sources. I suggest reading the source from where the quote was pulled: Luther’s Open Letter on Translating (1530). Second, the reason for Luther's hostile rhetoric was fueled by Rome's defender Jerome Emser. He plagiarized Luther's translation while at the same time condemning it. In the same treatise, Luther goes on to give rational reasons for his translation. Luther's intention, a perfectly allowable intention, was to translate the Bible into an easily comprehended form of German. Word-for-word translations can be awkward and miss the meaning of the text. In translating Romans, Luther tried to present the “impact” of what the original Greek had on its first readers, and to present the German style and idiom equivalent for his readers. He therefore did not add any Greek words to Romans. Rather, he utilized the translating method of dynamic equivalence. Third, one of the reasons Luther mentions is that he was not the first one to find "faith alone" in the Bible: "I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me"(LW 35:196), In his book, Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series, pp. 360-361, the Roman Catholic scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer proved Luther's point. He cites Origen, Hillary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard, Theophyylact, Theodoret, Aquinas, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Marius Victorinus, and Augustine, thus vindicating Luther. For further information see: Luther added the word “Alone” To Romans 3:28?”
Question 3.
After seeing how the Protestant movement (the “protest” of the Catholic Church) was causing a domino effect of division after division among Protestants, what did Martin Luther say would need to happen?
Roman Catholic Answer: THE ANSWER IS……After seeing the ripple effect of divisions, and the lack of unity that resulted when it came to interpreting Scripture within Protestant groups, Martin Luther said people would eventually have to return to abiding by the Catholic Church Councils. Unfortunately, the many characters of the Reformation were unable to agree even among themselves, and the return to the Catholic Church that they worked towards just never happened. Martin Luther wrote: "If the world lasts for a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of faith." Epis. ad. Zwingli (ap. Balmes, p. 423). Luther saw the dangers and divisions that arose when people started interpreting Scripture apart from the first Church. He wrote: "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams." "An Meine Kritiker" (by Johannes Jorgensen, p. 181)
My Answer: First, I don’t know who "Johannes Jorgensen" is, but I do know who Johannes Janssen is, and he did write An Meine Kritiker, p. 181. He's a hostile secondary Roman Catholic source. "Balmes" or rather, Jaime Luciano Balmes is also a hostile secondary Roman Catholic source. Second, previous to his trial at the Diet of Worms Luther requested to be judged by a future council ("To be sure, the undeserved raging of your godless flatterers against me has compelled me to appeal from your see to a future council" (LW 31:334). Seeing the failure of Rome's fallible defenders in addressing his concerns at the Diet of Worms, Luther then sought to be scrutinized by the ultimate infallible judge: Sacred Scripture:
Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.“I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me, Amen (LW 32:112-113).
Third, the first Luther quote used in the Roman Catholic answer is a notorious miscitation from Balmes (here is page 423). Luther's text actually reads,
If the world lasts much longer, men will, as the ancients did, once more turn to human schemes on account of this dissension, and again issue laws and regulations to keep the people in the unity of the faith. Their success will be the same as it was in the past (LW 37:16-17).
Notice the last sentence: “Their success will be the same as it was in the past.” Their success will be, according to Luther, failure, because “human schemes” “laws and regulations” are not the work of the Holy Spirit, but of men. The text goes on to say, “In short, the devil is too clever and too mighty for us” because “If we wish to stand upon the councils and counsels of men, we lose the Scriptures altogether and remain in the devil’s possession body and soul.” So rather than proving Luther wanted to “take refuge in the Church councils in order to preserve the unity of faith," Luther said the exact opposite. for more information on this quote see, this link.
Fourth, the quote "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads...", this quote comes from the Letter of Doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp (1525). The Roman Catholic answer interprets this letter as Luther seeing Luther seeing "the dangers and divisions that arose when people started interpreting Scripture apart from the first Church." In context, Luther isn’t talking about the devastating effect of sola scriptura. He’s talking about the devastating effect of the devil, who, Luther says, was at peace in his papal fortress, but now with the gospel being loudly proclaimed, must find a different way to keep men enslaved to sin and darkness. Luther viewed the Bible as pure, but men are wicked and will misinterpret it because they are motivated by the Devil to do so: "...the pure doctrine of Scripture is not the reason for this; it is caused by the unclean thoughts which the devil has poured into the heretics" (LW 24:205).
Further, in regard to “sects”: Luther repeatedly pointed out how many sects there were in the Roman Catholic Church:
“…[T]here is no other place in the world where there are so many sects, schisms, and errors as in the papal church. For the papacy, because it builds the church upon a city and person, has become the head and fountain of all sects which have followed it and have characterized Christian life in terms of eating and drinking, clothes and shoes, tonsures and hair, city and place, day and hour. For the spirituality and holiness of the papal church lives by such things, as was said above. This order fasts at this time, another order fasts at another time; this one does not eat meat, the other one does not eat eggs; this one wears black, the other one white; this one is Carthusian, the other Benedictine; and so they continue to create innumerable sects and habits, while faith and true Christian life go to pieces. All this is the result of the blindness which desires to see rather than believe the Christian church and to seek devout Christian life not in faith but in works, of which St. Paul writes so much in Colossians [2]. These things have invaded the church and blindness has confirmed the government of the pope” (LW 39:220-221).This is important to point out because Rome's apologists are often oblivious to the sects within sixteenth century Roman Catholicism and the rank individualism within their own contemporary layman. The problem of "sects" is a universal problem, not solely a "Protestant" problem.
Question 4.
Luther’s burial chamber was adorned with the image of…..
Roman Catholic Answer: According to Peter Stravinskas’ “Faith and Reason.” Luther’s “burial chamber in the Wittenberg church…. was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin.”
My Answer: This was typically used by Roman Catholics as proof Luther believed in the Assumption of Mary. Even if Luther's "burial chamber in the Wittenberg church…. was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin," it does not necessarily follow Luther believed in the Assumption of Mary. However, this sculpture is not on Luther's tomb, but rather: "the plate is the tombstone for Henning Goden, Jurist and last Catholic Provost of the Castle Church." For more information see: Luther: The Assumption Was a Settled Fact?.
Question 5.
Which of the following is NOT true about Luther?
A. He was devoted to the Blessed Mother
B. He believed in Baptismal regeneration
C. He believed the Body and Blood of Christ was truly present in the Eucharist
D. He referred to Mary as the “Mother of God.”
E. He thought our Lord´s mother gave birth to babies with two different fathers, God and Joseph.
Roman Catholic Answer: THE ANSWER IS…. E. (A, B, C and D are true about Luther, but not E)
My Answer: With close scrutiny, these Roman Catholic answers do not prove Luther was in harmony with Roman Catholicism. A is blatantly false: Luther saying nice things about Mary is not what Roman Catholics mean by devotion to Mary. B and C are true but not understood in the same way as Roman Catholicism. For B, Luther's baptismal regeneration emphasizes the creation of faith, while Rome emphasizes the removal of original sin. In Roman Catholicism, baptism is the initial process one begins in becoming (possibly) eventually saved with the necessary need to then do penance (and the other sacraments) to keep your baptism working. For Luther, if God has given his gifts in baptism, there is no need to do penance (and the other sacraments) to keep baptism working. Luther saw baptism as forgiving all sins, Rome does not. A helpful short video explanation can be found here. For C especially, Luther denied transubstantiation as impious, blasphemous and anathema, placing him succinctly against Roman Catholic dogma both then and now. While Luther believed in the body and blood being present in the Lord's Supper, he also believed the real bread and real wine were there also. This is flatly against Roman Catholic dogma. D is true but also understood differently in its scope than Roman Catholicism. Luther used the phrase "Mother of God" occasionally but did not use it as a term of invocation or worship. When he used it, it was either an expression of the common vernacular of the sixteenth century, a term of respect for her as someone profoundly used by God in a significant way, or it was primarily to say something about Jesus, not Mary. I agree with the Roman Catholic answer that E is false, Luther did not believe Mary and Joseph had any other children besides Jesus. But: what was important to Luther was not Mary’s lack of children, but rather the child she did give birth to: Jesus Christ. Throughout his career, he would minimize the emphasis on popular Marian doctrine.
All of these individuals believed and taught the perpetual virginity of Mary (i.e. that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus) with the exception of:
-John Wesley (founder of Methodism)
-John Calvin
-Martin Luther
-Huldreich Zwingli
-Tammy Faye Baker
Roman Catholic Answer: THE ANSWER IS …….Tammy Faye Baker. That’s right, all of the founders of the Protestantism taught that Mary remained a virgin for life. Some Protestants are surprised to learn that most Protestant founders, including Martin Luther, also taught the Immaculate Conception (Mary conceived in St. Ann’s womb without original sin) Martin Luther wrote: "It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin." [Martin Luther; "Sermon On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God", 1527] Luther also wrote: “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin….” Calvin wrote: “There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writers did not wish to record what happened afterwards….” Zwingli wrote: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” Luther: “Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . ´brothers´ really means ´cousins´ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. “ (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39)Luther: “Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . ´brothers´ really means ´cousins´ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. “ (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39)Luther: “God says . . . :´Mary´s Son is My only Son.´ Thus Mary is the Mother of God. “(Ibid.)Luther: “The infusion of Mary´s soul was effected without original sin . . . From the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin. (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527)
My Answer: First: during the Reformation period, Mariolatry was out of control, especially early on. it should surprise no one that the early Reformers maintained some of it, while later generations did not. They embraced Marian errors because they were engulfed in a world of excessive Mariolatry, caused by those Luther referred to as, "papists." While the early Reformers did not shed all of it during their lifetimes, most of those that came after them eventually did. The early Reformers were transitional. In all periods of church history, there is continuity and discontinuity with the period which preceded it and comes after it. Therefore, it should not be a surprise the early Reformers retained certain things later generations would reject. They were in a unique place in history, a place drenched in obsessive Mariolatry infecting both folk piety and elite belief.
Question 7.
What did Luther write was permissible in the Bible?
-marijuana smoking
-polygamy
-tattoos
Roman Catholic Answer: THE ANSWER IS….. Polygamy. Martin Luther, De Wette, II, 459: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife, he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case, the civil authority has nothing to do in such a matter.” As one of the first Sola Scriptura advocates, Luther interpreted the Bible on his own, apart from the Church, which resulted in this surprising Biblical conclusion.
My Answer: First, this Roman Catholic probably did not utilize De Wette vol. 2.
...but I would not that such an example should be introduced amongst Christians, who ought to omit even lawful things for the sake of avoiding scandal and leading a pure life, as S. Paul demands. For it is very unbecoming to Christians, eagerly to pursue, for their own comfort, their liberty to its last consequences and yet to neglect the common and necessary duties of charity. Therefore I have not in my preaching opened this window, and I hardly believe, a Christian can be so far abandoned by God, that a man who by God's action is hindered (from the use of conjugal rights) should be unable to contain himself. But let things go where they go.
...severe necessity, for instance, if the wife develops leprosy or becomes otherwise unfit to live with her husband… But this permission is always to be restricted to such cases as severe necessity. The idea of legalizing general polygamy was far from the reformers mind. Monogamy was always to him the regular form of matrimony…” (Heinrich Boehmer, Luther and the Reformation in Light of Modern Research, pp. 213-214).
Question 8
Fill in the blank for this famous Luther quote: “…with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, [man] has no ______________ but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.”
Roman Catholic Answer: THE ANSWER IS…. Free will. This quote if from Luther’s “Bondage of the Will”). As you can imagine, it is regarded as heresy by the Catholic Church.
My Answer: Roman Catholicism is dogmatically opposed to Luther. It unequivocally affirms free will in the process of salvation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,
1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.
In short, if we are under the god of this world, away from the work and Spirit of the true God, we are held captive to his will, as Paul says to Timothy [II Tim. 2:26], so that we cannot will anything but what he wills. For he is that strong man armed, who guards his own palace in such a way that those whom he possesses are in peace [Luke 11:21], so as to prevent them from stirring up any thought or feeling against him; otherwise, the kingdom of Satan being divided against itself would not stand [Luke 11:18], whereas Christ affirms that it does stand. And this we do readily and willingly, according to the nature of the will, which would not be a will if it were compelled; for compulsion is rather (so to say) “unwill.” But if a Stronger One comes who overcomes him and takes us as His spoil, then through his Spirit we are again slaves and captives—though this is royal freedom—so that we readily will and do what he wills. Thus the human will is placed between the two like a beast of burden. If God rides it, it wills and goes where God wills, as the psalm says: “I am become as a beast [before thee] and I am always with thee” [Ps. 73:22 f.]. If Satan rides it, it wills and goes where Satan wills; nor can it choose to run to either of the two riders or to seek him out, but the riders themselves contend for the possession and control of it [LW 33:65].
Question 9
What book of the Bible was Luther referring to when he said: “I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is a sufficient reason for rejecting it.”
Roman Catholic Answer: THE ANSWER IS: the Book of Revelations. Here’s what he said about the Book of Revelations: “to my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character… Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.” (Sammtliche Werke, 63, p. 169-170, “The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p.2-3).
My Answer: Revelation is again misspelled. The reference to The Facts About Luther is inaccurate: it is not “2-3” but rather page 203 in the 1987 edition. Luther’s Preface to the Revelation is frequently cited by Luther detractors, that is, in its original form written in 1522. Luther eventually rewrote it entirely in 1530; his opinion of the book had changed. Lutheran theologian John Warwick Montgomery points out,
Luther’s short and extremely negative Preface to the Revelation of St. John was completely dropped after 1522, and the Reformer replaced it with a long and entirely commendatory Preface (1530). Because “some of the ancient fathers held the opinion that it was not the work of St. John the apostle,” Luther leaves the authorship question open, but asserts that he can no longer “let the book alone,” for “we see, in this book, that through and above all plagues and beasts and evil angels Christ is with His saints, and wins the victory at last.” In his original, 1532 Preface to Ezekiel, Luther made a cross-reference to the Revelation of St. John with no hint of criticism; in his later, much fuller Preface to Ezekiel, he concludes on the note that if one wishes to go into prophetic study, more deeply, “the Revelation of John can also help.
Question 10
Fill in the blank for this 1523 Luther quote: “Whoever possesses a good faith, says the ______________ without danger.”
a. Lord’s Prayer
b. Hail Mary
c. Glory Be
Roman Catholic Answer: THE ANSWER IS……B……Hail Mary. Luther: “Whoever possesses a good faith, says the Hail Mary without danger. (Sermon, March 11, 1523)
My Answer: In context, Luther says the Hail Mary is not a prayer: "Inspice, quid sit Ave Maria, scilicet quod non est precatio, quia nec litera quae aliquid postulet ut in pater noster..." (the Hail Mary is not a prayer, for it contains no letter that asks for anything, as in the Our Father...). The original context of this statement is also replete with Luther explaining the abuses of using the Hail Mary. Luther states,
First we will speak of the abuse. The whole world has taken to it and has prayed many rosary prayers and has especially honored the mother of Christ. Moreover, they fell into this error, if it were read by anyone, that it was said not to be read but to be prayed, pitten sein, if the Hail Mary were read. If anyone had said that Mary did not need to be adored, he would have been a heretic. But in the meantime Christ was neglected, and no one cared about this. We must return once more to the right path. For we know from the creed, or rather the Gospel, that Christ has done all things for us. I cannot say this of Mary, that I could put my faith in her; for if I were to say so, I would be blaspheming God. Therefore, that honor must be given to Christ alone. For we have no other mediator, neither Mary nor the apostles nor the prophets, but Christ alone (WA 11:60; English translation via DeepL).
1523 was early in Luther's Reformation career. Luther’s pro-Mariology decreased as the years went by, particularly praying to her. But even with these early comments on the Hail Mary, Luther was interpreting it differently against Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholic scholar Juniper Carol points out:
Luther had set the style for Protestants when he attacked the Catholic prayer "Hail Holy Queen" which he regarded as blasphemous. "Your prayers, 0 Christian," he says, "are as dear to me as hers. And why? Because if you believe that Christ lives in you as much as in her, you can help me as much as she." Eventually Luther was led to limit the communion of saints to the Church on earth because of his complete rejection of any intercessory power on the part of the saints in heaven (Juniper B. Carol. Mariology vol. 2, p. 195).
This is the correct and reassuring message of the blessed Gospel, which the pernicious and blasphemous see of Rome has trodden underfoot for several centuries, deluging all Christendom with its lies and demonic doctrines (1 Tim. 4:1) and instituting its worship and innumerable other abominations. As a consequence, Christendom neglected and, unfortunately, lost this chief fountain and source, which overflows with rich and full grace; and it substituted Christ’s mother Mary for Christ, praying to her for grace. Thus only the words “Hail Mary, full of grace!” remained current, and the words of our text passed into oblivion. But the words remain written: “And from His fullness have we all received, grace upon grace" (LW 22:136-137).
Question 11
In 1519, Luther wrote: I never approved of a ___________, nor will I approve of it for all eternity.”
a. Bible tax
b. curfew
c. schism
Roman Catholic Answer: THE ANSWER IS…..C…… Schism. LUTHER’s full quote: “I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St. Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church.” “On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.” (SOURCE: Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519 more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356)
My Answer: The "Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519 more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses" was never sent. The letter was the result of Luther’s meeting with the Papal nuncio Miltitz. Miltitz was attempting to reconcile Luther with the Pope. He spoke of how favorably the pope felt toward Luther, and how angry he was with Tetzel. He attempted to make this deal with Luther: Luther would cease with his part of this controversy- and he promised those who opposed Luther would also be silent. He also requested Luther write a letter to the pope. Miltitz specifically requested that Luther’s letter contain a confession. This scholar explains,
…that [Luther] had been too vehement and sharp although he had never thought of injuring the Roman Church, but was aiming only at the disgraceful preaching [of indulgences]…he would have a note sent out, exhorting everyone to be obedient to the Roman Church and also confessing that he had expressed the truth in an all too heated and, perhaps untimely fashion….The letter [was to] close with the characteristic words: "I am willing to do anything, provided I am not made to renounce anything more, for nothing will come of the recantation"(Heinrich Boehmer, Road to Reformation (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1946), p. 254).Boehmer notes the letter was written and presented to Miltitz, but Luther “absolutely refused to recant.” Miltitz then dropped the whole idea of the letter. Luther was under the impression the Miltitz would set up a meeting in which a learned bishop would evaluate Luther’s points. Luther writing to elector Frederic says, “Miltitz will write the Pope at once, informing him how things stand, and asking him to recommend the matter to some learned bishop, who will hear me and point out the errors I am to recant. For when I have learned my mistakes, I will gladly withdraw them, and do nothing to impair the honor and power of the Roman Church.” Miltitz did write the Pope, informing him Luther was ready to recant everything. This never happened. The letter was never sent. For more information, see: Luther's Imaginary Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519.
Question 12
12. How did Luther describe contraception?
a. "a sin greater than adultery and incest"
b. "a sin equal to adultery and incest"
c "permissible if the husband is unable to refrain from relations one week each month."
Roman Catholic Answer: THE ANSWER IS……A….Luther said contraception was “a sin greater than adultery and incest.” Calvin called it “a monstrous thing.” Wesley and Zwingli also condemned contraception Protestants traditionally interpreted the story of Onan in Genesis as a condemnation of contraception. (until the 20th century)
My Answer: Luther did frown upon birth control, though I've not found any references to medieval contraceptive devices in his writings. The quote being cited in the Roman Catholic answer is the birth control method of withdrawal. Luther does say "It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery" (LW 7:20). Luther is commenting on Onan, who is told to take his brothers' wife, but he refuses to impregnate her and thus fulfill the duty of the demanded Leverite marriage (Duet. 25:5-6).
I've always been puzzled why Roman Catholic polemicists use this text from Luther as being in agreement with the tenets of Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism endorses a method of birth control (NFP: natural family planning). In essence, Rome has said that contraception is wrong and contraception is right.
I find this double standard fascinating. While Rome's defenders will cite Luther as being against birth control, Rome herself teaches that a method of birth control (NFP). If Roman Catholics really wanted to be consistent in their argument against Protestants on this issue, Roman Catholics would embrace Quiverfull ideology.
Question 13
Which book of the Bible did Luther call "an epistle of straw."
a. James
b. Philemon
c. Acts
Roman Catholic Answer: THE ANSWER IS….A…. Luther called the Book of James “an epistle of straw.” Referring to the book of Revelations, Luther said “Christ is not taught or known in it." Luther also said he wanted to toss the book of Esther into the Elbe River. “The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness. The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible. There are many things objectionable in this book [Revelation]. To my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character.”
My Answer: First, an interesting fact about this quote “epistle of straw” is that it only appears in the original 1522 Preface to the New Testament. Lutheran scholar John Warwick Montgomery points out:
Few people realize — and liberal Luther interpreters do not particularly advertise the fact — that in all the editions of Luther’s Bible translation after 1522 the—Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end, of his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an “Epistle of straw"
Second, Luther's view of Revelation (not, Revelations!) was addressed in question 9 above . Third, in regard to the Esther quote, it's a variant / mistake in the Table Talk. Esdras was meant, not Esther. The definitive answer on Luther's view of the canonicity of the Book of Esther may reside in his translation of the Bible into German. Luther translated Esther and allowed it in his Bible without offering any negative criticism as to its non-canonicity in his delineated Bible prefaces. He translated it, not with the Apocryphal books, but rather with the canonical books. If he considered it Apocryphal, why didn't he translate it with Apocrypha? Why didn't he place it with the Apocrypha when he placed the Biblical books in order? In fact, in one place in his Bible prefaces, Luther distinguishes the particular noncanonical parts of Esther, and places them with the other apocryphal writings:
I have therefore chosen to expound the holy prophet Jonah, for he… represents an excellent, outstanding, and comforting example of faith and a mighty and wonderful sign of God’s goodness to all the world. For who would not trust God with all his heart, proudly defy all the devils, the world, and all the fulminating tyrants, and exult over God’s kindness, when he contemplates this story and beholds how easily God’s power and grace are able to preserve Jonah in the midst of the deep sea, even in the belly of the whale, thus saving him not only from one death but from various deaths, deserted and forgotten as he is by all men and all creatures? (LW 19:36)
This entry was revised February 2026.
Posts
