Luther: “The most damnable and pernicious heresy that has ever plagued the mind of man is that somehow he can make himself good enough to deserve to live forever with an all-holy God”

 

Here's one meme-ing its way around cyberspace: 

“The most damnable and pernicious heresy that has ever plagued the mind of man is that somehow he can make himself good enough to deserve to live forever with an all-holy God.”--- Martin Luther

Where did it come from? Via a few cursory searches the earliest usage in this exact form I could find was from D. James Kennedy, Evangelism Explosion (1977), p.38

Notice Kennedy does not put the statement in quotes.  As far as I can tell, this is the source where this English quote originated from. I suspect he's paraphrasing Luther. From where? I do not know!

Martin Luther: If Your Spouse is Sick... Take a New Wife?

Here's an old character defaming Roman Catholic analysis of Martin Luther from the nineteenth century:

At the end of the second part of the famous sermon on matrimony Luther has some words of comfort for those, whose husbands or wives are ill. He will not allow such illness to be considered as a legitimate cause of divorce. „Blessed art thou, if thou acknowledgest such a grace, and servest thy sick partner willingly in the name of God. If thou sayest, thou canst not contain thyself, I answer: thou liest." But alas! Words! Words! We are used to see the „Reformer" change his opinion and contradict himself. In 1527 a case is brought before him, of a certain Hans Behem, whose wife is suffering from leprosy. Luther decides, that, if the wife consents, the husband may consider her as dead and proceed to a new marriage. Car tel est notre plaisir. (17)

(17) De Wette III. 194. This decision will also be found Tischr. II. c. 20. § 10S.

According to this nineteenth century Roman Catholic author, Martin Luther first stated that if a spouse is ill, that illness does not provide legitimate grounds for divorce. Then the author posits Luther is grossly inconsistent because later Luther approved of a man abandoning his sick wife and remarrying! This Roman Catholic author seals his interpretation with the French phrase, Car tel est notre plaisir (Because it is our will/pleasure) indicating that the husband could do whatever whimsically pleasures him, like swapping wives out when the first one breaks. 

Let's take a closer look and see if Luther was inconsistent and was suggesting licentious wife changing. 

Documentation
The quote above comes from a book by J. Verres, Luther an Historical Portrait, p. 211-212.  The 1884 version I utilized does not contain the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. This book was quoted more frequently in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries than it is today. I've not uncovered much about this author other than he was a nineteenth century German Roman Catholic (as per his admission). There are a number of old reviews of Luther: An Historical Portrait.  Of the extant ones, most are favorable from Roman Catholic sources. Here though is a negative review. What's useful about this negative review is that it seems his contemporaries didn't know much about him either. Th review states, "Dr. Verres, we believe, a Catholic priest whom the vexatious Maigesetze compelled to find a second home in England." His book is best classified as belonging to the Roman Catholic period of destructive criticism of Martin Luther.

Two references are provided. The first is "De Wette III. 194." This refers to Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe. This is a collection of Luther's letters edited by Dr. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette in the nineteenth century. This exact reference can be found here. It is a letter from Luther to Joachim von Weiszbach of Reinersdorf, August 23, 1527.To my knowledge, this letter has not been officially translated into English.  

The second reference is "Tischr. II. c. 20. § 10S." Verres includes a key to the abbreviations he used.  In his book, "Tischr" refers to the Tischreden, or Table Talk. He says the exact edition he used was: "Dr. M. Luther's sinnreiche Tischreden. 2 voll. Stuttgart und Leipzig 1836."  What Verres is citing is a second-hand source of comments Luther is alleged to have made, written down by his collogues and friends published after his death. These second-hand statements can be helpful as corroborating evidence for something Luther is known to have written or said while alive. The version / edition of Tischreden Volume 2 as cited by Verres does not appear to be available online as of the writing of this entry.  However, what Verres may be referring to is this Tischreden entry, WA Tr 6:267,6915. This text also provides some extra information.

Context

De Wette III. 194

English Translation from Google A.I.:

Grace and peace in Christ. Your Grace. I have received your letter concerning H. B., and at your request, this is my reply. Since the same H. B. neither knows nor is able, as he indicates, to manage his household without a wife, I neither know nor can prevent him from taking another wife to accept; he too is well excused by God, because a previous body willingly departed from him in this way, eternally forfeiting itself, thereby (justly) being considered dead and he himself being free to judge by her. But if she had not so completely consented, it would be another matter; for otherwise so much malice is undertaken everywhere in matters of God that it is not easy to admit so many offenses. With this, God be with you.") 1527

Alternate English A.I. Translation (DeepL):

I have received your letter concerning Hans Behem, and at your request, this is my answer: Since Hans Behem, as he indicates, neither knows nor is able to provide for his household without a wife, I cannot prevent or forbid him from taking another wife. Moreover, he is well excused before God because his previous wife willingly divorced him and eternally forgives him, so that she is justly considered dead and he himself is free from her judgment. If, however, she had not so completely consented, it would be a different matter. For otherwise, so much wantonness is practiced in marital matters that it is not easy to acknowledge so much offense. With this, God bless you. Given at Wittenberg on the eve of St. Bartholomew's Day, 1527.

 

WA Tr 6:267,6915. 

 

 English Translation from Google A.I.

6915. (FB. 4, 101 (43,108)) b the excommunication the marriage, D. M. L. objections to Joachim von Weißbach zu Reinersdorf; and this case was thus settled. (A.449; St.564; p. Append. 15) A woman had become exile, and willingly and without coercion entered the hospital and permitted her husband to take another. Thereupon, D. M. L. raised objections, as follows:

Grace and peace in Christ. Strict, firm, dear Lord and Friend! I have received your letter concerning Hans Behem, and at your request, this is my reply: Since Hans Behem, as he indicates, neither knows nor is able to provide for his household without a wife, I cannot prevent or forbid him from taking another wife. Furthermore, I believe he is well excused before God, because his previous wife willingly divorced him and has forgiven him, since she is rightfully considered dead and he himself is free from judgment. If, however, she had not so completely forgiven him, it would be a different matter. For otherwise, so much willful intent is taken in marital matters that it is not easy to accept so much wrongdoing. With this, God bless you. Given at Wittenberg on the eve of St. Bartholomew's Day, 1527.

DeepL English Rendering:

6915. (FB. 4, 101 (43,108)) b the divorce, D. M. L. Concerns about Joachim von Weißbach zu Reinersdorf; and this case was thus dealt with. (A.449; St.564; S. Append. 15) A woman had been divorced and had willingly and voluntarily entered the hospital and allowed her husband to take another wife. Upon this, D. M. L. raised the following concerns:

Grace and peace in Christ. Strict, steadfast, dear sir and friend! I have received your letter concerning Hans Behem, and at your request, this is my reply: If Hans Behem does not know how to manage his household, as he states, without a wife, then I do not know how to prevent or forbid him from taking another wife, and also, he is well excused before God, because his previous wife willingly divorced him, and he has forgiven her, since she is rightly to be considered dead and he himself is free from her. But if she had not been so completely lost, it would be another matter. For otherwise, so much arbitrariness is committed in matrimonial matters that it is not easy to grant so much forgiveness. With this, I commend you to God. Given at Wittenberg on the eve of St. Bartholomew's Day, 1527."

Additional Information

Google A.I.  English Translation

The woman who had been expelled willingly, without being forced by her husband, went to the hospital in Begaiv and allowed the man to woo another. Thereupon, D. M. L. sent a letter to Joachim von Weispach of Reyuersdorf, which was:

DeepL English Translation

The woman who was sent away willingly, without being forced by her husband, went to the hospital in Begaiv and told her husband to find another wife. Upon this, D. M. L. had the following thoughts about Joachim von Weispach zu Reyuersdorff:

Conclusion
While these are clunky A.I. English translations, there are easily discernable facts: On August 23, 1527, Luther received a letter from Joachim von Weiszbach of Reinersdorf on behalf of Hans Behem. Behem's wife was stricken by a disease and taken (or went willingly) to the hospital. At some point during this illness, the husband (Hans Behem) asked his wife for a divorce and permission to marry another since he could not care of his household on his own. The wife completely consented. Luther says, if this severely ill woman had not consented, he would have given different answer, implying a negative answer. 

Here is what's not easily discernable. I could locate no specific information about either Joachim von Weißbach zu Reinersdorf or Hans Behem. The text is unclear whether or not the woman had died at this point in the writing of the response of Luther's letter.

What then of the charge of Luther's charges leveled by Verres? First, the charge of Luther's gross inconsistency. Verres is contrasting this 1527 private letter with Luther's earlier 1522 treatise, The Estate of Marriage. Beggars All provides a detailed look at exactly what Verres was referring to. In that treatise, Luther symbiotically joined marriage and family together. In Luther's thinking, you cannot consider one without the other. Luther saw the goal of family as more than a direct command from God: it is "a divine ordinance [werck] which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore"(LW 45:18). Hence when Behem presented the hardship of caring for his household alone, Luther viewed a two-parent household over a single-parent household. Because of the symbiotic relationship between marriage and family, Luther's allowance is consistent. True, Luther did write in 1522 that one is not free to divorce a sick spouse, but that again is symbiotically related to family. If a spouse is sick and unable to bear children, the other spouse is not free to divorce but to accept the situation he has been placed in by God. In Behem's complicated situation, it appears by managing a household, children were involved, and the wife willingly granted permission to her husband to divorce her. But what the charge by Verres that Luther's view is Car tel est notre plaisir (Because it is our will/pleasure) indicating that the husband could do whatever pleasures him? This is not found in the letter at all, nor the earlier 1522 treatise, The Estate of Marriage.

Bogus Roman Catholic Memes #6: The Protestant Dilemma, Luther and Mary's Sinlessness

 Here's a Martin Luther meme found on Facebook:

How to respond:

1. Identify the argument: This is a typical Roman Catholic argument that if Martin Luther restored "Biblical Christianity" to its pure state, then all subsequent Protestants are obligated to follow everything he said in regard to Christianity. They argue that Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, so this is contrary to modern Protestants that believe "all have sinned" including Mary. 

2. Locate the source: No source is given in the meme for the Martin Luther quote.  For this quote, Rome's defenders often cite either Luther's "Personal Prayer Book" or "Little Prayer Book" 1522.  This is old-school Roman Catholic Internet documentation that's vague enough to not be helpful. This text is easy enough to find: it has been translated into English in LW 43:40.

3. Present More Clarifying Information. At times Martin Luther's view of Mary was in flux, and this quote is a good example of it. Leading up to 1522, it can be documented that Luther wavered on making a definite conclusion on Mary's sinlessness. In 1521-1522, he seems to have finally concluded Mary was sinless. After this, his position changed. The best one can speculate is that for the majority of his career as a Reformer, he believed that at the conception of Jesus Christ, Mary was purified by the Holy Spirit. At Christ's conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood. This means that at least up until the conception of Christ, Luther believed that Mary was not sinless. His mature position is not the 1854 dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus). After Mary's conception of Christ, Luther places Mary among sinners (documented below). 

A question arises for Luther's later view: If Mary was purified or made sinless at the conception of Jesus, did she then go on to live a completely sinless life? Here are some statements from Luther in which he places her among sinful humanity after the birth of Jesus:

This should shut the mouths of vain babblers who too highly exalt the holy Virgin Mary and other saints as if they knew everything and could not err. In this place you hear that they err and blunder, not only by seeking Christ everywhere and not knowing where to find Him until they happen to come into the temple, but also by not understanding these words, with which He rebukes their lack of understanding  and says to them: "Did you not know that I must be in that which is My Father's?" The evangelist has intentionally pointed this out and will not conceal it, so that we will not allow such lying speech from foolish, inexperienced, and inflated teachers of works, who brag about the saints and even make them into idols (LW 76:202).

Original text: Hie mit ist den unnützen Schwetzern das maul gestopfft, so die Heilige Jungfraw Maria und andere Heiligen gar zu hoch heben, als haben sie alles gewust und nie nicht können jrren. Denn hie hörestu, wie sie jrren und straucheln nicht allein in dem, das sie Christum allenthalben suchen und nicht wissen zu finden, Bis sie ongefehr in Tempel komen, Sondern das sie auch dis Wort nicht verstehen, damit er jren unverstand straffet und zu jnen sagen mus: "Wisset jr nicht, das ich sein mus in dem, das meines Vaters ist". Das hat der Euangelist mit grossem vleis angezeigt und nicht wollen verschweigen, Auff das man solchen Lügenteidingen nicht stattgebe, so unverstendige, unerfarene und auffgeblasene Wercklerer von den Heiligen rhuymen und sie gar zu Abgöttern machen (WA 17.2:26). 

Whether they are called holy, learned, fathers, councils, or whatever else- it does not for that reason follow that they could not have erred and been wrong. Here we find that the mother of Christ, who had great understanding and enlightenment, was ignorant, since she did not think or know where to find Christ, and for that reason was rebuked by Him because she did not know what she should have known. If she blundered and through her ignorance came into such anxiety and sorrow that she even thought she had lost Christ, is it any wonder that other saints have often erred and stumbled when they went outside of Scripture and followed their own thoughts or dragged them into Scripture? (LW 76:204).

Original text: Hie wider sol man antworten, wie gesagt ist, aus disem Euangelio. Es heisse Heilig, Gelert, Veter, Concilia, oder was es sein mag, Wenn es gleich Maria, Joseph und alle Heiligen miteinander weren, So folget darumb nicht, das sie nicht haben können jrren und feilen. Denn hie hörestu, das die Mutter Christi, Welche doch hohen verstand und erleuchtung hat, in die unwissenheit kompt, das sie nicht weis noch dencket, wo sie Christum finden sol, Und darumb von im gestrafft wird, das sie solchs nicht weis, das sie doch wissen solte. Hat nu sie gefeilet und durch jre unwissenheit ist in solch angst und betrubnis komen, das sie meinet, sie habe Christum gar verloren, Was ists wunder, ob andere Heiligen offt geirret und gestrauchelt haben, wenn sie ausser der Schrifft gegangen und jren gedancken gefolget oder die selben in die Schrifft gezogen haben? (WA 17.2:28).

You say further: "Yes the church and the fathers had the Holy Spirit, who did not let them err." That can easily be answered from what has been said: No matter how holy the Church or the councils may be, they had no more of the Holy Spirit than Mary, the mother of Christ, who was also a member [of the Church], even at that time the most distinguished part of the Church. Even though she had been sanctified by the Holy Spirit, yet He sometimes let her err, even in the high matters of faith. For that reason it does not follow that the saints who have the Spirit cannot err and that everything they say must be correct. There still remains much weakness and ignorance even among the highest people. For that reason we must not judge doctrine and the matters of faith which come from the Holy Spirit according to personal holiness, for that can be all wrong. Rather, here you must come where God's Word is, for that is certain and does not err; there you certainly find Christ and the Holy Spirirt; there you can take your stand and remain against sin, death, and the devil (LW 76:206).

Original text: So sprichstu weiter: Ja, die Kirche und Veter haben den Heiligen Geist gehabt. Der lesst sie ja nicht jrren. Darauff ist leicht zu antworten aus dem, so gesagt ist, die Kirche oder Concilia sind so heilig als sie wollen, so haben sie den heiligen Geist nicht mehr denn Maria, die Mutter Christi, welche ist ja auch ein Gelied, ja, zu der zeit das furnemeste stück der Kirchen gewest. Und wiewol sie durch den heiligen Geist geheiliget ist, noch lesset er sie zu weilen auch jrren, auch in den hohen sachen des Glaubens. Darumb folget nicht, das die Heiligen, so den Geist haben, darumb nicht jrren können und alles muste recht sein, was sie sagen. Es bleibet noch viel schwacheit und unwissenheit auch in den höhesten Leuten, das man nicht nach personlicher Heiligkeit mus urteilen von der Lere und des Glaubens sachen, was aus dem heiligen Geist sey. Denn das kan alles feilen. Sondern hieher mustu komen, da Gottes wort ist, das ist gewis und feilet nicht, da findestu Christum und den heiligen Geist gewislich Und kanst darauff bestehen und bleiben wider Sunde, Tod und Teuffel (WA 17.2:30). 

I first mentioned these quotes as far back as 2006. Luther may have held to Mary's immaculate purification, but he did not hold that Mary remained sinless for the rest of her life after the birth of Jesus. For further discussion, see this link. 

Did Martin Luther say, “Love God? I hate Him!”?

This came up in a Roman Catholic vs. Protestant Facebook debate group:

“Love God?! I hate Him!" - Martin Luther. Question for Protestants who are not Anglican... Why would you listen to Martin Luther if he hates God?"

Lest one think this was an unbiased question from a sincere Roman Catholic participant, the same person went on to write, "let's not also forget he influenced Hitler with his Antisemitic writings" and "Martin Luther was evil." I was also informed that Martin Luther was in hell because of visions from a few saints. The intent of this question amounts to online rage bating.  

Let's take a closer look to see if Martin Luther really said he hates God.

Documentation

As is often the case from online hostile Roman Catholics, no documentation was provided. In the discussion I repeatedly asked for an actual quote, an actual context, and if possible, a meaningful link. The author of the question did not respond to this request. Very few Roman Catholic participants responded to this request. In fact, only one person ventured this proof:

Out of principle, I flatly rejected the A.I. method of lazy documentation. Would Rome's defenders step up and locate the quote? The same defender of Rome gave a few more tries with secondary links, even providing a link to R.C. Sproul's famous lecture on Luther. However, helpful Dr. Sproul's classic lecture is, it still doesn't show proper documentation. Even in the overview contained in his book, The Holiness of God, Dr. Sproul cites Roland Bainton's Here I Stand, a Martin Luther biography, not a primary source. The point in provoking Rome's defenders to search out a primary context is to have the correct document to determine who's correctly interpreting it.

Leaving this documentation cat and mouse game aside, there is no such exact quote from Luther in which he says, "Love God?! I hate Him!” I suspect the quote is a rendering of Luther's comment, "I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners..." being morphed with Dr. Sproul's classic lecture seeping into the collective unconscious of the Internet. 

If this is the correct quote, it's easy enough to locate. The primary source for would be Vorrede zum ersten Bande der Gesamtausgaben seiner lateinischen Schriften, Wittenberg 1545, located at WA 54:185. In English, this treatise is entitled, Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther’s Latin Writings, Wittenberg, 1545. The quote is found located at LW 34:336-337.

Context

Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, “As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.

At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ ” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory. I also found in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong, the wisdom of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.

And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word “righteousness of God.” Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise. Later I read Augustine’s The Spirit and the Letter, where contrary to hope I found that he, too, interpreted God’s righteousness in a similar way, as the righteousness with which God clothes us when he justifies us. Although this was heretofore said imperfectly and he did not explain all things concerning imputation clearly, it nevertheless was pleasing that God’s righteousness with which we are justified was taught (LW 34:336-338).

Original text: 

Ego autem, qui me, utcunque irreprehensibüis monachus vivebam, sentirem coram Deo esse peccatorem inquietissimae conscientiae, nee raea satisfactione placatum confidere possem, non amabam, imo odiebam iustum et punientem peecatores Deum, tacitaque si non blasphemia, certe ingenti raurmuratione indignabar Deo, dicens: quasi vero non satis sit, miseros peecatores et aeternaliter perditos peccato originali omni genere calamitatis oppressos esse per legem decalogi, nisi Dens per euangelium dolorem dolori adderet, et etiam per euangelium nobis iustitiam et iram suam intentaret. Furebam ita saeva et perturbata conscieutia, pulsabam tarnen importunus eo loco Pallium, ardentissime sitiens scire, quid S. Paulus vellet.

Donec miserente Deo meditabundus dies et noctes connexionem verborum atteuderem, uempe: lustitia Dei revelatur in illo, sicut scriptum est: lustus ex fide vivit, ibi iustitiam Dei coepi intelligere eam, qua iustus dono Dei s vivit, nempe ex fide, et esse hanc sententiam, revelari per euangelium iustitiam Dei, scilicet passivam, qua uos Deus misericors iustificat per fidem, sicut scriptum est: lustus ex fide vivit. Hie ine prorsus renatum esse sensi, et apertis portis in ipsam paradisum intrasse. Ibi continuo alia mihi facies totius scripturae apparuit. Discurrebam deinde per scripturas, ut habebat lo memoria, et coUigebam etiam in aliis vocabulis analogiam, ut opus Dei, id est, quod operatur in nobis Deus, virtus Dei, qua nos potentes facit, sapientia Dei, qua nos sapientes facit, fortitudo Dei, salus Dei, gloria Dei.

lam quanto odio vocabulum 'iustitia Dei' oderam ante, tanto amore dulcissimum mihi vocabulum extollebam, ita mihi iste locus Pauli fuit vere is porta paradisi. Postea legebam Augustinum de spiritu et litera S ubi praeter spem offendi, quod et ipse iustitiam Dei similiter interpretatur: qua nos Deus induil, dum nos iustificat. Et quamquam imperfecte hoc adhuc sit dictum, ac de imputatione non clare omnia explicet, placuit tarnen iustitiam Dei doceri, qua nos iustificemur (WA 54:185-186).

Conclusion

This context provides Luther's detailed account of his discovery of justification by faith alone. It is one of the few detailed biographical accounts written by Luther himself. Even with this firsthand information, historians have not been able to conclusively determine the exact date or exact place in which the events described occurred. There have been a number of theories as to the specific date in which Luther came to his understanding of justification by faith alone.

The pertinent aspect of the context is that Luther did not leave the statement, "I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God" hanging or representative of his total life. He goes on to describe his experience of coming to grasp that "the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith" (LW 34:337). He states he arrived at the opposite of hating the righteousness of God:

Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates... And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word “righteousness of God.” Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise (LW 34:337).

Martin Luther and Polygamy... from AI and Wikipedia

People seem to blatantly trust whatever an AI search spits out. For instance, during the initial stages of the takeover of Artificial Itelligence, I had a hostile interaction with a Roman Catholic on Martin Luther and Polygamy. Despite the hostility and the negativity, this defender of Rome was inadvertently positively helpful in showing me early on how AI searches are not necessarily accurate.  Here was the AI screenshot he provided to prove his claims:

While there are a few claims presented, that which most intrigued me was "In 1521, Luther permitted a man to take a second wife." I'm familiar with the popular key pieces of evidence used to paint Martin Luther as a blatant polygamist, but the date of a 1521 was something I did not recall hearing before. I've not been able to recreate this AI search to get the exact same wording result presented in this screenshot (I wanted to see what link the little paperclip icon opens). I've gotten very close wordings, and each of them links to Wikipedia's article, Polygamy in Christianity. I suspect this is the source the AI search is pulling from. Wikipedia states, 

Martin Luther deplored divorce (only permitting it in the cases of adultery and the Pauline privilege) and taught that polygamy was allowed in Scripture, citing positive examples of it from the biblical patriarchs; as such in 1521, he granted the approval for a man to take a second wife, and again in 1539 for Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse to take a second wife.[68][69]

[68] Sorensen, Rob (7 July 2016). Martin Luther and the German Reformation. Anthem Press. p. 86. ISBN 978-1-78308-441-8.

[69] Cole, William Graham (6 November 2015). Sex in Christianity and Psychoanalysis. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-35977-7. Luther's preference for bigamy to divorce appeared again in the case of Philipp of Hesse. Luther insisted that whatever was not specifically forbidden by Scripture was an option for the Christian, and not only is there no Biblical ban on polygamy, there are positive examples of it, in the patriarchs. In January of 1521, long before the affair of either Philipp or Henry, Luther had written to a friend whose marital life was wholly asexual owing to the illness of his wife and who had asked whether he might take a second wife. At that time Luther had responded that he could raise no objection if a man wished to take several wives, since Holy Scripture does not forbid it.

Wikipedia says it's a 1521 letter in which Luther "granted the approval for a man to take a second wife." Let's try and track Wiki's information down and see if it is accurate (spoiler: it isn't). Secondarily, we'll see that Martin Luther was not an unrestrained supporter of polygamy. He had a complex view, sometimes approving of it and sometimes disapproving of it depending on the reason or the context. 

Documentation

Wiki cites two sources. These sources appear to have been added in June 10, 2021.  I don't have access to the first source (Sorensen) and Wiki doesn't provide a page number or quote from Sorensen, so I suspect a trivial reference is being put forth. The second reference to William Graham Cole's book was added in first. This second source appears to be that which the 1521 date comes from, I'm going to assume Wiki's contributor primarily utilized the second source (Cole) for their information. Here's what the second source states:

Luther’s preference for bigamy to divorce appeared again in the case of Philip of Hesse. Luther insisted that whatever was not specifically forbidden by Scripture was optional for the Christian, and not only is there no Biblical ban on polygamy, there are positive examples of it, in the patriarchs. In January of 1521, long before the affair of either Philipp or Henry, Luther had written to a friend whose marital life was wholly asexual owing to the illness of his wife and who had asked whether he might take a second wife. At that time Luther had responded that he could raise no objection if a man wished to take several wives, since Holy Scripture does not forbid it. Still, he went on to say, he would not like to see the practice become general, for Christians ought not to seize greedily upon anything to which their freedom gives them the right. This is very characteristic of Luther. He refused to legalize, he insisted on the liberty of the Christian man, but he wanted all believers to exercise their freedom with great care as to its effect upon others. He would only give advice and opinion, not command. Each man must, in the light of his own conscience, work out his course of action. Luther had been a confessor and he always displayed serious pastoral concern for those who turned to him in trouble. This was his attitude toward Philip of Hesse, who sought Luther’s help. Philip was saddled with a homely and frigid wife. He was infatuated with a younger woman who responded to his ardor with warmth. Divorce was beyond his reach, and he wrote to ask Luther if he might take a second wife. Luther strongly urged him to try to bear his cross with patience and courage, but when it became apparent that Philipp could not do this, that it was a second wife or a mistress, the pastor gave his approval to the former course of action, telling Philipp, however, that the whole matter must be kept secret. Luther was not alone in his views on polygamy, incidentally, as they were shared by no less a person than Cardinal Cajetan of the Roman curia, who advised the Pope to grant a dispensation to Henry VIII to take Anne Boleyn as a second wife. Luther was convinced that some sort of sex life is essential to all men, and in special cases of necessity, he regarded bigamy as a lesser evil than fornication or adultery.

William Graham Cole does not document his assertions. He claims the following:

1. Luther wrote a letter to a friend in January 1521.

2. That friend had written to Luther that he had a "marital life...  wholly asexual owing to the illness of his wife" and "asked whether he might take a second wife."

Both of these assertions are false. He does though present correct information:

1. Luther did not positively advocate for polygamy ("...he would not like to see the practice become general...").

2. Luther did not want to legalize polygamy ("He refused to legalize, he insisted on the liberty of the Christian man, but he wanted all believers to exercise their freedom with great care as to its effect upon others...").

I know of no letter from Martin Luther written to a friend from January 1521 addressing these issues. Based on what William Graham Cole wrote, I suspect he's actually referring to Luther's letter from January 13, 1524 to Chancellor Gregory Brück possibly mixed in with Luther's comments from his treatise, The Estate of Marriage (1522). I conclude this because in that 1524 Letter Luther stated almost the exact sentiment Cole mentions: "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." Compare this to what Cole summarizes: "For Christians ought not to sieze greedily to anything to which their freedom gives them the right."

The Chancellor had written to Luther asking for advice as to what to do about Luther's former colleague, Andreas Carlstadt. Carlstadt was using the Mosaic law to allow those people following him to have multiple wives. The letter had nothing to do with Luther writing to a friend about his asexual sick wife and wanting to take a second wife. In the 1524 letter, Luther does say that he cannot discount the practice of polygamy based on the Bible, but he goes on to say much more. Notice all the caveats Luther mentions about polygamy, entirely left out of Cole's presentation:

As for me, I truly admit that I cannot prohibit it if someone wishes to marry several wives, nor is it repugnant to the Sacred Scriptures: in truth, however, I would not want such an example introduced among Christians in the first place, among whom it is proper to abstain even from things that are allowed, in order to avoid scandal, and for the integrity of life, which everywhere Paul requires (Luther's Authentic Voice on Polygamy, p. 17). 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. Perhaps they will even introduce circumcision at Orlamünde and will become Jews entirely (Luther, An Historical Portrait, p. 313.

Original text: Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere,si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis:verum tamen apud Christianos id exempli nollem primo introduci,apud quos decet etiam ea intermittere, quae licita sunt,pro vitando scandalo, et pro honestate vitae, quam ubiquePaulus exigit. Vehementer enim dedecet Christianos, summaet novissima libertatis tam anxie pro suis commodis sectari,et tamen vulgaria illa et necessaria charitatis negligere. Ideoin sermone meo nolui hanc fenestram aperire, et vix credo,sic desertum a Deo Christianum, ut non queat continere conjux divinitus impedita Curiositas, metuo, in causa sit. Verumsinitote ire, quo it, forte etiam adhuc circumcidentur Orlamundae, et toti Mosaici futuri sunt (WA Br 3:231).  

Conclusion

The main lesson here is to not necessarily trust every bit of AI information spit back from an inquiry. Go the extra mile: look things up! Challenge dates and facts put forth by AI. Don't be surprised to discover Wikipedia as a main AI source. I asked ChatGPT directly: Does ChatGPT utilize Wikipedia as a reliable source for information? It replied: 

Yes — ChatGPT may use information that also appears on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia content was likely part of the broad public internet data used during training... In practice: Wikipedia is often reasonably accurate for general topics. ChatGPT can reflect information commonly found there. But ChatGPT can also reproduce Wikipedia’s errors, omissions, or editorial biases.

I also asked ChatGPT: Why would ChatGPT utilize Wikipedia as a source if the authors of Wikipedia entries are anonymous and biased? It responded in part:

Because large language models are trained on enormous amounts of publicly available text, and Wikipedia is one of the largest and most heavily linked knowledge repositories on the internet. Ignoring it entirely would remove a substantial amount of commonly referenced factual material... Your concern about anonymity and bias is still valid, especially in controversial fields...Those issues are more serious in: theology, politics, history, philosophy, ethics, disputed scientific or social questions. That is why historically rigorous work should not stop at Wikipedia. For example, when discussing Martin Luther, relying only on Wikipedia instead of primary texts and scholarly editions can easily produce oversimplifications or inaccurate claims.

I understand the scope of Wikipedia and why AI would use it... but I see a fundamental flaw in utilizing anonymous non-vetted sources! It doesn't add up. One other thing to realize is that AI models are set to gravitate to certain places on the Internet, determined by higher traffic. For instance, I asked the AI program Claude the following question: Do AI searches utilize Beggars All, Reformation and Apologetics? It responded: "Possibly, but unreliably and not by default." It then informed me that it tends to downplay Blogspot and WordPress content in favor of "institutional websites (.edu, .org, established news outlets)" because the former have "lower domain authority scores." Claude also stated:

AI searches like mine are not neutral. They reflect the biases of the search engines they rely on, which in turn reflect the biases of who gets to build authoritative web presences. A blog like Beggar's All Reformation...  would almost certainly offer a more nuanced and theologically grounded critique than several of the sources I actually used. The fact that it doesn't surface is a flaw in the tool, not a judgment on the quality of the content.

A secondary lesson not expounded on in this entry is that Martin Luther had a complex view of polygamy, sometimes he approved of it and sometimes he didn't. In this helpful article, Luther's Authentic Voice on Polygamy from Concordia Theological Journal, multiple statements from Luther are provided on his view of polygamy. When they're all viewed together, a clear picture arises that Luther did not haphazardly hold a view on polygamy (see particularly pages 33-34). The author states: 

It is relatively easy to select isolated quotations from Luther’s writings that make him appear to be completely inconsistent, at times approving, and at times disapproving, of polygamy. When Luther’s statements are examined together, one can see that his teaching about polygamy was for the most part consistent, though quite complex: he both approved and disapproved of polygamy, but for different reasons and in different contexts.

Eventually I think Luther experienced the problem of leaving the door open for polygamy. After the Philipp of Hesse debacle, Luther wrote:

Anyone following this fellow [Philipp of Hesse] and his book and takes more than one wife, and thinks that this is right, the devil will prepare for him a bath in the depths of hell (Brecht 3:214).

Original text: Wer diesen Buben vnd buch folgete, vnd darauff mher denn eine Ehefrawen nimpt, vnd wil, das es ein Recht sein sol, dem gesegen der Teufel das bad in abgrund der hellen, Amen (WA 53:195-196).

The Roman Catholic caricature that Martin Luther unabashedly supported polygamy can be easily refuted by asking this basic question: how many wives did Martin Luther have? Answer: he had but one whom he was faithfully devoted to. Something doesn't add up with the Roman Catholic caricature: if Luther was such a devout supporter of polygamy, why didn't he himself have many wives? As I've experienced researching polygamy, those advocating for it practice it themselves and create biblical justification.  

Addendum #1 Resources for Martin Luther's View of Polygamy

The topic of Martin Luther and polygamy is complicated.  In Roman Catholic citations of Luther on polygamy, one pictures Luther flagrantly teaching and allowing polygamy, as if he and all his associates at Wittenberg had multiple wives. They did not! It is historically inaccurate to say Martin Luther supported or encouraged polygamy. Luther's dabbling in the theological basis for polygamy was hypothetical, cautioned, and sometimes outright denied.

Here are two helpful resources for this topic:

Luther's Connection with the Divorce of Henry VIII of England and the Bigamy of Philip of Hessen. What's useful about this article is it points out all the issues of polygamy the Roman Catholic Church has encountered. 

Luther's Authentic Voice on Polygamy: This article is a goldmine of citations from Luther on Polygamy.

Addendum #2 Martin Luther's Letter to Gregory Brück, January 13, 1524

Gratia et pax. Viro, qui secundam uxorem consilio Carlstadiipetit, optime Domine Doctor, sic respondeat Princeps:Oportere ipsum maritum sua propria conscientia esse firmumac certum per verbum Dei, sibi haec licere. Eos ergo requirat,qui verbo Dei eum tutum reddant: si is Carlstadius, velalius fuerit, nihil ad Principem. Neque enim si alioqui incertusest, per Principis consensum tutus esse poterit, cujus inhac re non sit quicquam decernere, et sacerdotum sit respondereverbum Dei, ex cujus ore requirent legem Domini, ut Zacharias dicit. Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere,si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis:verum tamen apud Christianos id exempli nollem primo introduci,apud quos decet etiam ea intermittere, quae licita sunt,pro vitando scandalo, et pro honestate vitae, quam ubiquePaulus exigit. Vehementer enim dedecet Christianos, summaet novissima libertatis tam anxie pro suis commodis sectari,et tamen vulgaria illa et necessaria charitatis negligere. Ideoin sermone meo nolui hanc fenestram aperire, et vix credo,sic desertum a Deo Christianum, ut non queat continere conjuxdivinitus impedita Curiositas, metuo, in causa sit. Verumsinitote ire, quo it, forte etiam adhuc circumcidentur Orlamundae, et toti Mosaici futuri sunt.

Scripsi et antea de alio casu, nescio, an literas reddiderit,qui accepit. Caeterum praedicatores pro Olsnizen duoshabeo. Sed unus, quem maxime vellem in hoc ministerioservire, uxorculam habet: alioquin omnibus dotibus pollet,quae evangelistam decent, modestia, eruditione, pietate etmorum honestate simul cum uxorcula insignis. Nam plusduobus annis inculpate ac magna cum laude vivit apud nos.Is est parochus Cranachio ab episcopopo Bambergensi pulsusob conjugium, cui tolerabilis fuisset, si scortator et adulteresse voluisset, id quod ei concessum ac permissum erat. Siis placet vel non placet, aut ferri vel non ferri potest, significaripeto. Nam eum in nostris regionibus teneri velim, ut est rarus talium virorum vultus, alioqui jam extra terras aliovocatur. Vale, et Principibus me commenda. Wittembergae MDXXIV. feria 4. post Pauli. T. Martinus Luther (WA Br 3:231). 

Grace and peace. To the man who, on Carlstadt's advice, seeks a second wife, Your Excellency, Doctor, the Prince should reply as follows: That he, the husband, must be firm and certain in his own conscience by the word of God that it is lawful for him to do this. Therefore let him consult those who will make him secure by the word of God: whether he is Carlstadt or someone else, it matters nothing to the Prince. For even if he is otherwise uncertain, he cannot be made secure by the Prince's consent, since the Prince has nothing to decide in this matter, and it is for the priests to respond with the word of God, from whose mouth they will seek the law of the Lord, as Zechariah says. I, for my part, confess that I cannot forbid anyone from taking more than one wife, if it does not contradict the Holy Scriptures; yet I would not want such a practice to be first introduced among Christians, among whom it is fitting to forgo even lawful things to avoid scandal and for the sake of the integrity of life that Paul demands everywhere. For it is exceedingly shameful for Christians to pursue the highest and newest freedoms so anxiously for their own convenience, and yet to neglect those common and necessary acts of charity. For this reason, in my sermon I did not want to open this window, and I can hardly believe that a Christian, so deserted by God, could not contain a wife divinely provided. I fear curiosity is the cause. But let him go where he is going; perhaps the Orlamunds are still being circumcised, and are to be entirely Mosaic.

I wrote before about another case; I don't know whether the recipient has returned the letters. However, I have two preachers for Olsnizen. But one, whom I would most like to have serve in this ministry, has a little wife; otherwise he possesses all the gifts befitting an evangelist—modesty, learning, piety, and an honorable character—and is distinguished even with his little wife. For he has lived among us for more than two years without reproach and with great praise. He is the pastor who was driven out of Cranach by the Bishop of Bamberg because of his marriage, which would have been tolerable if he had wanted to be a fornicator and adulterer, which had been granted and permitted to him. If it pleases or displeases you, or can or cannot be borne, I ask for a sign. For I would like him to remain in our regions, since such men are a rare sight; otherwise, he is already being called away abroad. Farewell, and commend me to the Princes. Wittenberg, 1524. Wednesday after [the Conversion of] Paul. Your Martin Luther.

Martin Luther Rejected Revelation Because of Verses 1:3 and 22:18?

Here's a comment I came across in an old commentary on Revelation from a reputable source:

The obscurity of the Revelation has been felt by scholars in all ages. Jerome complained that the Revelation contained as many riddles as it does words. Luther would have banished it from the pages of the New Testament. He cited Rev. 1:3 and 22:18 where threats are made against the man who breaks the commandments of this book, and promises to the man who keeps them, and demanded how any man could possibly keep the commandments of a book which no man has even been able to understand. 

I realize this title of this blog entry is somewhat misleading... because the erudite author of the words above, William Barclay, does not exactly say "Luther rejected Revelation" but rather wrote, "Luther would have banished" Revelation. Well... why would he have banished it? Let's take a closer look.

Documentation

William Barclay does not provide any documentation, however, it's easy to discover where he's pulling from. Luther's most famous statements about the book of Revelation come from his Prefaces to the New Testament. The exact statement Barclay is referring to is Luther's original 1522 preface (later deleted). It can be found in German at WA Db 7:404. It can be found in English at LW 35:398-399.

 Context

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly [Revelation 22]—indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important—and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep (LW 35:398-399).

Original text: Dazu dunckt mich das allzu viel seyn, das er so hartt solch seyn eygenbuch, mehr denn keyn ander heylige bucher thun, (da viel mehr angelegen ist)befilht, vnnd drewet, wer etwas davon thue, von dem werde Gott auch thun &c.Widderumb sollen selig seyn, die da halten, was drynnen stehet, so doch niemantweys was es ist, schweig das ers halten sollt, vnd eben so viel ist, als hettenwyrs nicht, Auch wol viel edler bucher fur handen sind, die zu hallten sind (WA Db 7:404).

Conclusion

Even though William Barclay quoted Martin Luther accurately from his 1522 Preface to Revelation, this does not necessarily mean Luther held a lifelong rejection of the canonicity of Revelation. He did not! Maybe in 1522 Luther thought to banish Revelation (though he did a poor job of banishment by translating Revelation and including it his German translation of the New Testament). Luther went on to do a complete positive rewrite of his Preface to Revelation in 1530. The revised rewrite is the one Luther wanted his readers to have as representative of his opinion. Why did William Barclay pigeonhole Luther's lifelong opinion on Revelation to something he deleted and then entirely revised? This is poor scholarship on Barclay's part. 

There is further proof of Luther's positive opinion of Revelation: see Luther's positive commendatory Preface to [Nicholas Hereford?] Commentary on the Apocalypse Published One Hundred Years Ago [CA. 1400] (LW 59:203-207), as well as Luther's Sermon on the Festival of St. Michael and All Angels (Rev. 12:7-12) 1544 (LW 58:171-186). Luther positively preached two other times on texts from Revelation "Sermons of September 29, 1534, WA 37:539–44; and September 28, 1537, WA 45:142–44" (LW 58:171, fn.2). There isn't a hint of skepticism toward Revelation in any of these texts. Why do scholars not take them into account when discussing Luther's view of Revelation? I see it as an example of poor scholarship, similar to Barclay.

For those of you wrestling in the mud online and someone brings up Martin Luther's rejection of Revelation, ask: why is it that not long after his original preface, he deleted it, then revised it completely, then adhered and promoted a positive opinion of Revelation to the end of his life? I suspect that if Luther's detractors come up with a reason, they'll still charge him with nefarious motivations. Shake the dust from your feet and move on. 

Addendum #1: Revelation 1:3; 22:18, Luther, and Jerome 

Barclay quoted Luther accurately. He was careful enough to link two verses together that the editors of Luther's Works did not:

Rev. 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book.

Rev. 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

In the English version of LW 35, the text adds "Revelation 22" in brackets. This was not in the original text but added in by modern editors. It seems to me the editors should have also included Revelation 3, because those two passages seem to be what Luther was drawing from. 

Addendum #2: Jerome on Revelation

Interestingly, William Barclay may have taken his Jerome comment directly from Luther's Preface to Revelation. Luther goes on to write:

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous (LW 35:399).

Original text: Es haben auch viel der veter dis buch vorzeyten verworffen, vnnd obswol Sanct Hieronymus mit hohen wortten furet, vnd spricht, es sey vberalles lob, vnd so viel geheymnis drynnen, als wortter, so er doch des nichtsbeweysen kan, vnnd wol an mehr ortten seyns lobens zu milde ist (WA Db 7:404,).  

Both Luther and Barclay are referring to this comment from Jerome:

Apocalypsis Joannis tot habet sacramenta, quot verba. Parum dixi pro merito voluminis. Laus omnis inferior est: in verbis singulis raultiplices latent intelligentiae (Migne, Patrologia, Series Latina 22:548-549.

The apocalypse of John has as many mysteries as words. In saying this I have said less than the book deserves. All praise of it is inadequate; manifold meanings lie hidden in its every word NPNF (second series) 6:102.

This is not to infer Jerome rejected the canonicity of Revelation. In fact, Luther seems to inadvertently admit this (Jerome's "praise at numerous places is too generous").

Did Martin Luther Regret the Reformation?

The same arguments are regurgitated year after year, decade after decade, century after century. Case in point: I came upon a defender of Roman Catholicism presenting the Luther regretted the Reformation argument. He posted a few quotes (with poor references) and opines, 

"Later in his life he started questioning the results of the Reformation because of the division, confusion, and social chaos that followed. These aren’t opinions, they come from his own writings."

Then, a few quotes were presented to seal the deal. Let's go through them.   

1.“There are now as many beliefs as there are heads...”

This a popular Roman Catholic Martin Luther quote. Rome's defender states,  

"Luther complained that once Church authority was rejected, endless different doctrines appeared. In Against the Heavenly Prophets (1525) he wrote that “there are now as many beliefs as there are heads,” explaining that some rejected baptism, others denied the sacraments, and some even taught that Christ was not God. His point was that without a unified authority, everyone became their own interpreter and unity in Christianity collapsed. You can find this in Luther’s Works, Volume 40."

This is a quote that's been covered in-depth. “There are now as many beliefs as there are heads" is not a quote from "Against the Heavenly Prophets (1525)" or "Luther’s Works, Volume 40." It's from Sendschreiben an die Christen zu Antwerpen, [The Letter of Doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp] (April, [25?] 1525).  WA 18:547. This quote is describing Martin Luther's contempt over radical leaders misusing the Scriptures and misleading the people of Antwerp. He describes this as 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 writes, 

Saint Paul says: "There must be factions, so that those who are genuine may be revealed." When the Pope reigned, it was quiet of factions, for the strong one held his court in peace. But now that the stronger one has come and overcomes him and drives him out, as the Gospel says, he rages and rumbles so, and departs unwillingly (WA 18:548).

Original text: Sanct Paulus spricht: 'Es müssen rotten seyn, auff das offinbar werden, die so bewerd sind.' Da der Bapst regirte, war es stille von rotten, Denn der starcke hatte seynen hoff mit friden ynnen. Nu aber der stercker komen ist, und uberwindet yhn, und treybt yhn aus, wie das Euangelion sagt, so tobet und rumpelt er so, und feret ungerne aus  (WA 18:548).

 

2. “The people are now more unmerciful, more immodest, and in every way worse than they were under the papacy.” 

This is another popular Roman Catholic Martin Luther quote. Rome's defender states,

"He also said society became morally worse after the Reformation. In a sermon recorded in the Weimar Edition of Luther’s Works (Volume 51), he said, “The people are now more unmerciful, more immodest, and in every way worse than they were under the papacy.” He was basically admitting that the reform did not produce the moral renewal he expected."

Rome's defender directs a curious inquirier to "the Weimar Edition of Luther’s Works (Volume 51)" without a page number or treatise name. This volume is over seven hundred pages long! From cursory searches of the original German text, this quote does not appear to be in WA 51. Rather, this quote is from Luther's Hauspostille, WA 52:13. In context, the world grows worse because of the Gospel being preached. Those who accept the Gospel are transformed by the Gospel. Luther consistently held that the Gospel would find great opposition and would be attacked from all sides. The Gospel would be used by the world as a license to sin and all sorts of evil because of the devil. The Gospel would make those of the world worse while changing the lives of those who accept it. 

3. “If I had known what I know now, I would have kept silent."

Rome's defender states, 

"There is also a statement recorded in Luther’s Table Talk (No. 5517) where he says, “If I had known what I know now, I would have kept silent.” Historians debate the exact context, but it clearly shows regret about the results that followed."

The references given is "Luther’s Table Talk (No. 5517)." Here is WA Tr 5:209 (No. 5517).

5517. (Math. L. 584 (217)) De oratione Doctoris. Ich hab noch alle tag an mir zu treiben, das ich könne beten, vnd laß mir genugen, das ich kunne, wann ich mich lege, die 10 praecepta beten¹⁵, das Vater vnser  vnd dar nach ein spruch oder zwen; in illorum meditatione schlaff ich also  ein.

Table Talk #5517 nowhere says, “If I had known what I know now, I would have kept silent.” I know of no instance in which Luther wished he would've been silent! I strongly suspect this is a fake quote, perhaps generated by A.I.

Conclusion

Many of the earlier pre-1930 Roman Catholic controversialists put forth the conclusion that the Reformation was a failure: it didn't produce any real fruit, and Martin Luther's own words and the state of Protestantism at the time prove it. They say Protestantism isn't a movement of the church. It is the result of heresy, and heresy never leads anyone to true holiness. Statements are typically brought forth from late in Luther's career, indicting him of regret for starting the Reformation. It's one thing to argue Luther suffered from depression or had a despondency over the state of things, it's quite another to use his words to prove he had a sense of failure and guilt over the preaching of the Gospel, or that he was in agony over the Gospel going forth into the world and the trouble he admitted and expected it would cause. 

Martin Luther wasn't postmillennial! For him, it was the end of the world. Things were going to get worse. The Gospel was going to be fought against by the Devil with all his might. The true church was a tiny flock in a battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. He hoped the people would improve with the preaching of the Gospel, he often admitted he knew things were going to get worse because of the Gospel.

Catholic Answers on Martin Luther's Scrupulosity

"Martin Luther probably had scrupulosity (religious OCD)." So claims one of the many online voices putting their opinion into cyberspace. When I congratulated this person on their ability to diagnose the mental state of someone living five hundred years ago, the response was: "I encourage you to do the research. (Hint: you will see this is a prominent theory)." True, it's been repeated enough that it is prominent, to the point that even Google spits it out haphazardly. But is it true? Those most willing to say "yes" are... defenders of Roman Catholicism.

Scrupulosity is used by Roman Catholics to point out Martin Luther had negative and debilitating psychological problems. When they use the term scrupulosity to describe Martin Luther, they are not intending to have pity on him or demonstrate mercy and kindness. They're saying that the entire Reformation was based on someone with a debilitating mental disorder; that the Gospel proclaimed by the early Reformers was primarily the result of one man's psychosis. Luther started the Reformation, subsequent generations of Protestants have followed the theological ravings of someone mentally unstable.

Consider the following hit piece from Catholic Answers: The Scruples of Luther and Thérèse, Only one of these two famous figures overcame scrupulosity and crippling fear of God in a healthy way:

In the Church’s long history, two figures stand out. Both were obsessed with their sins, terrified of divine justice, and doubtful that they could ever earn God’s love. But their paths diverged profoundly: one threw the Church into turmoil and brought devastation to the whole world, while the other attained eternal glory as one of the Church’s beloved and revered saints and Doctors.

According to Catholic Answers, Thérèse "prayerfully discerned with the help of her sisters and her spiritual director that she didn’t need to earn God’s love. Rather, God loved her already." 

According to Catholic Answers for Luther, "having a temptation was sinful. This anxiety is what Catholic moral theologians call scrupulosity and what psychologists call obsessive-compulsive disorder...  faith, and faith alone, was the way to achieve eternal life. Therefore, he did not need to continue with his sacrifices, fasts, and other rigorous works." 

Catholic Answers concludes,

What a stark difference there is between these two figures! Luther was dominated by fear, and he left the Faith. Thérèse wanted only to please her loving Father—and her gentle love and understanding of God ensured her a place of honor in heaven, the Church, and history.

So declares the North American magisterium Catholic Answers, infallible interpreter of history (read: sarcasm). Their charge of scrupulosity / obsessive-compulsive disorder is a blatant attempt to denigrate Martin Luther and the Reformation. In their perspective, it simply couldn't be the case that the sixteenth century Roman Catholic Church was riddled with corruption, the allegedly infallible papacy was undeniably and ostensively fallible, and they squelched the Gospel by heaping a massive amount of unbiblical tradition upon it. In their thinking, there's no possible way the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ is biblically correct and is the only antidote to a deep realization of sin in light of a Holy God. There must be some other reason that the Reformation happened! Ah... it was because Martin Luther had mental problems! He abandoned doing the necessary works ("sacrifices, fasts, and other rigorous works") to overcome scrupulosity... like Thérèse did! She discovered a "loving father," while Luther "brought devastation to the whole world." 

No, that isn't it.  Consider what Catholic Answers is arguing: having a deep awareness of personal sin and the existence of a Holy God is abnormal behavior... a disorder for some people. Who decides the difference between Thérèse and Luther? Why... Catholic Answers does!

Ironically, they argue Luther had debilitating mental problems, but they also assume as normal their own history of such bizarre extreme practices under the mortification of the flesh. Many of their own clergy were so convicted by sin they inflicted intense pain on themselves... that's completely normal in Roman Catholicism (read: sarcasm)! One popular interpreter of Roman Catholicism even defended Pope John Paul II for whipping himself and wearing a hair shirt. Why... that's just normal positive spiritual behavior (read: sarcasm)! I suspect that if their own children were purposely hurting themselves, they would seek out psychological medical help. In fact, a simple Google search for "is harming oneself a psychological disorder?" provides a myriad of hits to the mental disorder of harming oneself. The point: If secular psychology is the standard Rome's defenders want to use on the Reformation, fairness and integrity demand they apply the same standard to their own worldview. It's fundamentally flawed to argue with a standard one will not apply to their own worldview.

Conclusion
If you come upon Roman Catholics using the Martin Luther-had-mental-problems argument:

First: Realize their underlying point is that the Reformation was primarily provoked by mental illness. You should find this insulting, to yourself, to the memory of Martin Luther, to the church (the body of Christ), and more importantly, to the Gospel; Rome's defenders are ultimately obnoxiously and maliciously denying the Gospel. 

Second: Ask Rome's defenders who defines the standards being used. Where in their infallible sources does the magisterium declare Luther had a mental illness?  The Roman magisterium has never made any such infallible declaration. Rome's defenders are using their own fallible private interpretation. The overwhelming majority of Rome's obnoxious online defenders have no actual authority in the Roman Catholic Church, nor are they credentialed psychologists.

Third: Ask them how it's possible to do a psychological evaluation on someone that's been dead for hundreds of years. Ask: why are you using secular methodology? Rome's defenders are unknowingly using the flawed secular model of psychohistory.  This model posits history can be understood by applying the science of psychology to a historical figure. This secular method holds that history is more than simply facts. ¾ are also the result of psychological forces that drive people to do what they do. The basic problem with this approach is that each psychohistorian discovers what one needs in order to validate his particular study. 

Explain to Rome's defenders they are also violating current secular psychological APA standards. Those standards now strongly say proper diagnosis is most beneficial from in-person contact (APA 9.01b). This article states:

Using a record as the sole basis for a diagnosis is a more static process. There may be limited ability to assess the quality of the data in the record and no opportunity to explore aspects of the record that are ambiguous or incomplete. If psychological testing is part of the record, there may be little evidence concerning whether the testing was done under standardized conditions and can be relied upon in making the diagnosis. A diagnostic process based solely on a record review thus potentially presents significant limitations.

While each clause in Standard 9.01 offers concrete guidance to psychologists making diagnoses from whatever source, clause (b), which addresses situations "in which an examination is not practical," speaks directly to the limitations inherent in record reviews. Under clause (b), psychologists clarify the probable impact of their limited information and appropriately limit their conclusions. Psychologists rendering diagnostic opinions solely on the basis of a record review therefore think through and make explicit how the absence of an examination affects their conclusions--and limit their diagnostic statements accordingly. Note how, through its limiting language, clause (b) emphasizes the centrality of an examination in the diagnostic process.

-snip-

The Ethics Code exhorts psychologists to use their influence to do good and to avoid harm. Standard 9.01, Bases for Assessments, gives specific guidance for psychologists rendering diagnostic opinions, an area of practice where our profession's influence is most keenly felt. Offering a diagnosis based solely on a record review raises special considerations and unique challenges with great ethical significance. The spirit of the Code, embodied in the language of Standard 9.01, focuses on the quality of the data and processes we use to render judgments that affect the lives of others.