Originally posted on the aomin blog, 06/30/07
I regularly get e-mail from people I don't know asking questions about Martin Luther. I've even had people contact me in the hopes I will help write their research papers for school (I will not!). Recently, I was sent a few Luther questions, and I was amazed certain myths still circulate. Despite the explosion of cyber-information, here are ten that somehow still survive.
1. Luther Threw an Inkwell at Satan
Recently I found a Jehovah's Witness attempting to prove Luther was a psychopath. He brought up the story in which Luther hurled an inkwell at Satan. The story is not true. It first appeared towards the end of the sixteenth century, and is said to have been told by a former Wittenberg student. In this early version, the Devil in the guise of a monk threw an inkwell at Luther while he was secluded in the Wartburg. By 1650, the story shifted to Luther throwing the inkwell at Satan. Like any bizarre legend, the story morphed, and houses where Luther stayed had spots on the walls, and these were also said to be inkwells that Luther threw at the Devil.
2. Luther's Evangelical Breakthrough Occurred in the Bathroom
This same Jehovah's Witness denigrated Luther by repeating a newer myth, that Luther's understanding of Romans 1:17-18 came to him while in the bathroom in the tower of the Augustinian cloister. In the twentieth century, many approached Luther by applying psychoanalysis to his writings. Psychologist Eric Erikson took a German phrase uttered by Luther and interpreted it literally to mean Luther was in the bathroom when he had his evangelical breakthrough. Erikson concluded, from a Freudian perspective, Luther's spiritual issues were tied up with biological functions. But, there was not a bathroom in the tower. The phrase Erikson interpreted literally in German was simply conventional speech. Luther really was saying that his breakthrough came during a time when he was depressed, or in a state of melancholy.
3. Luther Repented and Re-entered the Church on his Deathbed
I've come across this one on popular Catholic discussion boards. No, it is not true. One of Luther's early opponents popularized the account that Luther was a child of the Devil, and was taken directly to Hell when he died. Now though, more ecumenically minded Catholics hope for the ultimate in conversion stories. Luther died around 3:00 AM on February 18, 1546. His last words and actions were recorded by his friend Justus Jonas. Luther was asked, "Reverend father, will you die steadfast in Christ and the doctrines you have preached?" Luther responded affirmatively. Luther also quoted John 3:16 and Psalm 31:5. In his last prayer he said to God, "Yet I know as a certainty that I shall live with you eternally and that no one shall be able to pluck me out of your hands." These are hardly the words of a Roman Catholic waiting to enter purgatory.
4. Luther's Hymns Were Originally Tavern Songs
Some involved in Contemporary Christian Music use this argument to validate contemporary styles of music being used in church: if even the great Martin Luther found value in contemporary music being used in Church, shouldn't we likewise do the same? In actuality, Luther used only one popular folk tune, I Came From An Alien Country, changed the words, and named the hymn, From Heaven On High, I Come to You. Four years after he did this, he changed the music to an original composition.
5. Luther Spoke in Tongues
Charismatic cyber-apologists have put this one out. They refer to an old quote from a German historian who stated, "Luther was easily the greatest evangelical man after the apostles, full of inner love to the Lord like John, hasty in deed like Peter, deep in thinking like Paul, cunning and powerful in speech like Elijah, uncompromising against God's enemies like David; PROPHET and evangelist, speaker-in-tongues and interpreter in one person, equipped with all the gifts of grace, a light and pillar of the church..." Luther though held, "Tongues are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers. But later on, when the church had been gathered and confirmed by these signs, it was not necessary for this visible sending forth of the Holy Spirit to continue."
6. Luther Added The Word Alone To Romans 3:28
This is frequently brought up by the zealous defenders of Rome. Luther is said to have been so careless and outrageous with his translation of the Bible, he simply added words to make the Bible say what he wanted it to. Luther gave a detailed explanation of why the passage has the meaning of alone,and this explanation has been available online for years. This charge also shows an ignorance of church history. Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out, "...[T]wo of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him." Fitzmyer lists the following: Origen, Hillary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard, Theophylact, Theodoret, Thomas Aquinas, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Marius Victorinus, and Augustine [Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361].
7. Luther Was an Antinomian and Hated the Law of God
Recently a friend wrote me and said charges about Luther being an antinomian were circulating in his church. Luther's theology indeed has a place for the law of God and its use in the life of a Christian. The law for Luther was dual purposed: it first drives one to see their sin and need for a savior; secondly it functions in the life of a Christian to lead one to a correct understanding of the good one ought to do. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Luther knows how important Moses and the law was in his theology. In Luther's Small Catechism the Ten Commandments were placed first because he wanted people to understand that God is wrathful against sin. The negative prohibitions in the Ten Commandments clearly showed our need for a savior. Also in his Small Catechism, Luther suggests a daily regiment of prayer and includes a verbal reading of the Ten Commandments.
8. Luther Acted Like a Protestant Pope
Catholic apologists perpetuate this one. They tend to reduce everything to a need for an infallible interpreter. They use highly rhetorical or polemical comments from Luther out of context, rather than those statements when Luther evaluates his value and his work. Toward the end of his life, Luther reviewed his work and stated, "My consolation is that, in time, my books will lie forgotten in the dust anyhow, especially if I (by Gods grace) have written anything good." And also, "I would have been quite content to see my books, one and all, remain in obscurity and go by the board" [LW 34: 283-284].
9. Luther Was a Drunk
The historical record nowhere documents Luther ever being drunk. It does provide evidence that he did drink alcohol, and that he enjoyed drinking. One needs only to survey the massive output of work that Luther produced to settle the matter that he was not an alcoholic, nor did he have a drinking problem. Luther preached and wrote against drunkenness throughout his entire life with vigor and force.
10. Luther Said Imputed Righteousness is Like Snow Covered Dung
I saved this one for last, simply because I'm not sure if it's a myth or not. It does seem to me like something Luther would've said: "Therefore let us embrace Christ, who was delivered for us, and His righteousness; but let us regard our righteousness as dung, so that we, having died to sins, may live to God alone" [LW 30:294]. "Explanation of Martin Luther: I said before that our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so. It does not hurt the sun, because it sends its rays into the sewer" [LW 34: 184].
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Myth 11. Luther thought that the Roman Church was no longer a true Christian Church
I honor the Roman Church. She is pious, has God’s Word and Baptism, and is holy. (Martin Luther, from his sermon on Matt. 21:42, D. Martin Luther’s Werke, Vol. 47.425 – also known as the Weimar edition; English trans. from What Luther Says, p. 126.)
[Note: I originally posted the above (in blue, with bold and highlighted emphasis) THIS THREAD.]
Grace and peace,
David
David,
I don't have alzheimer's (yet):
Luther: I honor the Roman Church. She is pious, has God’s Word and Baptism, and is holy
Luther: A Church With Corrupt Leadership Can Still Be a True Church
Regards, James
David,
James got you on that one. You leaving out the sentence after the one you quoted skewed Luther's meaning.
James gave us more context; and his articles go more in depth into the issue.
You, David, are usually more careful and usually give more context than this example of yours.
Good job James!
Hi Ken,
I have not checked back here until moments ago, and noticed your comment. Here is what James posted in the first link that he provided:
==368 Roman Catholic Church vs. the Papal Hierarchy
I honor the Roman Church. She is pious, has God's Word and Baptism, and is holy. But the Roman court, the pope, who is the bishop in this court, is the devil's bishop and the devil himself, nay, the filth with which the devil has defiled the church.1 (W 47, 425- E 44, 296 - SL 1112)==
I am going to assume that, "But the Roman court, the pope, who is the bishop in this court, is the devil's bishop and the devil himself, nay, the filth with which the devil has defiled the church", is what you are referring to.
I do not see how the above negates the following that I penned earlier:
== Myth 11. Luther thought that the Roman Church was no longer a true Christian Church.==
Just as evil kings and priests did not negate the theocratic state of ancient Israel (it took the advent of the our Lord and the institution of the New Covenant to do so), neither do evil popes negate the Roman Church as a valid Christian church.
As such, forgive me for finding your comment a bit suspect.
Grace and peace,
David
I do not see how the above negates the following that I penned earlier
David,
I think the point you originally made was misleading, as was your blog post (which I responded to when you posted it, see the links I posted).Perhaps not purposefully, but misleading nonetheless.
It's not so much what you're saying, it's what you're not saying.
For clarification, you need to emphasize the distinctions Luther did.Otherwise, your blog post is simply a bit of propaganda.
James
Hello James,
Thanks much for publishing my post; in your response, you penned:
==David,
I think the point you originally made was misleading, as was your blog post (which I responded to when you posted it, see the links I posted).Perhaps not purposefully, but misleading nonetheless.
It's not so much what you're saying, it's what you're not saying.==
Me: It has been my experience that pretty much everyone who has studied Luther knows about his anti-papal stance (including the accompanying vulgarity), but few know about his stance on the Roman Church.
With that said, I chose to emphasize the lesser known, rather that the widely known.
==For clarification, you need to emphasize the distinctions Luther did.Otherwise, your blog post is simply a bit of propaganda.==
Me: Hmmm...I disagree James, at least as I understand the meaning of "propaganda". I was merely attempting to correct the unbalance that permeates the greater portion of online Luther contributions.
Question: If my post was "is simply a bit of propaganda", for placing emphasis on the "lesser known", how would you categorize those who emphasize the "widely known"?
Grace and peace,
David
It has been my experience that pretty much everyone who has studied Luther knows about his anti-papal stance (including the accompanying vulgarity), but few know about his stance on the Roman Church.
I'm not buying it. The quote, as you cited it, had more polemical value out of context than in context, because more often than not, there aren't a lot of people surfing around the Internet looking up obscure Luther quotes, or making important distinctions based on context. That said, you probably haven't read the actual context of Luther's remarks, so what you're doing amounts to propaganda at the worst, or poor research at best.
With that said, I chose to emphasize the lesser known, rather that the widely known
And exactly with what result in mind? Confusion of your blog readers? As you are talking from your "experience" let me talk from mine: It has been my "experience" that very few people take the time to see why Luther said what he said, and in what context. On the other hand, many people are quick to take this or that Luther quote and spread it around for either shock or polemical value at the expense of clarity. A blog post like yours... does nothing more than spread confusion. There's a few other similar Luther quotes like the one you posted, and it has been my "experience" that they are used AS propaganda.
I was merely attempting to correct the unbalance that permeates the greater portion of online Luther contributions.
I don't buy that either. Your post says nothing with any sort of clarity about why Luther said what he said, nor do you spell out any sort of "unbalance" and why he spent the majority of life in battle against Romanism.
"I define “anti-Catholic mischief” as flawed polemical contributions produced by individuals who believe/maintain that the Catholic Church is not a Christian church"
...and Luther comes to your aid! That's simply propaganda. When Luther spoke of the Roman Church, he had something much different in mind than most people do today, and you know it.
Question: If my post was "is simply a bit of propaganda", for placing emphasis on the "lesser known", how would you categorize those who emphasize the "widely known"?
Both can serve as propaganda. It would depend on the context of each instance. I certainly have books in which Luther is put forth better than he actually was. In fact, if you study Lutheran literature after Luther's death, you'll find some put him forth as an infallible interpreter of Scripture (See Robert Kolb's Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero ).
Ssorry to be terse, but I think you know better over such a use of sources and quotes.
Hello again James,
Yesterday, you responded with:
==I'm not buying it. The quote, as you cited it, had more polemical value out of context than in context, because more often than not, there aren't a lot of people surfing around the Internet looking up obscure Luther quotes, or making important distinctions based on context.==
Me: You seem to be ignoring the content of the thread wherein I provided the quote from Luther. The thread was not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of Luther's view of the Catholic Church, but rather, the primary focus of the thread was Charles Hodge's view of the Catholic Church. The Luther quote was used as an introduction.
With that said, even if one isolates the Luther quote by itself, I fail to see how what was quoted was "out of context", for in YOUR thread (linked to above) that you posted as a response to mine (two days later) you concluded with:
== Here would be a good example of something I part company with Luther on, and even many of my Reformed friends. I don't think the papacy can be extracted from the Church of Rome and still have the term "Church of Rome" make sense.==(Space added to original post: Rome"make.)
Since Luther (and Hodge), believed that the RCC remained a Christian church, which you object to, how is my quote out of context, for that is EXACTLY what the thread was about. IMO, your remarks seem confusing.
==That said, you probably haven't read the actual context of Luther's remarks, so what you're doing amounts to propaganda at the worst, or poor research at best.==
Me: Dead wrong; not only do I own the English work I cited from, I found other English sources for 3 of the most quotes provided in the "CATHOLIC CHURCH" section (pages 126-130), for broader context.
== I don't buy that either. Your post says nothing with any sort of clarity about why Luther said what he said, nor do you spell out any sort of "unbalance" and why he spent the majority of life in battle against Romanism.==
Me: Once again, the thread was not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of Luther's view of the Catholic Church. As for the "why" (i.e. why Luther maintained the RCC to still be a Christian church), I suspect there is some disagreement among those who have studied the subject.
== Ssorry[sic] to be terse, but I think you know better over such a use of sources and quotes.==
Me: No apology necessary, I enjoy a robust discussion. With that said, I still don't think you have demonstrated that I misrepresented Luther's view that the Roman Church remained a Christian church.
If you would like me to do so, I could type up and post the extended English contexts of 3 of the quotes provided in What Luther Says.
Grace and peace,
David
You seem to be ignoring the content of the thread wherein I provided the quote from Luther. The thread was not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of Luther's view of the Catholic Church, but rather, the primary focus of the thread was Charles Hodge's view of the Catholic Church. The Luther quote was used as an introduction.
David, if your Luther bullet was so inconsequential to your treatment of Hodge, I do find it odd that the very first comment on this blog post was left by you stating,
"Myth 11. Luther thought that the Roman Church was no longer a true Christian Church I honor the Roman Church. She is pious, has God’s Word and Baptism, and is holy. (Martin Luther, from his sermon on Matt. 21:42, D. Martin Luther’s Werke, Vol. 47.425 – also known as the Weimar edition; English trans. from What Luther Says, p. 126.) [Note: I originally posted the above (in blue, with bold and highlighted emphasis) THIS THREAD.]
So exactly what's your "primary focus David? Hodge or Luther? On October 13, 2011 it was Luther. On October 19, 2011 it is now Hodge. I find your entire presentation a little along the lines of "I'm making a response as I go along" rather than simply admit your Luther quote was used in a less-than-helpful manner.
With that said, even if one isolates the Luther quote by itself, I fail to see how what was quoted was "out of context", for in YOUR thread (linked to above) that you posted as a response to mine (two days later) you concluded with:== Here would be a good example of something I part company with Luther on, and even many of my Reformed friends. I don't think the papacy can be extracted from the Church of Rome and still have the term "Church of Rome" make sense.==(Space added to original post: Rome"make.)
My previous response has little to do with my charge. You used the quote without the proper distinctions being made. Do you deny such a quote, as you cited it, had more polemical value out of context than in context? Do you deny that more often than not, there aren't a lot of people surfing around the Internet looking up obscure Luther quotes, or making important distinctions based on context? Do you deny that many people (if not most) would read such a comment and find it quite confusing?
Since Luther (and Hodge), believed that the RCC remained a Christian church, which you object to, how is my quote out of context, for that is EXACTLY what the thread was about. IMO, your remarks seem confusing.
It has been my "experience" that very few people take the time to see why Luther said what he said, and in what context. Your post says nothing with any sort of clarity about why Luther said what he said, nor do you spell out any sort of "unbalance" and why he spent the majority of life in battle against Romanism. When you say Luther said "Rome", how many of your readers will think, "Oh, Luther doesn't mean the Papacy"? I don't know what the traffic to your blog is, but given the multiple years I've dabbled in Luther quotes, there are probably not that many people that visit either of our blogs that know that distinction. Had you actually cited more of Ewald Plass in your blog entry (as I did) this distinction and necessary clarification would have easily been made, but you appear to have gone for the "shock value" and left out that information. As I said to you previously, It's not so much what you're saying, it's what you're not saying.
-continued-
Me: Dead wrong; not only do I own the English work I cited from, I found other English sources for 3 of the most quotes provided in the "CATHOLIC CHURCH" section (pages 126-130), for broader context.
I know some Roman Catholic apologists may find this hard to believe (and yes, I know you're not a Romanist apologist anymore, I think), but I'm not a total idiot. Of course you own What Luther Says. I never questioned that. Let's try this again. I stated to you previously: "you probably haven't read the actual context of Luther's remarks." Now David, do you really think I meant "What Luther Says" in regard to "actual context"? I had posted the relevant context from Plass in my blog entry from a few years ago. Why in the world would I accuse you of not reading it? Am I that much of a scoundrel that I don't think you own "What Luther Says" and you are so unscrupulous you wouldn't let your eyes even glance at the section from Plass I cited on this very blog? David, perhaps by "actual context" I had something much different in mind. Would you think "outside the box" for a moment as to what I possibly could be referring to? Is there, by any chance, some other document that I could have in mind when I used the words "actual context"? Think about it.
Me: Once again, the thread was not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of Luther's view of the Catholic Church. As for the "why" (I.e. why Luther maintained the RCC to still be a Christian church), I suspect there is some disagreement among those who have studied the subject.
And once again: On October 13, 2011 it was Luther. On October 19, 2011 it is now Hodge. I find your entire presentation a little along the lines of "I'm making a response as I go along" rather than simply admit your Luther quote was used in a less-than-helpful manner.
Your post says nothing with any sort of clarity about why Luther said what he said, nor do you spell out any sort of "unbalance" and why he spent the majority of life in battle against Romanism. That material was readily available to you in What Luther Says. You chose to ignore it, and that you did leads me to believe you do so willfully for polemical purposes.
Me: No apology necessary, I enjoy a robust discussion. With that said, I still don't think you have demonstrated that I misrepresented Luther's view that the Roman Church remained a Christian church.
Your entire defense reminds me very much of the "argument" sketch from the old Monty Python show. Tell you what: I'll admit for clarity sake instead of using the words "Jehovah's Witnesses" in that other post I should've simply used the words "The Watchtower" if you'll admit you cited Luther without making an important distinction to clarify the meaning of his words, and you should have indeed presented this information in the first place.
If you would like me to do so, I could type up and post the extended English contexts of 3 of the quotes provided in What Luther Says.
Since I have What Luther Says and I've already posted the most relevant section of it, and I believe you also have the book, I can see no real purpose for making you type up a section of it other than as a form of punishment for putting forth a bit of propaganda, and also arguing for the sake of arguing. You may like robust discussions, I only like them when they are meaningful. This, so far, is actually a bit ridiculous, and I probably won't have patience for much more of it.
==David, if your Luther bullet was so inconsequential to your treatment of Hodge, I do find it odd that the very first comment on this blog post was left by you stating,==
Me: This thread is on Luther myths, not Hodge myths; as such, I sincerely fail to grasp why you think it "odd" that I would comment on what I believe to be a Luther myth, using a Luther quote, and not a Hodge quote.
== So exactly what's your "primary focus David? Hodge or Luther? On October 13, 2011 it was Luther. On October 19, 2011 it is now Hodge. I find your entire presentation a little along the lines of "I'm making a response as I go along" rather than simply admit your Luther quote was used in a less-than-helpful manner.==
Me: The original thread (11-12-2009) Hodge; in your thread (10-13-11) Luther, because the thread is on Luther, not Hodge.
Now, you think my Luther quote "was used in a less-than-helpful manner", I disagree, and do so because the threads you link to above do not change the substance of the quote; in other words, Luther maintained that the Roman Church was still a Christian church.
I focused on Hodge in my original thread not merely because he agreed with Luther on this (i.e. that the Roman Church has remained a Christian church), but for the fact that his treatment on this subject was much more systematic and thorough than anything Luther contributed.
== Do you deny such a quote, as you cited it, had more polemical value out of context than in context?==
Me: Yes, I deny, and I do so because I believe I if did a multi-page treatment on the subject that the substance would not change (i.e Luther would still be affirming that the Roman Church is a Christian church), but it would carry much more weight because of the added support.
==Do you deny that more often than not, there aren't a lot of people surfing around the Internet looking up obscure Luther quotes, or making important distinctions based on context?==
Me: I am more of a book guy than an Internet guy; as such, I don't feel qualified to say yeah or nay.
>>Do you deny that many people (if not most) would read such a comment and find it quite confusing?>>
Me: I think, but not conclusively so, that the above probably holds true; but, I suspect many would find your threads on the subject (i.e. Luther's view of the Roman Church) are also "confusing", because Luther himself is "confusing" (unlike Dr. Hodge).
== It has been my "experience" that very few people take the time to see why Luther said what he said, and in what context. Your post says nothing with any sort of clarity about why Luther said what he said, nor do you spell out any sort of "unbalance" and why he spent the majority of life in battle against Romanism. When you say Luther said "Rome", how many of your readers will think, "Oh, Luther doesn't mean the Papacy"? I don't know what the traffic to your blog is, but given the multiple years I've dabbled in Luther quotes, there are probably not that many people that visit either of our blogs that know that distinction. Had you actually cited more of Ewald Plass in your blog entry (as I did) this distinction and necessary clarification would have easily been made, but you appear to have gone for the "shock value" and left out that information. As I said to you previously, It's not so much what you're saying, it's what you're not saying.==
Me: Fair enough, not much to disagree with, other than I believe, perhaps wrongfully, that most people interested in Luther KNOW his stance on the Papacy, for it permeates his writings.
cont'd
cont'd
== Of course you own What Luther Says. I never questioned that. Let's try this again. I stated to you previously: "you probably haven't read the actual context of Luther's remarks." Now David, do you really think I meant "What Luther Says" in regard to "actual context"? I had posted the relevant context from Plass in my blog entry from a few years ago. Why in the world would I accuse you of not reading it? Am I that much of a scoundrel that I don't think you own "What Luther Says" and you are so unscrupulous you wouldn't let your eyes even glance at the section from Plass I cited on this very blog? David, perhaps by "actual context" I had something much different in mind. Would you think "outside the box" for a moment as to what I possibly could be referring to? Is there, by any chance, some other document that I could have in mind when I used the words "actual context"? Think about it.==
Me: Label me the "idiot", for I have little idea what you had in mind now: if NOT Plass's quotes and comments, then what is the "actual context" you are referring to? In your threads I noticed only one other source than Plass that you quoted in any extent, LW 24, (and that was not in the two actual threads you linked to above), is that perhaps what you are referring to?
Now, I don't read German, but I did try to find other English works in my library that provided greater context than Plass, and did so with some success, but still fail to understand how the greater context changes what Luther believed on the subject.
Anyway, did not, and do not, wish to anger you.
My wife is calling me to dinner, must end for now.
Grace and peace,
David
Me: This thread is on Luther myths, not Hodge myths; as such, I sincerely fail to grasp why you think it "odd" that I would comment on what I believe to be a Luther myth, using a Luther quote, and not a Hodge quote.
Because you distinctly came here to refer us back to your treatment of Luther on that old blog post. Now you're saying that old link wasn't about Luther, but Hodge. The simple fact appears to be the link you provided here didn't outline your "Luther Myth #11" at all. It was simply a link to a context-less snippet with no explanation to what Luther meant.
In the future, if you're going to leave links, make sure they are relevant. The link you left had no significant exposition as to why you considered it some sort of myth.
Me: The original thread (11-12-2009) Hodge; in your thread (10-13-11) Luther, because the thread is on Luther, not Hodge.
Once again though, you didn't really treat Luther in any sort of helpful way, so your link was unjustified. If you're going to provide a link to an exposition of an alleged "Luther myth" please don't link back to an out of context Luther quote stuff about Hodge.
Now, you think my Luther quote "was used in a less-than-helpful manner", I disagree, and do so because the threads you link to above do not change the substance of the quote; in other words, Luther maintained that the Roman Church was still a Christian church.
Any out-of-context "shocking" quote from Luther followed by the lack of any sort of brief explanation of what Luther meant is indeed less than helpful. That you think otherwise demonstrates a fundamental difference in approach between how I write a blog article, and how you write a blog article. You're entitled to your approach. I hope to avoid such methodology as much as possible.
I focused on Hodge in my original thread not merely because he agreed with Luther on this (I.e. that the Roman Church has remained a Christian church), but for the fact that his treatment on this subject was much more systematic and thorough than anything Luther contributed.
And I have no interest in running off to talk about Hodge, or what your intent was in your thread. When you came over here on 10/13/11 stating, "Myth 11. Luther thought that the Roman Church was no longer a true Christian Church" and then for proof you linked back to your article, your comments now show there was actually no reason to link back to that article. It contained nothing relevant or helpful about Luther different than the one citation and two sources you left in your blog comment. If you're going to provide a helpful exposition on a Luther myth, please do so by linking back to a helpful reference on the appropriate topic.
Me: Yes, I deny, and I do so because I believe I if did a multi-page treatment on the subject that the substance would not change (I.e Luther would still be affirming that the Roman Church is a Christian church), but it would carry much more weight because of the added support.
As this is an answer to my question about polemical value, it appears you must actually rarely read this blog. If you did, you'd realize I've gone over the long documented history of people taking obscure Luther quotes out of context for polemical purposes.
Such a study that you offer to make should be an addendum to your original blog post as a clarification for your out-of-context polemical Luther quote. There you would simply need to make a simple distinction so your readers (whomever they are) realize Luther distinguished between the papacy and the Roman Church. In your "multi-page treatment" will you leave out Luther's distinction between the papacy and the Roman Church? If so, why?
-continued-
I am more of a book guy than an Internet guy; as such, I don't feel qualified to say yeah or nay.
Again, it appears you must actually rarely read this blog. If you did, you'd realize the long documented history of Internet warriors taking obscure Luther quotes out of context for polemical purposes.
I think, but not conclusively so, that the above probably holds true; but, I suspect many would find your threads on the subject (I.e. Luther's view of the Roman Church) are also "confusing", because Luther himself is "confusing" (unlike Dr. Hodge).
Well if you think "but not conclusively so, that the above probably holds true" that many people (if not most) would read such a comment from Luther as that posted on your blog without explanation and find it quite confusing, then... did you post the quote out of context for polemical purposes, or did you post it without forethought of what you were doing? By polemical purposes, I mean, at the time, were you using it as some sort of justification for the validity of the Roman church, or to somehow use it to against "anti-Romanists" like myself? Why did you post that quote David?
Fair enough, not much to disagree with, other than I believe, perhaps wrongfully, that most people interested in Luther KNOW his stance on the Papacy, for it permeates his writings
But most people would have no idea why Luther was saying what he was saying about the Roman church, hence you create dissonance. Then some person comes along, reads your blog, snatches your quote, and another outrageous obscure Luther quote dances around the Internet. If you're going to post information, do so responsibly. If though you want to continue in such a manner, you'll simply be giving me material to blog on, that's fine. It's as simple as looking up the stuff people quote about Luther, reading a context, and looking at the historical context.
Me: Label me the "idiot", for I have little idea what you had in mind now: if NOT Plass's quotes and comments, then what is the "actual context" you are referring to? In your threads I noticed only one other source than Plass that you quoted in any extent, LW 24, (and that was not in the two actual threads you linked to above), is that perhaps what you are referring to?Now, I don't read German, but I did try to find other English works in my library that provided greater context than Plass, and did so with some success, but still fail to understand how the greater context changes what Luther believed on the subject.
Bingo, I meant the actual treatise from Luther in German. You are correct: to my knowledge this particular text from WA is not available in English. If I recall, it is planned to be translated in one of the forthcoming LW volumes.
Anyway, did not, and do not, wish to anger you.
There wasn't really anger here- it was more frustration. As I've invested so much time, energy, and money in tracking down obscure Luther quotes, it genuinely bothers me when I find someone willfully posting a Luther quote that needs to be explained.
David,
Here's a few tidbits for your "multi-page treatment on the subject"-
Can anything be said that is more horrible than that the kingdom of the papists is the kingdom of those who spit upon and recrucify Christ, the Son of God? Christ, who once was crucified and rose again—Him they crucify in themselves and in the church, that is, in the hearts of the faithful. With their rebukes, slanders, and insults they spit at Him; and with their false opinions they pierce Him through, so that He dies most miserably in them. And in His place they erect a beautiful bewitchment, by which men are so demented that they do not acknowledge Christ as the Justifier, Propitiator, and Savior but think of Him as a minister of sin, an accuser, a judge, and a condemner, who must be placated by our works and merits. (LW 26:199-200)
Therefore let anyone who is seriously concerned about godliness flee this Babylon as quickly as possible, and let him be horrified at the very hearing of the name of the papacy. For its wickedness and abomination are so great that no one can describe them in words or evaluate them except with spiritual eyes.(LW 26:201).
cf. What Luther Says, II, 1020.
Hello James,
I have stayed up much to late (at least for me), typing up my "multi-page" treatment. There are probably a few transcriptional and/or spelling errors that need to be corrected, but I probably will not get to those corrections until Monday.
The following is the link to the thread:
Martin Luther on the "Roman Church"
Grace and peace,
David
Post a Comment