Luther: "to be sure, each Christian is for himself Pope and church"

 Through a Facebook discussion comes this shocking Martin Luther quote:

Do Protestants believe in the Papacy? They sure do; they just don't believe in the Catholic Papacy! Ken Hensley as a Protestant writes, Luther wrote, "to be sure, each Christian is for himself Pope and church" (Wierke, Weimar: 1898, 5:407, p. 35). This, in part is why Ken isn’t Protestant anymore!

This is a standard pop-apologetic Roman Catholic argument: without Rome's infallible interpreter governing the meaning of Scripture, each person functions as their own interpreter of Scripture.  This Facebook post goes on to say, "As one Protestant minister convert put it, when he became Catholic, 'I am glad I don’t have to be the Pope anymore.' I must admit, there are some honest Protestants out there!" This is old-school Roman Catholic apologetics in which a seemingly outrageous quote from Luther is utilized (along with a reference to an obscure source) to justify Roman Catholicism. Why would Luther say or write such a thing? Why would he affirm that without the Roman Catholic papacy, each person becomes a Pope? It seems like a bizarre admission from the Reformer. 

We'll see from the context, Luther was not saying what this argument purports.  

Documentation

The documentation offered is first to Roman convert Ken Hensley's article, Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? Mr. Hensley writes, 

We’ve been talking about the “foundation” upon which Protestantism as a worldview is built: sola Scriptura. What is involved in a commitment to sola Scriptura? It’s often summarized simply as the belief that the inspired Scriptures are to function as the “sole infallible rule of faith and practice for the individual Christian and for the Christian Church.” But actually, sola Scriptura includes within it another key commitment: the right of each Christian to study the Bible and decide for himself what it is teaching. Protestants commonly refer to this as the “right of private judgment,” and it’s understood as following inescapably from a belief in sola Scriptura. “In these matters of faith,” Luther wrote, “to be sure, each Christian is for himself pope and church” (Werke, Weimar: 1898, 5:407, p. 35).

Mr. Hensley presents a Luther quote in English, but if the documentation is checked, the source is in Latin. This is standard pop-apologetic Roman Catholic methodology: give off the appearance of credible scholarship by using obscure sources. Luther said x, here is a reference to a source that casual English readers will not know how to look up, and even if they do know how to look it up, they will only understand the source if they can read German or Latin!   

I suspect Mr. Hensley actually did not translate Latin into English, nor did he actually utilize "Werke, Weimar: 1898, 5:407, p. 35." It is more likely he cut-and-pasted this quote from elsewhere. Perhaps he used the Robert Sungenis driven anthology, Not By Scripture Alone. This book uses the same English rendering and documentation:  

Luther, the grand champion of sola scriptura, ultimately was forced to set his own authority above Scripture when the Bible contradicted his own position...This appeal to his own authority was consistent with his conviction that "in these matters of faith, to be sure, each Christian is for himself Pope and Church" (in his enim, quae sunt fidei, quilibet Christianus est sibi Papa et Ecclesia). [D Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: 1898; 5:407, 35]. 

The primary source cited by Mr. Hensely is "WA 5:407, p. 35." Someone trying to figure out this reference first needs to figure out why Mr. Hensley presented two different page numbers: 407 and 35. Maybe whatever secondary source he utilized added the "p," or perhaps if the Sungenis anthology was used, he added the "p" himself.  The page is 407. "35" refers to the line being cited on the page: 

This volume contains Luther's comments on Psalms 1-22,1519-1521. The comment comes from Luther's insights into Psalm 14. This text has been translated into English, Martin Luther's complete commentary on the first Twenty-Two Psalms (vol. 2). The quote can be found on page 64.

Context 

And to this we ought to be moved by the consideration, that this knowledge of ours renders us safe, so that the works of ceremonies cannot hurt us when we know that we are justified by faith. And again, we ought to be moved to this, by the knowing that we have good things in Christ, and have no longer to labour under considerations and thoughts about the manner in which we may be justified. And therefore, all our life from henceforth should be lived to the benefit of our neighbour: as Christ lived for us; and, as we do all other things for their good, much more should we attend to these indifferent ceremonies for their good. And therefore, we owe no man any thing but to love one another: and by this love it comes to pass that all things whatsoever we do are good; and yet, we seek not to be justified by our works; and this is to be a Christian.

I will now only add one thing, and bring these observations to an end. — If any one shall perceive that he has a confidence or trust in the works of ceremonies, let him be bold, and at length cast them off: and in this let him not wait for any dispensation or power from the Pope: for in these matters every Christian is a pope and a church to himself: nor should any thing be decreed concerning him, nor should he abide by any thing that is decreed, which can in any way lead his faith into peril. But if he shall wish to communicate with his neighbour upon this matter, in order that he may be rendered the more certain by his word, (according to that scripture, "If any two of you shall agree upon earth concerning any thing," &c. Matt, xviii.) he does well.

Conclusion

The above context is a conclusion to a lengthy argument Luther was making in regard to justification by faith alone and justification by works, with a discission on the role of church ceremonies. Do church ceremonies play a part in justification before a holy God? Does going to or participating in a church ceremony have any effect on one's standing before God? In Luther's day, a church ceremony was a "good work" that could play a part in a person's justification. Therefore, one could place their confidence in the work of a ceremony. for Luther, this would be a denial of faith alone and would be placing one's confidence in something other than the work of Christ. In context, Luther says to cast off placing confidence in the work of a church ceremony. Cast away any infallible declarations of the church in regard to justification. The pope and church does not justify a person before God, the work of Christ does. 

It's also obvious from the context that sola scriptura was not being discussed. Rome's defenders have created a context and placed a Luther quote in that created context... this is a pure example of taking something out of context! Over the years, I've been chastised by Rome's defenders for being "anti-Catholic." What they fail to realize is that their blatant carelessness with the details of their arguments demonstrates to me they are the true anti-catholics. The goal of going through particular quotes is not to defend Luther as a Protestant saint. I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do I love my neighbor in the study of church history? If I bear false witness against my neighbor, even if he's been dead for hundreds of years, I am not loving him. 

Luther: If Christ had not entrusted all power to one man, the Church would not have been perfect

Here's one from a Roman Catholic discussion board:

Where did Martin Luther say this? I heard this was a sermon, or is it a writing of his? can I find this in a book?

 “If Christ had not entrusted all power to one man, the Church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics did, each one setting up his own principle. In this way as many Churches arose as there were heads. Christ therefore wills, in order that all may be assembled in one unity, that His power be exercised by one man to whom He Himself commits it. He has, however, made this power so strong that He looses all the powers of Hell (without injury) against it. He says: “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” as though He said: “They will fight against it but never overcome it,” so it is in this way it is made manifest that this power is in reality from God and not from man. Wherefore, whoever breaks away from this unity and order of the power, let him not boast of great enlightenment and wonderful works, as our Picards and other heretics do, ‘for much better is obedience than to be the victims of fools who know not what evil they do”

This quote is a Roman Catholic favorite. It was posted at Catholic Answers as a "favorite because it's profound and I'll bet many do not know he said it...albeit before he split." This Defender of Rome says, "Luther himself in happier days gave witness to the immemorial Tradition of the Church regarding the place of the Pope in the Church." Father John Hardon says of this quote, "Among the extant writings of Martin Luther is a sermon he preached on the feast of St. Peter in Chains, just a year before his formal breach with Rome in 1517. It is unsurpassed as an argument for the primacy and coming on the eve of the Reformation is proof in hand that opposition to the papacy was a Protestant after-thought to rationalize insubordination on other grounds".. and so on.

Documentation

The English translation of this pre-Reformation Luther quote appears to come from Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar's Luther 1:

"If Christ had not entrusted all power to one man, the Church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics did, each one setting up his own principle. In this way as many Churches arose as there were heads. Christ therefore wills, in order that all may be assembled in one unity, that His Power be exercised by one man to whom also He commits it. He has, however, made this Power so strong that He looses all the powers of Hell (without injury) against it. He says: The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, as though He said: They will fight against it but never overcome it, so that in this way it is made manifest that this power is in reality from God and not from man. Wherefore whoever breaks away from this unity and order of the Power, let him not boast of great enlightenment and wonderful works, as our Picards and other heretics do, for much better is obedience than the victims of fools who know not what evil they do (Eccles. iv. 17)." (Sermo in Vincula S. Petri, hence on August 1. " Werke " Weim. ed., 1 (1883), p. 69).

WA 1:69 can be found here. The Latin text for this quote can be found here:

Note the brevity of the Latin text. The above English from Grisar is the complete translation of this Latin text.

Conclusion
The sermon snippet dates from 1516 (the year before the penning of the 95 Theses). One can imagine how Luther must have felt when he pointed out blatant abuses and was simply ordered by the papacy to cease and desist. When Luther said later in his life that he was committed to the papacy in his early career, this quote proves he meant it. Recall what he said later in his life:

I was once a monk and a most enthusiastic papist when I began that cause. I was so drunk, yes, submerged in the pope’s dogmas, that I would have been ready to murder all, if I could have, or to co-operate willingly with the murderers of all who would take but a syllable from obedience to the pope. So great a Saul was I, as are many to this day. I was not such a lump of frigid ice in defending the papacy as Eck and his like were, who appeared to me actually to defend the pope more for their own belly’s sake than to pursue the matter seriously. To me, indeed, they seem to laugh at the pope to this day, like Epicureans! I pursued the matter with all seriousness, as one, who in dread of the last day, nevertheless from the depth of my heart wanted to be saved. (LW 34:328).

Addendum #1: Comparing and Contrasting Rome's Interpreters
Hartmann Grisar uses the quote to prove that when Luther visited Rome in 1510, the corruption or the city did not cause Luther to lose faith in the Papacy. On the other hand, in Rome's defender Ken Hensley's lecture, Luther: The Rest of the Story, he says Luther's experience caused him to doubt the power and authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Take a listen to this short mp3 clip from Hensley.

It's also interesting to contrast Hensley and Grisar on the moral state of Rome during this time period. Hensley comes right out and says Rome was more or less morally depraved from head to toe and that Luther questioned his faith in Rome should be no surprise. In fact, Hensley says if Papal leadership doesn't act morally, this is what one should expect of her faithful followers. Grisar likewise says Rome was "deeply debased" but goes a completely different direction: Luther still should have encountered a "great deal of the Church which no shadow can ever darken" and Luther's "critically disposed mind" "proved all too receptive to the contrary impressions" of Rome and "allowed himself to be unduly influenced by the dark side of things, i.e. the corruption of morals" (Grisar, p.32). Two Roman Catholics, two different historical conclusions!

Addendum #2
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Yet Another Defender of Rome Makes Up a Luther Quote

Some years back I reviewed a lecture entitled Luther: The Rest of the Story by Ken Hensley (2003) (p.1, p.2, p.3). This Roman Catholic apologist styles himself an able Reformation historian (at least Tim Staples and Scott Hahn think so according to Hensley's blog sidebar blurbs). I had forgotten about Mr. Hensley until I came across his blog entry, Why I’m Catholic: Sola Scriptura Isn’t Workable, Part I. In this entry, he states:

As soon as Luther and Calvin and the others began preaching sola scriptura and the right of private interpretation, immediately there was an explosion of interpretations of Scripture and with this an explosion of divisions within Protestantism. The immediate result was doctrinal chaos.

Listen to what one prominent Protestant theologian and professor was saying a mere two years — two years! — into the Reformation being launched:

"Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Gospel better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers…. There is no smearer but when he has heard a sermon or can read a chapter in German, makes a doctor of himself and…convinces himself that he knows everything better than all who teach him."

The "prominent Protestant theologian" was Martin Luther, of course. The comment is said to have been made "a mere two years into the Reformation being launched," placing this comment in 1519. We'll see that not only was this not something Luther said or wrote in 1519, some of the quote wasn't written by Luther, and it isn't one quote, it's two quotes from two different years. The quote being put forth by Mr. Hensley therefore qualifies as... propaganda.

Documentation
No documentation is provided, nor could I locate exactly which secondary source Mr. Hensley used. Almost the same exact form of the quote can be found here in a 2013 blog entry from another defender of Rome:

Claims about the perspicuity of Scripture and the claim that the Holy Spirit has promised to guide each person's private readings of the Bible do not stand up - not even in the day-to-day practice of those who make them. Later in life, Luther lamented those who believed themselves to "understand the [Gospel] better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers ... there is no smearer but whenever he has heard a sermon or can read a chapter in German, makes a doctor of himself ... and convinces himself that he knows everything better than all who teach him."[3] Vost, Kevin, Memorize the Reasons: Defending the Faith with the Catholic Art of Memory (San Deigo: Catholic Answers, 2013), p. 195.

This blogger locates the quote later in Luther's life rather than 1519. The similarities of the English translation of Luther are so similar, they have to be coming from the same secondary source.  I could not bring myself to purchase the Catholic Answers book referenced to check the footnote provided. If this was the actual source Mr. Hensley used, I'm not spending the $$ to find out.

  In 2005, a  participant of the Catholic Answers forums posted a similar version of the quote:

"Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers"... "There is no smearer but whenever he has heard a sermon or can read a chapter in German, makes a doctor of himself, and crowns his as*s, convincing himself that he knows everything better than all who teach him"…

No documentation is given, but the quote is broken up into two citations. In 2006, this blogger likewise breaks the quote up into two citations and provides primary source documentation:

"Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul" said Luther "they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers." 17

"There is no smearer but whenever he has heard a sermon or can read a chapter in German, makes a doctor of himself, and crowns his ass, convincing himself that he knows everything better than all who teach him." 18

17 M. Luther, Walch XIV, 1360
18 Walch V.1652

Ultimately, these two quotes probably arrived in cyber-space via Roman Catholic sources from the 1800's or early 1900's. For instance, both can be found in Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther. O'Hare cites the first quote on page 214 and the second quote on page 213.  In Luther, An Historical Portait, J. Verras cites the first quote on page 302 and the second quote on page 121.  My best guess is that Verras is responsible for the English translation, Father O'Hare took it from Verras, and someone in the age of the Internet utilized O'Hare and put the quote together. Why and how Mr. Hensley arrived at  "a mere two years — two years! — into the Reformation being launched" for the date of both of these quotes is a mystery. There's nothing in either O'Hare of Verras I noticed that could be misconstrued to place the quotes in the year 1519.

"Walch XIV, 1360" and "Walch V, 1652" are accurate primary references (both O'Hare and Verras provide them as well). Walch XIV and Walch V refer to the fourteenth and fifth volumes in a set of Luther's works published between 1740-1753 by Johann Georg Walch. Here is Walch XIV, 1360. Here is Walch V, 1652.


Quote #1
As indicated above, Mr. Hensley is citing two different quotes as one. The first quote is "Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Gospel better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers…." I've written about this quote before. Even though Walch XIV, 1360 refers to a treatise entitled "D. Martin Luthers Prophezeiung nach dem Abscheiden des Churfürsten Johannes," the quote appears to find its genesis in an August 1532 Table Talk utterance.  The utterance states,

The text can also be found here from a version of the Table Talk from the early 1700's (right column, first paragraph). A lengthier utterance can also be found in WA TR 2: 259 (1906b). Keep in mind, Luther did not write the Table Talk. The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. An English rendering of the Table Talk states,

Kings, princes, lords, any one will needs understand the gospel far better than I, Martin Luther, ay, or even than St Paul; for they deem themselves wise and full of policy. But herein they scorn and condemn, not us, poor preachers and ministers, but the Lord and Governor of all preachers and ministers, who has sent us to preach and teach, and who will scorn and condemn them in such sort, that they shall smart again; even He that says: "Whoso heareth you, heareth me; and whoso toucheth you, toucheth the apple of mine eye." The great ones would govern, but they know not how. (link)

Quote #2
Quote #2 states, "There is no smearer but when he has heard a sermon or can read a chapter in German, makes a doctor of himself and…convinces himself that he knows everything better than all who teach him." This quote is from Luther's Commentary on Psalm 117 (1530). Unlike Quote #1, this was written by Luther. An English translation can be found in LW 14. Quote #2 appears on page 7.

THIS is a short, easy psalm, doubtless made this way so that everyone might pay more attention to it and remember better what is said. No one can complain about the length or content, much less about the sharpness, difficulty, or profundity of the words. Here we find only short, precise, clear, and ordinary words, which everyone can understand if he will only pay attention and think about them. All God’s words demand this. We must not skim over them and imagine we have thoroughly understood them, like the frivolous, smug, and bored souls who, when they hear some word of God once, consider it old hat and cast about for something new. They think they have thoroughly mastered all they have heard. This is a dangerous disease, a clever and malicious trick of the devil. Thus he makes people bold, smug, forward, and ready for every kind of error and schism. This is really the vice known as ἀκηδία, slothfulness in God’s service, against which St. Paul exhorts us (Rom. 12:11) to be fervent in spirit. And in Rev. 3:15–16 the Spirit says of such people: “Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of My mouth.” It is true that such half-educated people are the most useless people on earth, and it would be better for them if they knew nothing; for they obey no one, can do everything better than anyone else, and can expertly judge all art and literature. In short, they can teach no one anything worthwhile, and they let no one teach them. They have devoured the whole schoolbag, which no one can master; and yet they do not have even one book that they could properly teach to others! The devil has many such vicious cases, particularly among the rabble. The meanest bungler who hears a sermon or reads a chapter in German immediately makes himself a doctor of theology, crowning his own asininity and convincing himself most marvelously that he can now do everything better than all his teachers. This is Master Smart Aleck, who can bridle a steed in its hind end. All this, as I see it, is the result of reading and listening to God’s Word carelessly instead of concentrating on it with fear, humility, and diligence.

I have often felt this particular devil and temptation myself, and even today I cannot guard and cross myself against it too carefully. I confess this freely as an example to anyone; for here am I, an old doctor of theology and a preacher, and certainly as competent in Scripture as such smart alecks. At least I ought to be. Yet even I must become a child; and early each day I recite aloud to myself the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and whatever lovely psalms and verses I may choose, just as we teach and train children to do. Besides, I must deal with Scripture and fight with the devil every day. I dare not say in my heart: “The Lord’s Prayer is worn out; you know the Ten Commandments; you can recite the Creed.” I study them daily and remain a pupil of the Catechism. I feel, too, that this helps me a lot, and I am convinced by experience that God’s Word can never be entirely mastered, but that Ps. 147 speaks truly: “His understanding is beyond measure” (v. 5), or Ecclesiasticus: “Who drinks of me shall thirst even more after me” (24:29). Now if I have such difficulties, what will happen to those smug, self-satisfied charlatans who neither struggle nor labor?

Therefore I certainly believe that there is not one who truly knows everything the Holy Spirit says in this short psalm. If they were forced to teach or instruct someone from it, they would not know at which end to begin. To put these vicious people to shame and to honor God’s Word, I have taken it upon myself to interpret this psalm, so that one may see how clear God’s Word is, how simple, and yet how altogether inexhaustible. And even though everything were reasonable, which is not the case, still it is inexhaustible in power and virtue. It renews and refreshes the heart, restoring, relieving, comforting, and strengthening us constantly. I see and learn daily how the dear prophets studied their Ten Commandments, and where lies the source of their sermons and prophecies. Let us, then, divide this psalm into four parts—prophecy, revelation, instruction, and exhortation (LW 14:7-8).

Conclusion
Mr. Hensley's first error is making these two quotes into one quote. His second error is providing no documentation. His third error is dating both of these quotes to the year 1519. Rather, the first quote is thought to be a recollection from 1532. The second quote is from 1530. The fourth error is using a Table Talk utterance as a reliable interpreter of Luther's history. Luther did not write part of the quote Mr. Hensley attributes to him. It is something Luther is purported to have stated.   

A fifth error is matter of presuppositions, and I don't expect either Mr. Hensley or my Roman Catholic readers to agree with me. Luther expected the proclamation of the Gospel to have a devastating effect on society. He was not a postmillenialist. He expected the devil to fight back with all his might. When he complains about people abusing Scripture, the ultimate culprit in Luther's mind was Satan. Luther was not looking over his world and regretting the Reformation. Luther expected the Gospel to incite the activity of the Devil, particularly among those who did not embrace it. He expected the Gospel to cause division and trouble, and to infuriate the world against the true church.

A sixth error is also a  matter of presuppositions, and again, I don't expect either Mr. Hensley or my Roman Catholic readers to agree with me. I've compiled quite a number of blog entries on the chaos of Rome's interpreters. If they can't agree on interpreting either the Bible or the magisterium, it's a bit disingenuous to point the finger at Luther and subsequent Protestant churches. 

Addendum (1/6/2017)
Mr. Hensley (or an editor) edited the article. Catholic Answers posted it on Jan. 6, 2017. The sentence that originally stated:

Listen to what one prominent Protestant theologian and professor was saying a mere two years — two years! — into the Reformation being launched....

Now this sentence is worded:

But listen to what one prominent Protestant theologian and professor was saying within a couple years of Luther’s launching of the Reformation...

This is still blatantly wrong because some of what Hensley quotes is typically documented in 1532, much longer than Hensley's "within a couple of years of Luther's launching of the Reformation." In this Catholic Answers version, Hensley also adds,

Interesting quotes. Especially when you know these are the words of Martin Luther himself.

As was demonstrated above, some of the "words of Martin Luther himself" Hensley cites were not written by Luther, but are purported to have been stated by Luther (via the Table Talk).

Addendum: Sola Scriptura

Sola scriptura means that the Bible is the ultimate and only infallible sufficient source of authority for a Christian. There are lower authorities, like Church leaders and teachers (these must always though be judged by sacred Scripture).

The counter charge (from Roman Catholics) seems to be that one needs to include an infallible tradition or infallible Church hierarchy as the ultimate and sufficient source as an authority. This must be so because Protestants disagree with one another, so obviously sola scriptura is a failure. Without an infallible interpreter and authority like the Roman Catholic Church, one has doctrinal chaos. Sola scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy.

Roman Catholics and Protestants agree that apostolic teaching previous to New Testament inscripturation was an infallible, sufficient source for doctrine. But yet we find that those who heard apostolic teaching previous to New Testament inscripturation disagreed among themselves on the teaching they heard at times. In other words, there was error present in the early church while the apostles were teaching. Because those who directly heard the apostles teaching got it wrong and disagreed among themselves at times, does this mean that the apostles were insufficient sources as an infallible authority for the early church? Those who heard the very voices of infallibility in the first century made errors, but it does not follow that the apostles were insufficient as authorities.

Similarly, that some people misinterpret or twist the Bible is not the fault of the Bible, hence not a proof against sola scriptura. In the same way, that I may possibly configure my computer incorrectly is not the fault of the owner’s manual that comes with it. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source.

It's worth repeating: the misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source. This same principle applies to Roman Catholicism. That some Roman Catholics misuse and abuse their ultimate source of authority doesn't necessarily negate their infallible source of authority. What this means as well is the argument that sola scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy fails as well. If the argument you're using works just as well against your own position, it's an invalid argument. Shall we conclude that an infallible interpreter + infallible tradition + infallible scripture = harmony? The facts speak for themselves. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity or authority of that sufficient source.

Lortz on Luther's First Mass: Proof of Psychosis?

I've been reading The Reformation: A Problem for Today (Maryland: The Newman Press, 1964) by Roman Catholic theologian Joseph Lortz. Lortz's claim to fame was his Luther research. He was a well-respected theologian, known for being one of the first Roman Catholic writers to positively re-evaluate Luther. Previous to Lortz, most Roman Catholic evaluations of Luther were destructive, more or less following in the footsteps of Cochlaeus. Lortz though saw Luther as a fundamentally honest religious man.

While Lortz says many positive things about Luther, he did offers criticisms as well. He still viewed Luther as a heretic, prone to subjectivism, and also sharing guilt (with the Roman Catholic Church) for dividing the church.

That being said, as Jared Wicks says, for Lortz "his criticism was penetrated by amazement over Luther's pulsating spiritual richness, the wide range of his talents, the vastness of his productive labor for the new community, and the concentration of all his thought on God's grace revealed in Christ and transmitted by the Gospel."

To highlight the approach of Lortz, consider this contrast. Recently I took a look at Luther: The Rest of the Story By Ken Hensley. While Hensley post-dates Lortz, Hensley goes backward, returning to destructive criticism of Luther. Hensley evaluates Luther's first mass and determines the fear Luther felt during the mass was fear that was instilled by his own father. After the mass, Luther's father embarrassed his son in front of everyone. At the first mass, Luther claims to have been "without faith" during this period in his life. Luther also mentions that as a devout monk he hated God. These statements question the validity of Luther's call to the monastic life. Luther in essence, needed to learn to cope with his father, he didn't need the monastery. Luther wasn't called by God to be a monk. He was a man with a faulty image of God that wrongly chose the monastic life. Luther's struggle was based on the father he loved, feared, but could please. This transferred to Luther's understanding of God: Luther feared that he could not please God. While Hensley says Luther loved Hans Luther, he hated God and viewed him as angry deity. Thus, Luther's first mass stands as proof of a man with deep psychological issues.

Contrarily, here's how Joseph Lortz describes Luther's first mass (pp. 118-123):

Luther was soon ordained (1506). For every priest, the experience of celebrating his First Mass is of the greatest importance. For a man like Luther, who was so powerfully governed by the emotional level of experience, it was of even greater importance. He has left us a number of accounts of his First Mass. If we take the essential elements of these, we find that according to Luther he was so profoundly moved that he would have been swept from the altar if the assistant priest had not held him back. It may be questioned whether he was really tempted to rush from the altar. Perhaps in later years he was yielding to the tendency to speak in superlatives, but there is no doubt that he was profoundly moved. Luther also tells us why: he was deeply impressed by the nearness of the awesome majesty of God, who is addressed in the Canon as the living and true God.

Luther's experience shows us first of all that he was a religious man, forced to his knees as it were by the tremendous reality of God. We see in his experience something which cannot without some restrictions be called healthy. Does this entitle us to speak of mental illness in his case? We see that he was often profoundly moved, subject to strong depressions, restless at intervals, and, later in life, subject to violent changes of temper. All of this is quite apparent and shows that Luther had a tempestuous character, and that in his soul raged forces that were beyond his power to control. It tells us, too, that we are dealing wits a soul obsessed with anxiety in the face of sin and the divine judgment and caught in the net of scrupulosity. But scrupulosity is a weakness proper to a tender conscience; thus there is no reason to speak of mental illness in the proper sense of the word, at least at the time of his First Mass. This possibility is further excluded when we realize the tremendous amount and the fine quality of the works that Luther produced unceasingly. (Whether one could speak of a psychosis in Luther's case in the more restricted medical sense of the word is a matter for psychiatrists and does not concern us here.) At any rate we should be quite clear about the meaning of "mentally ill." It seems that the rather loosely used schema "manic depressive" (when it is not used in the sense of insanity) can be quite easily verified in the average mentally healthy individual if that individual is unusually sensitive. It is quite easy to say what Luther was not: he was not balanced, moderate or prudent, not restrained; one might say that he was quite uninhibited, that in a typically Germanic way he escapes classification and categorization. His lack of restraint is shown by all sorts of exaggerations; they indicate a violent impulsiveness which extends even to the falsification of objective facts in such impossible forms that the reader is utterly amazed. What Christian conscience will, for example, be able to accept his statement that he preferred Christ to all the devils, because he stood in such deadly terror of Him?

Whether the violent depressions of the year 1527/8 are correctly described by the Danish psychiatrist Paul Reiter as mental illness in the strict sense, is a matter for doctors to decide. But the entire mental structure and the intellectual and spiritual work Luther turned out (as Reiter himself admits), show that mental illness is by no means a sufficient explanation. At any rate it is impossible to declare simply that Luther was mentally ill. If one were so inclined,a whole book could be filled with individual examples which point in the direction of mental illness, but if we are going to keep a just proportion, we would have to match this with ten or more volumes which would positively prove Luther's mental, spiritual, and religious health.
The one conclusion we can come to now from Luther's experience at his First Mass is that he was entirely preoccupied with the anxiety that he felt as, with all his sins, he stood alone before the sovereign majesty of God. It is true that in the Canon, the living and true God is directly addressed, and that the Canon is preceded by the solemn, threefold Sanctus addressed to the divine majesty, but that is not the whole story.

The Preface has nothing of the awesome and exalted tone of the Sanctus; rather this prayer is a great lifting of the mind and heart, a great surge of adoration and praise which embraces heaven and earth and joins the voices of men to the song of the angels, but Luther was unaware of all this.

Furthermore, the Canon itself begins with the wonderful and consoling words: "Te igitur, clementissime Pater,per Jesum Christum, Filium Tuum, Dominum Nostrum, supplices rogamus." That is: "We humbly call upon Thee, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord." God is not addressed as the Judge who threatens to punish all the defects, but as a kind and loving Father. And the sinner approaches the Father not on his own, but through our Saviour, the Mediator, Jesus Christ. This is precisely the formula which Luther will later say contains all of the Christian message, but for some reason Luther did not see it then. He undoubtedly knew these words by heart as he did the rest of the Canon, but did not realize them. He was so deeply involved in those ideas which he had from his early days, the preaching he had heard, the Ockhamist theology he had learned, and above all his own peculiar disposition and correspondingly unique experiences, that he was simply blind to the solution for which he was striving so violently and which was given to him here, word by word.

This was so characteristic of Luther. He could not accept anyone else's solution. He was so individualistic and in a sense so narrow that only solutions of his own appeared valid. Luther was capable of assimilating only those things which were adapted to the peculiarities of his personality. He was an individual in the strictest sense of the word and this influenced his every act; it was the source of both his greatness and his limitations.

Here again we see a fact of primary importance: Luther never really understood the Missal as a compendium of the theology of grace and the sacraments. Some have objected to the emphasis I place on Luther's experience at his First Mass or feel that I make too much depend on this thesis. Luther did finish that Mass and later, at breakfast, he had been able to talk in calm and collected fashion with his father; for years afterwards he continued to celebrate Mass.

The important thing to note, however, is that no one ever asserted that Luther continued in his disturbed state for a long time. (If this had happened, beyond doubt he would have been mentally ill.) But note this: Luther's experience at the time of his First Mass was no isolated or independent event: it is an instance of the disposition which was central to Luther's character and caused him so much trouble. On the one hand he was an introvert, and on the other, he had a one-sided concept of the severity of an avenging God who demanded good works of His creature.

If the experience at the time of the First Mass were unique, the objection would be valid; however, the various observations we have made on Luther's life as a young monk agree in the points mentioned, and reinforce one another. Therefore, there is no question of trying to draw too many conclusions just from the First Mass.

In Luther's experience at the time of his First Mass, the same struggles of conscience appear which beset him in the monastery. Naturally, Luther's later assertions about the unceasing tension he was under are not to be taken too seriously. We know that on occasion he himself described his early life in religion as a calm and peaceful one. But his struggles of conscience were extremely severe. With unending perseverance he tried to get to the bottom of his problems and find a way out. In so doing, he was relentless in the war he waged on himself. We can accuse him of a good deal of imprudence, but we cannot say that he did not take his problems seriously enough. He brought them into the presence of God as he struggled with all his might to reach the complete solution.

Anxiety weighed him down—anxiety at the burden of sin which he saw in himself and which endangered his immortal soul, and made him feel the pains of the damned. (Even if Luther's description of this experience is expressed in terms taken from Tauler and has a rather elaborate literary coloring, still no one can deny that it was part of Luther's objective experience and a burden that weighed terribly on him.)

From the psychological point of view, we have before us a man who was extremely troubled by a serious type of scrupulosity. He had developed a real talent for disputing with himself, bringing forward arguments and counterarguments, and by so doing, tortured himself by running around in circles.

But the religious aspect is more important. Luther experienced his anxiety so terribly, largely because at one and the same time he longed so profoundly for a kind and loving God. To be free from sin and to reach this kind and loving God was Luther's problem and all his powers were directed to this end.


So, will Hensley or Catholic Answers, or any of the other recent Roman Catholic apologists be going out to purchase books by Lortz? My guess is no. My question is this: why are the works of men like Lortz, Wicks, and many other Catholic theologians typically ignored by the modern day Romanist-apologist? There are enough nuggets of negativity in Lortz's book to satisfy a hungry polemicist. One of my guesses is that saying anything even remotely positive about Luther is an admission of Roman Catholic guilt over the Reformation.

Review- Luther: The Rest of the Story by Ken Hensley (Part Three)

This is part three of my review of Luther: The Rest of the Story By Ken Hensley (2003). In three audio lectures, Mr. Hensley explains Luther from his particular Roman Catholic perspective.

Previous entries in this series:

Part One : Introduction

Part Two: An outline of Ken Hensley's position from lecture one

In this third installment, I'll be addressing some of Mr. Hensley's positions outlined previously. Ken's basic position is that Luther was a sensitive child beaten by his parents. This caused him to create a false understanding of God. These psychological factors provoked Luther to cause a horrific schism in the church and invent heretical doctrines.

Hensley's approach is known as pyschohistory. This approach holds history can be understood by applying the science of psychoanalysis to a historical figure. History is more than simply “facts”- it is also the result of psychological forces that drive people to do what they do. The Reformation therefore was not God's Spirit working in the Church, it was the result of a man with deep psychological problems who was in the right place at the right time to cause a controversy which divided the church.


Use of The Table Talk as Primary Evidence
There is indeed evidence that Luther's parents and teachers raised him in a stern manner, including severe discipline. The evidence though, is quite sparse. It typically amounts to three Table Talk statements, all of which were cited or alluded to by Hensley:

My parents kept me under very strict discipline, even to the point of making me timid. For the sake of a mere nut my mother beat me until the blood flowed. By such strict discipline they finally forced me into the monastery; though they meant it heartily well, I was only made timid by it. They weren’t able to keep a right balance between temperament and punishment. [LW 54: 234]

One shouldn’t whip children too hard. My father once whipped me so severely that I ran away from him, and he was worried that he might not win me back again.[LW 54:157].

Some teachers are as cruel as hangmen. I was once beaten fifteen times before noon, without any fault of mine, because I was expected to decline and conjugate although I had not yet been taught this. [LW 54: 457].

These three quotes form the bedrock upon which Hensley bases his case. They are statements Luther did not write himself nor ever see, uttered when he was fifty years old. This doesn't automatically amount to a rejection of these statements as facts, but their validity should be corroborated with Luther's actual writings or other historical evidence.

Hensley isn't alone in utilizing the Table Talk to prove his case. The same bedrock was used by Erik Erikson in his book, Young Man Luther (1958). It's hard to say if Hensley used this book as a direct source, or if he used someone else that used Erikson's arguments. Either way, it was Erikson who popularized these Table Talk quotes as proof of Luther's traumatic upbringing. Somewhere down the line, Hensley was the beneficiary of Erikson's analysis, whether he knew it or not.

Many articles were written in response to Erikson's work, as well as two books: Roger A. Johnson ed., Pychohistory and Religion: The Case of Young Man Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977) and Peter Homans ed., Childhood and Selfhood: Essays on Tradition and Modernity in the Psychology of Erik H. Erikson (New Jersey: Associated University Press, 1978). It would be interesting to know if Hensley looked at "the rest of the story" about psycho-historical arguments and their application to Luther. Based on his presentation, I would have to conclude he did not. Heinrich Bornkamm's response to Erik Erikson could be very well stated as aptly to Ken Hensley:

Erikson draws on a considerable number of dark hues belonging to Luther's later memories in order to paint his picture of the relationship of the young Martin to his parents. But he leaves aside many of the lighter colors that could brighten up the picture, painting in, instead, lots of black, which he derives from his knowledge of personal conflict. This, however, considerably oversimplifies the matter. It is far more difficult to sketch a realistic picture of Luther's childhood and youth, one that is faithful to the sources, than it is to draw such a crass one. The historian, grateful as he is for the interpretative aids he has received, will nevertheless not simply capitulate before the clinician's claim to "recognize major trends even where the facts are not -available," least of all when some facts are being overlooked and others added. [Heinrich Bornkamm, "Luther and His Father" in Childhood and Selfhood, p. 65].


Luther's Parents
Bornkamm is indeed correct. Those who attempt to create a picture of Luther's early years often cling to the "dark hues" at the expense of all the colors. This is exactly what Mr. Hensley did. Luther's parents are painted as excessively severe.

In the above Table Talk quote, Luther states that the discipline inflicted by his parents was meant "heartily well." That is, despite mistakes, they had the best interest of their son in mind. They made sacrifices in order to send him to good schools and they followed their son's progress with pride.

In regard to Luther's mother's beating drawing blood from the young boy, there is no evidence she meant to do so. Nor is there evidence she did this multiple times. Luther said she had good intentions, but that the punishment given was out of proportion to the offense. That is, had he actually stole something of value, he expected to have a stronger punishment.

Note also in the Table Talk citation about Luther's father, again the recollection of Luther is one particular event. After Luther's father punished him severely, he went to great efforts to win back the boy. Bainton says the words "win me back again" used in the quote means that Luther's father "took the initiative to undo the hurt, to overcome the estrangement, alienation, or resentment, and to recover rapport" [Psychohistory and Religion, p. 35]. This would be a more literal rendering of the phrase from the German. There isn't any evidence that Luther's father was a brutal tyrant. There is evidence that Luther was severely punished one time by his father, and that same father sought intently to repair the damage.

The Luther household was known to be a house of piety. Luther's father is said to have prayed by the bedside of his children with great fervor. Luther's father was known to be a man inclined to times of cheerfulness. When he had a few drinks in him, he was "cheerful and friendly and sang and jested." He was a lover of nature, a trait which he passed on to his son. In fact, search through the documents of the sixteenth century, and one will not find anything but statements from Luther that he loved and respected his father. In Luther's memories, the evidence of severe discipline from his parents were exceptions, not the rule. Later in life Luther recollected "My father was angry with me for an hour, but what harm does it do? He after all had ten years of troubles and pains with me" (WA 25: 460, lines 10ff). Bainton notes,

Luther was highly esteemed at home. His parents looked to him as a lad of brilliant parts who should become a jurist, make a prosperous marriage, and support them in their old age. When Luther became a Master of Arts, his father presented him with a copy of the Corpus Juris and addressed him no longer with the familiar Du but with the polite Sie. Luther always exhibited an extraordinary devotion to his father and was grievously disturbed over parental disapproval of his entry into the monastery. When his father died, Luther was too unnerved to work for several days. The attachment to the mother appears to have been less marked; but even of the thrashing he said that it was well intended, and he recalled affectionately a little ditty she used to sing: If folk don't like you and me, The fault with us is like to be. [source]


On the character of Luther's father, Lewis Spitz comments:

No, Hans Luther was not harsh, drunken, or tyrannous, but rather tender and pious as well as stern and ambitious for himself and his son. Hans was inclined to be tender and deeply moved by suffering. Luther on two different occasions recounts a story which illustrates the point: "My father was asked at Mansfeld by a certain neighbor to come and see him, for he was in mortal agony. Turning on his bed he showed him his posterior and said, `See, dear Luther, how they beat me!' at which Father was so shocked and so shaken by those reflections that he nearly died himself."

On one occasion Hans took Martin into a wheat field to show him the grain ripe for harvest and told him how the heavenly Father cares for us. The same man who was merry and humorous when he had belted a few joked with his wife in bed. Luther relates that his sons respect him just as he respected his parents, for his father slept with his mother and joked with her just as Luther did with his wife, and they were nevertheless pious people, just like the patriarchs and prophets.

Hans was a man of genuine piety and an active churchman. The Mansfeld relatives recounted that Luther's father prayer often and earnestly at the bedside of his children. He was badly shaken when in 1505 he lost two sons to the plague and reflected that he should perhaps willingly give Martin to the Lord for service as a monk. He had as a very close friend Jonas Cemmerer, a priest, and had priests and teachers as house guests on occasion. As one of the Vierherrn or councilmen he signed endowments for the church and served as a trustee for prebends. In 1497, the year in which Luther went away to Magdeburg to be with the Brethren of the Common Life, Hans, the priest Johann Ledener, and the Mansfeld citizens won a sixty-day indulgence from the bishop for all those who attender mass at the two altars of a Mansfeld church dedicated to George, Mary, and an assortment of saints [Psychohistory and Religion, pp. 73-74].

Hensley does point out that Luther loved his parents. On the other hand, Hensley says that his relationship with his parents and inability to please them led Luther to his false view of God. Luther viewed God as wrathful judge who could not be pleased. Here is a telling sign of misdiagnosis. If Luther's views of God and parents are mirrored, why is it that Luther loved his parents but (as Hensley says) Luther hated God? One would think Luther must've hated his parents as well, but the historical accounts simply don't bear this out.

Luther Enters The Monastery
According to Hensley, it was the severe treatment inflicted on Luther by his parents that sent him into the monastery. As a testimony to this fact, he provides Luther's statement as noting the primary cause: "My parents kept me under very strict discipline, even to the point of making me timid. For the sake of a mere nut my mother beat me until the blood flowed. By such strict discipline they finally forced me into the monastery."

Hensley though selectively cites the evidence, using only the second hand statement from the Table talk. Many more reasons from far more reliable primary sources are available: "I entered the monastery that I might not perish but have eternal life. I wanted to follow my own counsel and help myself by means of the cowl" [LW 22:359]. Bornkamm provides the following statements from Luther

"I for my part did not run into the monastery because I wanted to serve the devil [Luther is comparing the work ethic with the worship of the golden calf], but in order to gain heaven through my obedience, chastity, and poverty." WA 44: 782,; lines 10 ff (LW 8: 276) : "Against everyone's will I deserted my parents and relatives and rushed into a monastery, and donned a cowl, because I was persuaded that with that kind of life and those severe hardships I was showing great allegiance to God." WA 49: 713, lines 6 ff: "I became a monk because I wanted to propitiate the strict Judge with my works." WATR 4, no. 4414: 303, lines 15 if (LW 54: 338) "I took the vow not for the sake of my belly but for the sake of my salvation, and I observed all our statutes very strictly." WA 37: 661, lines 22 ff: "I always thought, when will you finally get pious and do enough that you will obtain a gracious God? By such thoughts was I driven to monkhood." According to Scheel, Martin Luther, 1: 313, who cites a transcript (WA 37: 274, lines 14 ff), this frequently quoted passage belongs to the period in the monastery and not the time before. But in terms of its content this passage certainly also indicates why Luther entered the monastery. Further references are found in Scheel, Dokumente zu Luthers Entwicklung, and in the index volume WA 58, no. 1 [Heinrich Bornkamm, "Luther and His Father" in Childhood and Selfhood, p. 85].

Here we find multiple statements from Luther's own hand explaining his reasoning. These statements of course do not negate the Table Talk quote, but they should serve as primary evidence whereas a secondary statement from the Table Talk should take the back seat. Hensley though uses the Table Talk as his primary source. While Hensley would probably accept the above statements from Luther, his emphasis as to Luther's reason for entering the monastery has been attached to the wrong fact, based on a faulty presupposition of Luther's relationship with parents.

Review- Luther: The Rest of the Story by Ken Hensley (Part Two)

This is part two of my review of Luther: The Rest of the Story By Ken Hensley (2003). In three audio lectures, Mr. Hensley explains Luther from his particular Roman Catholic perspective. In this installment, I'll be looking at points from Ken's first lecture of his three part series. Part one of my review can be found here.

In this installment, I'm simply going to lay out Mr. Hensley's position on the biography of Luther. What caused Luther to rebel against the Roman Catholic Church? What caused Luther to see God the way he did? Mr. Hensley answers these questions in his first lecture. Throughout this critique, I've included brief mp3 audio snippets from Ken's lecture designated as "(mp3 clip)". Each clip runs around one to four minutes.

Telling the Rest of the Story?
Ken Hensley begins his treatment exactly where Heiko Oberman's Luther: Man Between God and the Devil did, Luther's death. He relates how upon hearing the news of Luther's death, it was viewed by Luther's supporters as if "The charioteer of Israel has fallen" (2 Kings 2:12). This is the first glimpse of Hensley's position. He's going to debunk the myth of Luther as the great hero by telling "the rest of the story." The "rest" is the part that Protestants never hear, and that Lutheran school children are never told. He's going to dissect the Luther story that has grown to legendary proportions (mp3 clip) (mp3 clip).

Hensley though doesn't initially seek the invective level of a Cochlaeus, Denifle, or Sippo. He notes that Luther had valuable things to say, and was correct in pointing out the abuses plaguing the Roman church. Hensley admits the church needed reform (mp3 clip).While I can appreciate these concessions, by the end of the second lecture Luther is painted as such a theological villain with an antinomian theology that whatever positive things were stated earlier become meaningless.

Throughout his first lecture Hensley quotes Oberman and also Roland Bainton's Here I Stand extensively. This is Hensley's attempt to tell Luther's story from a respected Protestant perspective. To point out "the rest of the story" in this first lecture amounts to a critique of the historical conclusions of these Protestant authors. Hensley reads their conclusions and points out either a different interpretation of the facts, a nuanced interpretation of their conclusions, or flat out rejects what these authors say as Protestant bias. In some instances he'll concede their points, but downplays their conclusions with facts that are alleged to trump Protestant historical interpretation.

Where Bainton and Oberman argue Luther reacted to a corrupt church with a faulty theology saddled with anti-Biblical baggage, Hensley will argue the emphasis of Luther should be placed on him as a man struggling with psychological factors of depression and a difficult relationship with parents he could never please. The doctrines Luther created were based on curing aspects of his psyche. Luther's goal was not really church reform or an accurate critique of Roman Catholic theology by comparing it to the authority of the Bible. Luther's depressions and familial relationships caused him to create a God which was neither the God of the Bible or that taught by the Roman church (Mp3 clip). To relate to this false conception of God, Luther invented sola fide. By the end of lecture one, the "Luther" explained by Hensley is to be pitied. Hensley views the image he's created as sympathetic. Who would not pity a sensitive child continually beaten by adults?

Hensley's approach is known as pyschohistory. This approach holds history can be understood by applying the science of psychoanalysis to a historical figure. History is more than simply “facts”- it is also the result of psychological forces that drive people to do what they do. The Reformation therefore was not God's Spirit working in the Church, it was the result of a man with deep psychological problems who was in the right place at the right time to cause a controversy which divided the church.

Luther's Abusive Parents: Hensley's Psycho-historical Argument
Hensley says that Luther's family situation is that which caused his heresy and revolt. His parents were stern and abusive, and this impacted the fragile sensitive psyche of young Martin. He provides evidence that Luther was beaten by both parents, as well as as by those in charge at school. This harsh treatment, particularly by his father, caused Luther to view God as a severe judge who could not be pleased. Luther had a fear of his father, and a fear of being unable to please his father. Hensley claims it was the severe treatment inflicted on Luther by his parents that sent him into the monastery (mp3 clip). Hensley forcefully brings this point of Luther's relationship with his parents out by describing Luther's first mass. The fear Luther felt during the mass was fear that was instilled by his own father. After the mass, Luther's father embarrassed his son in front of everyone (mp3 clip).

Hensley relates this relationship Luther had with his parents to the way Luther understood God. It wasn't God who was angry with Luther, it was Hans Luther displeased with son for becoming a monk. It wasn't God who was angry with Luther, it was Luther who was angry at God, or rather, the impact of Hans Luther that caused Luther's anger toward God (mp3 clip).

Luther the Monk
At the first mass, Luther claims to have been "without faith" during this period in his life. Luther also mentions that as a devout monk he hated God. These statements question the validity of Luther's call to the monastic life. While not explicitly stated by Hensley, Luther in essence, needed to learn to cope with his father, he didn't need the monastery. Luther wasn't called by God to be a monk. He was a man with a faulty image of God that wrongly chose the monastic life. Luther's struggle was based on the father he loved, feared, but could please (mp3 clip). This transferred to Luther's understanding of God: Luther feared that he could not please God. While Hensley says Luther loved Hans Luther, he hated God and viewed him as angry deity.

As a monk, Hensley points out the rigorous discipline Luther subjected himself to please God, but never felt he could do enough. While Protestants see this is as the natural result on one applying the Romanist system consistently, Hensley asks how it was possible then that others who lived during the sixteenth century were able to achieve sainthood (mp3 clip).

Along with these issues, Hensley's says that Luther's experience of going to Rome caused him to doubt the power and authority of the Roman Catholic Church (mp3 clip) . Hensley comes right out and says Rome was more or less morally depraved from head to toe and that Luther questioned his faith in Rome should be no surprise. Hensley says if Papal leadership doesn't act morally, this is what one should expect of her faithful followers. I add, Hensley's comments should be applied to Rome's current 2010 scandal.

Hensley on briefly touches the aspect of indulgences in the sixteenth century (mp3 clip). He doesn't spend any time describing the rampant abuse of the indulgence, and Luther's critique of the abuse of indulgences. Rather, he says indulgences are an act of prayer and "sincerely seeking God and seeking God's blessing."

Conclusion
In my next installment of this series, I'll take a look at the historical image of Luther sketched by Ken Hensley. The conclusions Ken reached are not "the rest of the story."

Review- Luther: The Rest of the Story by Ken Hensley (Part One)

More than a few times I've heard Catholic Answers recommend Luther: The Rest of the Story By Ken Hensley (2003). It isn't a book, but rather a series of three lectures, available on CD, and via MP3 download from Saint Joseph Communications. As of the writing of this review, used copies of the CD's are available on Amazon for $65 up to $161.00. Why? I'm not sure, as the new sets are only $23. Perhaps materials from Saint Joseph Communications are collectible.

The lectures are advertised as follows:

Luther: The Rest of the Stroy [sic] CD
In an uncompromisingly Catholic presentation on the true teachings of the man who changed the face of Christianity. A former Protestant Pastor, Hensley brings a unique perspective to the critical examination of a man whose doctrines he once held with great devotion. As you listen to his in-depth analysis on three digitally mastered CDs, you’ll discover Luther’s theological, personal and historical background and motivations, from the testimony of his own writings. And follow the tangled web woven by the “Father of the Reformation” from the day he nailed his infamous 95 theses on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg to the theological wreckage of modern Protestantism. [source]

...[T]his is no inflammatory “tell-all” exposé but an intelligent (and entertaining) investigation into the real-life convictions and contradictions of this controversial figure. Here at last is a serious discussion of Luther from a Catholic perspective that’s insightful, informative and, best of all, suitable to share with Protestant (and fallen-away Catholic) friends and family.

Whatever your opinion of Luther and his religious revolt, you owe it to yourself to discover the surprising truth about his actual teachings and his little-known devotion to much that has been rejected by his spiritual descendants. With Ken Hensley’s perceptive presentation and analysis, Luther: The Rest of the Story will equip you to effectively defend Catholic truth, but also to better understand the reality of many important theological and historical misconceptions. Get ready — it’s time to set the record straight! [source]

After listening to almost all of these three lectures, I decided a review of Hensley's arguments would be a worthy endeavour. I strongly disagree with the above advertising blurbs. The lectures, while at times cordial and entertaining, present the typical negative outdated polemic that so infects pop-Roman Catholic apologetics.

About Ken Hensley
Previous to listening to this series, I hadn't heard of Mr. Hensley. He appears to be a speaker still affiliated with Saint Joseph Communications (SJC). SJC is most famous for its star apologist, Dr. Scott Hahn. Hahn and Hensley knew each other previous to their "conversions" to the Roman Catholic Church, and Hahn played a role in Hensley's conversion to Romanism.

Hensley was a former American Baptist minister (of eleven years), and became Roman Catholic in 1996. A truncated discussion of his conversion story was given on Catholic Answers many years ago (MP3 available here). He received his Bachelors Degree in Scripture and Theology from Grace Bible College and his MA degree from Fuller Theological Seminary.

In lecture one he mentions he had only been a Christian one or two years in Junior college when he first heard about Martin Luther via the old 1953 movie. He mentions that the movie so impressed and inspired him, it left him with tears in his eyes and a desire to be like the man portrayed in the movie. Subsequently, he read thousands of pages of Luther's writings, took an entire course at Fuller on the theology of Martin Luther, and owns (and has read) a number of biographies on Luther. Thus, his qualifications for giving these lectures are: his previous education and readings, Baptist ministry, and conversion to Roman Catholicism. He's a man who has seen both sides: Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Who better to explain Luther than a former Protestant turned Roman Catholic?

Qualified to Tell the Rest of the Story?
After listening to his Luther series I do have reservations as to Hensley's qualifications to tell "the rest of the story" about Luther. In this short MP3 clip from his Catholic Answers interview, he says the worldview of Protestantism was "assumed" rather than explored at seminary. That is, the direct conflict that gave birth to the Reformation was not looked at with any appropriate depth. How then a seminary level class on Luther's theology was handled at Fuller is indeed a mystery, since Luther's paradigms are best understood against the backdrop of the sixteenth century Church. I also have had a seminary level class on Luther's theology. Understanding the culture and theology of the sixteenth century was a crucial aspect to grasping the material. The conflict which caused the Reformation couldn't be missed.

Second, "Lutheran" and "American Baptist" are not quite two pegs which fit in the same hole. Luther's theological paradigms are not typically studied and digested by those who aren't Lutheran. The longer I study Luther's theology, the more I realize his theology isn't Reformed, Baptist, or Methodist, etc. While there are points of agreement, it's a different breed of cat, so to speak. I would be more willing to grant that a former (conservative!) Lutheran minister would be able to tell "the rest of the story" about Luther than I would a former American Baptist. If Hensley so wanted to be like Luther, becoming an American Baptist instead requires quite a number of disagreements with Luther's theology. In fact, I would say that an American Baptist could likewise tell their own story about their disagreements with Luther.

As to his assertion that he'd read thousands of pages of Luther and many biographies previous to these lectures, the material presented didn't give me much confidence in such claims. He quotes heavily from Roland Bainton's Here I Stand and Heiko Obermann's Luther: Man Between God and the Devil. He also mentions The Theology of Luther by Paul Althaus in passing. He claims that citing Luther directly from his own writings is of great importance to his lectures, but he presents many of the popular quotes typically sifted from Luther's writings used by earlier generations of Roman Catholic polemicists. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther was also consulted, as well as other Roman Catholic books slanted against Luther. More often than not, it was those context-less quotes I've seen a thousand times typically brought up by Roman Catholics that Hensley used. Thus I really do wonder if the quotes came more from Luther-hostile sources than Hensley's own readings of Luther. This will be demonstrated as the Luther quotes used are reviewed.

Conclusion
It's not my intention to slander Mr. Hensley. Rather, any who read this blog know that I often review Luther materials put out by Roman Catholics. Some of the material he presented was quite interesting. In fact, in this blog entry I made reference to Hensley's opinion on Luther's early journey to Rome. Hensley comes right out and says Rome was more or less morally depraved from head to toe. That Luther questioned his faith in Rome should be of no surprise. In fact, Hensley says if Papal leadership doesn't act morally, this is what one should expect of her faithful followers. I add, Hensley's comments should be applied to Rome's current scandal.

His section on Justification in lecture two would truly befuddle many Protestants. His argumentation is clear, and I commend him for laying out Rome's position in such a way that it could be easily understood by a nominal Roman Catholic while at the same time send a Protestant back to the Bible in search of an exegetical response.

It might take a while to work through Hensley's series. But, I think any Protestant coming in contact with the material presented would be hard pressed to formulate a response without being familiar with the issues raised, both biographical and theological. This doesn't mean I've ceased reviewing Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin. I plan doing that at one entry per week, or when I get to it.