Catholic Answers Discussion on Luther, Faith, and Reason

Here's a nifty little Luther discussion from Catholic Answers on Luther, faith, and reason. [edited to add: this link appears to have vanished (as well as the entire Catholic Answers "blog").]

Comments by Catholic.com Members

#1  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

Luther:

"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scripture OR BY EVIDENT REASON . . . I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis. My conscience is captive to the word of God"

"REASON is contrary to faith”... “REASON is the whore of the Devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done”

This may be the first written diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

January 6, 2017 at 11:15 am PST

#2  Mich Wieder - Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Eric @ #1,

YOU SAY: "REASON is contrary to faith"
BENEDICT XVI: "faith is not contrary to reason" (Vatican City, 21 November 2012)

May the Lord bless you!

January 6, 2017 at 11:40 am PST

#3  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

Mich @ #2,

Reread my post. "Luther:...."REASON is contrary to faith"...

Please take better care to read the entirety of the comment rather than seemingly taking a small part to argue with.

January 6, 2017 at 12:01 pm PST

#4  Michael Flores - lacey, Washington

Faith is an insult to logic. Nobody speaks of having "faith" that George Washington existed. We just know.

January 6, 2017 at 12:15 pm PST

#6  Sean McCoy - Glendale, Arizona

Eric McCabe, I think you should read the entire quote in context. I believe the quote you are referring to came from Luther's Table Talks, which are essentially a compilation of quotes provided by former students who used to reside in Luther's household. It is not meant to be a treatise, so do not try to treat a single quote (taken out of context by you) as such. That being said, Luther states many things in his Table Talk discussion that discusses the use of reason in the proper context (under the direction and control of the Holy Spirit). You can see the dichotomy in a few passages where Luther is condemning the secular use of reason apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

"The Holy Scriptures are full of divine gifts and virtues. The books of the heathen taught nothing of faith, hope, or charity; they present no idea of these things; they contemplate only the present, and that which man, with the use of his material reason, can grasp and comprehend. Look not therein for aught of hope or trust in God. But see how the Psalms and the Book of Job treat of faith, hope, resignation, and prayer; in a word, the Holy Scripture is the highest and best of books, abounding in comfort under all afflictions and trials. It teaches us to see, to feel, to grasp, and to comprehend faith, hope, and charity, far otherwise than mere human reason can..."

Not too shabby for dinnertime conversation. Here we see Luther is not condemning reason. He is condemning reason apart from faith. As you yourself pointed out in the first quote that you provided above, Luther was quite keen on the use of reason within the context of faith and the scriptures.

"We ought not to criticize, explain, or judge the Scriptures by our mere reason (emphasis again on reason alone), but diligently, with prayer, meditate thereon, and seek their meaning...The Holy Ghost must here be our only master and tutor (once again, the reason in subjection to the Holy Spirit); and let youth have no shame to learn of that preceptor."

"He who wholly renounces himself, and relies not on mere human reason, will make good progress in the Scriptures; but the world comprehends them not, from ignorance of that mortification which is the gift of God's word. Can he who understands not God's Word, understand God's works?"

This sentiment should be familiar to even the most casual student of the Apostle Paul who himself said something similar: "For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and a folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

Perhaps you would prefer the sentiment of the Psalmist? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding."

Going back to Luther's view of wisdom: "Human reason, with all its wisdom, can bring it no further than to instruct people how to live honestly and decently in the world, how to keep house, build, etc., things learned from philosophy and heathenish books. But how they should learn to know God and his dear Son, Christ Jesus, and to be saved, this the Holy Ghost alone teaches through God's Word; for philosophy understands naught of divine matters. I don't say that men may not teach and learn philosophy; I approve thereof, so that it be within reason and moderation. Let philosophy remain within her bounds, as God has appointed, and let us make use of her as of a character in a comedy; but to mix her up with divinity may not be endured; nor is it tolerable to make faith an accidens or quality, happening by chance; for such words are merely philosophical - used in schools and in temporal affairs, which human sense and reason may comprehend. But faith is a thing of the heart, having its being and substance by itself, given of God as his proper work, not a corporal thing, that may be seen, felt, or touched."

Returning to the quote that you mentioned, it is grossly out of context. Luther was addressing another reformer whom he felt was at odds with the correct view of the sacrament of Holy Communion. He felt that Karlstadt's reasons for his view were based on shoddy reasoning apart from scripture. Hence his entire quote: "Let this be our answer to the arguments and reasons that Dr. Karlstadt presents for his dream from Scripture. They were threefold. First, a capital letter is found in some books, not all. Second, there was a punctuation mark. Third, the dear touto. What wonderful arguments, which no one would use except such heavenly prophets, who hear the voice of God. A fourth now is, that he cannot present a single verse of Scripture in his favor. This is the most damaging argument and will forever remain so. I shall not overthrow it but will rather strengthen it. Furthermore he teaches us what Frau Hulda,?? natural reason, has to say in the matter, just as if we did not know that reason is the devil’s prostitute and can do nothing else but slander and dishonor what God does and says. But before we answer this arch-prostitute and devil’s bride, we first want to prove our faith, not by setting forth capitals or periods or touto tauta but by clear, sober passages from Scripture which the devil will not overthrow."

Once more we see Luther putting reason in subjection to faith and the scriptures. To strengthen you apologetic stance in the future you may want to actually read Luther's works so that you can place them in proper context rather than grabbing them from message board to cut and paste random quotes into emails. I'm not saying I am in agreement with everything Luther says, nor do I need to be because the power of scripture does not rest on man; however, if you want to pursue an ethical Christian apologetic, you should have a desire to try to present issues in their proper context rather than purposely misrepresenting them to suit your purpose.

January 6, 2017 at 12:34 pm PST

#7  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

Sean,

Notice that all I did was post three verbatim quotes of Luther in concurrent succession. You can use the whole "context" argument all you want. But when Luther uses crass and vile language as he most certainly did in much of his works, so vile that the Catholic Answers pre-programmed auditor would censor, I think we all know in good conscience that his thoughts, doctrines, and ambitions were not from God.

January 6, 2017 at 12:40 pm PST

#9  Mich Wieder - Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Eric @ #1,

Please analyze one of your statements for bipolar disorder.

YOU SAY: "I, too, want you to be a part of the true Church. I personally want every living soul to be in communion with the Church Jesus Christ founded and continues to maintain through His Spirit."
MY OBSERVATION: You consider it presumptuous when a person thinks to be "a part of the true church in an arrogant and secure way."
ANOTHER OBSERVATION: You presently are a member of the Catholic Church.
MY QUESTION: Are you or aren't you presently a member of "the Church Jesus Christ founded and continues to maintain through His Spirit?"

May the Lord bless you!

January 6, 2017 at 12:58 pm PST

#10  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

Mich at #9,

This is what I said: "I, too, want YOU to be a part of the true Church. I personally want EVERY living soul to be in communion with the Church Jesus Christ founded and continues to maintain through His Spirit."

Are you misreading what I wrote? I did not write "[I] want to be a part of the true Church. I also said "I, too, want YOU to be a part of the true church" as I also "want every living soul to be in communion with the Church Jesus Christ founded and continues to maintain through His Spirit."

The fact is, I am a part of the true One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years go. Thanks and praise be to God through His grace and mercy. But I want you and every living soul as well to be a part of Her as well.

I really think you should try to read and reread the comments on these threads. You are missing pertinent information that makes many of your comments and questions incoherent. If you want to fine-comb and sift through comments of Catholics to argue and contend, then do so with more diligence and care so that your questions and comments can make more sense.

January 6, 2017 at 1:10 pm PST

January 6, 2017 at 2:39 pm PST

#15  Sean McCoy - Glendale, Arizona

Eric, you actually didn't post three verbatim quotes. The last quote you provided is spurilously attributed to Luther and is a paraphrase. And once again, posting quotes that you know to be out of context is a poor apologetic and is inconsistent with a Christian ethic.

January 6, 2017 at 3:00 pm PST

#16  Sean McCoy - Glendale, Arizona

And speaking to your comment that Luther was crass or earthy, please explain to me what you would consider Hosea when we compared Israel and Judah to prostitutes.

January 6, 2017 at 3:01 pm PST

#18  Sean McCoy - Glendale, Arizona

@Eric,

I want to address what I think you are trying to get at by attacking Luther's character. The thrust of your argument seems to be that if someone has sinned they must not be lead by the Holy Spirit. While I agree that when we sin we have not followed the Holy Spirit, that does not mean that the Holy Spirit has departed from that person. It only means that we are simultaneously sinners and saints.

If you really and honestly look at the implication you have made and take it to its logical conclusion you only undercut the authority of your own church. If you assume, wrongly, that sin means that one no longer has a place in carrying out God's will, then such heroes of the faith such as Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Jonah, Peter, and Paul have no place in leadership in the church and that they could not have been lead by the Holy Spirit.

In the context of the catholic church through the ages many things have occurred where the church has not followed the Holy Spirit, and by your arbitrary rule would then be unfit to be considered as a means of the Holy Spirit to accomplish his will in this world. Numerous atrocities were attributed to spreading the Catholic gospel in the ancient world with approval of the church. Men such as Clovis, Charlemagne, etc., have forced conversions on pain of death. The Crusades were encouraged by the Popes despite some of the most barbaric practices imaginable. After the reformation we saw atrocities committed by the Catholic church with full knowledge and approval of the church authorities under the Inquisitions. In more recent days we have the sex scandals that have plagued the church where known wrongdoing occurred and in some cases were covered up.

I say this not to take anything away from the Catholic Church. If I didn't love the Catholic church I would not be here to engage in debate and study of the scriptures. I only do so to point out the obvious inconsistency in your statement. My own faith history is equally guilty of sin. And yet, God has used the institutions of the church (the whole church) despite our flaws and sin to spread his gospel into the world. Be careful where you point your finger, because four more are pointing back at you. The power of the church is dependent on the Holy Spirit and the ability of the gospel to save. It isn't dependent on an infallible church or man. That's why I care enough to speak up.

January 6, 2017 at 3:23 pm PST

#24  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

Sean @ #18,

You: "I want to address what I think you are trying to get at by attacking Luther's character"

I am sorry if you got that impression. I was not attempting to "attack Luther's character". However, I did and always will expose his writings for what they are, context or no context. Regardless of his coarse and sometimes even lewd style of writing, he is all over the place sloppily going from one tangent to another in an almost seeming chimerical way. Outside of all the contradictory statements regarding biblical doctrine, he had an unprecedented and scornful perspective on not only the seven books he himself removed from the Old Testament, but also for the canonical books of Esther that he wanted to "toss in the Elbe River", Saint James in which he called an "epistle of straw" and that he wanted to "throw Jimmy in the stove, and the book of the Revelation of Saint John in that it was "an aversion and should be rejected". Let us not forget his infamous addition of the word 'allein' (alone) in Romans 3:28 in his bible transliteration. I could literally go on and on unceasingly with quotes from Luther that would make any good-willed Christian cringe.

You: "The thrust of your argument seems to be that if someone has sinned they must not be lead by the Holy Spirit. While I agree that when we sin we have not followed the Holy Spirit, that does not mean that the Holy Spirit has departed from that person. It only means that we are simultaneously sinners and saints"

I do not know about you, but I was not referring to anyone's moral disposition or how many times someone had fallen from grace. I merely was exposing illogical and contradictory quotes in writing from a self-anathematized Christian. I am sorry, Sean, but the writings of Martin Luther are not analogous to those of "Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Jonah, Peter, and Paul". Again, we are talking about sentiments that were written down, not immoral conduct. Show me something in writing from a Catholic Saint, Doctor, Pope etc. that compares to that of Luther. If you can do that, then your argument will carry some weight.

January 7, 2017 at 4:54 pm PST

Zwingli: Hercules and Socrates are Redeemed and in Heaven?

What will be the eternal fate of non-Christian people? Rome's Council of Florence declared "those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.'” The statement seems straight-forward and direct.  Later though the Catechism of the Catholic Church "clarified" it by stating:

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life"(843).

The harmony of these statements has been so construed that one defender of Rome, Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers, goes as far as saying even some atheists may even have a positive eternal fate:  "It’s also possible for a person to die in God’s friendship even if the person didn’t consciously know God during life."

I point out this issue within Rome to segue into a similar situation that occurred between some of the early Protestant Reformers. Shortly before his death, Huldrych Zwingli wrote a document entitled, A Short and Clear Exposition of the Christian Faith to the Christian King., 1531. In the chapter entitled "Everlasting Life" Zwingli presents a rebuttal to the notion of soul sleep. In conclusion he stated,

I believe, then, that the souls of the faithful fly to heaven as soon as they leave the body, come into the presence of God, and rejoice forever. Here, most pious King, if you govern the state entrusted to you by God as David, Hezekiah, and Josiah did, you may hope to see first God Himself in His very substance, in His nature and with all His endowments and powers, and to enjoy all these, not sparingly but in full measure, not with the cloying effect that generally accompanies satiety, but with that agreeable completeness which involves no surfeiting, just as the rivers, that flow unceasingly into the sea and flow back through the depths of the earth, bring no loathing to mankind, but rather gain and joy, ever watering, gladdening and fostering new germs of life. The good which we shall enjoy is infinite and the infinite cannot be exhausted; therefore no one can become surfeited with it, for it is ever now and yet the same. Then you may hope to see the whole company and assemblage of all the saints, the wise, the faithful, brave, and good who have lived since the world began. Here you will see the two Adams, the redeemed and the redeemer, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, Phineas, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, and the Virgin Mother of God of whom he prophesied, David, Hezekiah, Josiah, the Baptist, Peter, Paul; here too, Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos and Scipios; here Louis the Pious, and your predecessors, the Louis, Philips, Pepins, and all your ancestors who have gone hence in faith. In short there has not been a good man and will not be a holy heart or faithful soul from the beginning of the world to the end thereof that you will not see in heaven with God. And what can be imagined more glad, what more delightful, what, finally, more honorable than such a sight? To what can all our souls more justly bend all their strength than to the attainment of such a life? And may meantime the dreaming Catabaptists deservedly sleep in the regions below a sleep from which they will never wake. Their error comes from the fact that they do not know that with the Hebrews the word for sleeping is used for the word for dying, as is more frequently the case with Paul than there is any need of demonstrating at present.

Did you catch some of those who Zwingli says "fly to heaven as soon as they leave the body, come into the presence of God, and rejoice forever"? "Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos and Scipios..." Zwingli says, "there has not been a good man and will not be a holy heart or faithful soul from the beginning of the world to the end thereof that you will not see in heaven with God."

These words from Zwingli did not go unnoticed. Luther wrote about it towards the end of his life:

[A]fter Zwingli’s death a book came out which he is supposed to have written shortly before his death. It was entitled Exposition of the Christian Faith to the Christian King, etc., and was supposed to be better than all his previous books. That it had to be Zwingli’s was evident from his wild, confused language and from his previously held opinion [about the Lord’s Supper].

I have become very frightened about that book, not on my account but on his account. For, because he was able to write this after our agreement at Marburg, it is certain that in every respect he dealt with us with an insincere heart and tongue at Marburg. Therefore I had to despair (as I still must) of the salvation of his soul, if he died with such a disposition, regardless of the fact that his disciples and successors made him out to be a saint and martyr. O Lord God, this man a saint and martyr!

In this book he not only remains an enemy of the holy sacrament but also becomes a full-blown heathen. This is the marvelous improvement for which I had hoped. You can see what I mean: In somewhat different words he addresses the previously mentioned king thus: “There you will see in the same fellowship all holy, godly, wise, brave, honorable people, the redeemed and the Redeemer, Adam, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, Phinehas, Elijah, Elisha, also Isaiah and the Virgin Mother of God of whom he prophesied, David, Hezekiah, Josiah, the Baptist, Peter, and Paul; Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos and Scipios and all your ancestors who have departed in the faith,” etc.

This is written in his book which (as has been said) is supposed to be his most excellent and best book, produced just before his death. Tell me, any one of you who wants to be a Christian, what need is there of baptism, the sacrament, Christ, the gospel, or the prophets and Holy Scripture if such godless heathen, Socrates, Aristides, yes, the cruel Numa, who was the first to instigate every kind of idolatry at Rome by the devil’s revelation, as St. Augustine writes in the City of God, and Scipio the Epicurean, are saved and sanctified along with the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles in heaven, even though they knew nothing about God, Scripture, the gospel, Christ, baptism, the sacrament, or the Christian faith? What can such an author, preacher, and teacher believe about the Christian faith except that it is no better than any other faith and that everyone can be saved by his own faith, even an idolater and an Epicurean like Numa and Scipio? (LW 38:289-291).

Luther did Not Know What an Indulgence Was?

Here's one from an online discussion forum in which a defender of Rome argued: "Luther admitted later in his life that he actually didn't even know what an indulgence was" when the indulgence controversy erupted in 1517.  This assertion was shortly followed by this comment directed towards me: "Maybe our resident Genevan cyber defender can come in and white wash it for you guys." The straightforward argument appears to be that at the time of the indulgence controversy, Luther didn't know what an indulgence proper was: "He started his revolution on an abuse of something he later admitted he knew nothing about" (link). A source document to prove this claim from Luther was also provided (see below).

Documentation
First this link was given, and then a specific page and paragraph were cited from the same document (from a different source). Both of these links refer to Luther's 1541 treatise,  Wider Hans Worst. The first link appears to be from the first printing (there were four 1541 German printings, LW states the first was by Hans Lufft- see LW 41:183). The second link was to an 1880 printing. From the second link, the paragraph in question is the following:

This same text can be found in WA 51:539. This text has been translated into English: Against Hanswurst (LW 41:179-256). The quote is on pages 231-232. This treatise was written towards the end of Luther's life. In the section under scrutiny, Luther reflects back on the beginning of the indulgence controversy.

Context

It happened, in the year 1517, that a preaching monk called John Tetzel, a great ranter, made his appearance. He had previously been rescued in Innsbruck by Duke Frederick from a sack—for Maximilian had condemned him to be drowned in the Inn (presumably on account of his great virtue)—and Duke Frederick reminded him of it when he began to slander us Wittenbergers; he also freely admitted it himself. This same Tetzel now went around with indulgences, selling grace for money as dearly or as cheaply as he could, to the best of his ability. At that time I was a preacher here in the monastery, and a fledgling doctor fervent and enthusiastic for Holy Scripture.

Now when many people from Wittenberg went to Jütterbock and Zerbst for indulgences, and I (as truly as my Lord Christ redeemed me) did not know what the indulgences were, as in fact no one knew, I began to preach very gently that one could probably do something better and more reliable than acquiring indulgences.(86) I had also preached before in the same way against indulgences at the castle and had thus gained the disfavor of Duke Frederick because he was very fond of his religious foundation. Now I—to point out the true cause of the Lutheran rumpus—let everything take its course.

(86) See, for example, a sermon Luther preached on February 24, 1517. LW 51, 26–-31. See also two Lenten sermons he preached in March, 1518. LW 51, 35-–49.

[LW 41:231-232]

Elsewhere in the same document, Luther says something similar:

So my theses against Tetzel’s articles, which you can now see in print, were published. They went throughout the whole of Germany in a fortnight, for the whole world complained about indulgences, and particularly about Tetzel’s articles. And because all the bishops and doctors were silent and no one wanted to bell the cat (for the masters of heresy, the preaching order, had instilled fear into the whole world with the threat of fire, and Tetzel had bullied a number of priests who had grumbled against his impudent preaching), Luther became famous as a doctor, for at last someone had stood up to fight. I did not want the fame, because (as I have said) I did not myself know what the indulgences were, and the song might prove too high for my voice (LW 41:234; WA 51:541; Halle, 52).

Conclusion
LW 41 translates the sentence: "I (as truly as my Lord Christ redeemed me) did not know what the indulgences were..." Luther does not say: I did not know what an indulgence is. I would be surprised if Luther, a Doctor of Theology in the Roman church did not know what the basic concept of an indulgence was. For example, Pope Boniface in the 14th Century made use of a general indulgence in which certain times a year a general indulgence could be obtained. Another popular example is Pope Sixtus IV (only a short time before Luther) had his particular slant on indulgences applying to the living and the dead. It would be odd if Luther was not familiar with either of these papal approved indulgences. From his written record, Luther was certainly familiar with indulgences previous to the 1517 controversy  Heiko Oberman has stated,

Three years earlier, in the autumn of 1514, Luther had already denounced indulgences in the university lecture hall, terming them proof of the nadir Christendom had reached. There were Christians who thought money and a sigh would get them into heaven: "It is dangerous to believe that we can draw on the treasures of the Church without adding anything ourselves."(34)

(34): WA 3. 416, 27f.; 424, 22f.; gloss Ps. 68; approx. autumn 1514.

In regard to Oberman's documentation, here is WA 3:416. Here is WA 3:424. These pages are found translated into English in LW 10 (Luther's early lectures on the Psalms). Here is the English text corresponding to WA 3:416-

The third is now the prevalence of the lukewarm and the evil [peace and security]. For surfeit now reigns to such an extent that there is much worship of God everywhere, but it is only going through the motions, without love and spirit, and there are very few with any fervor. And all this happens because we think we are something and are doing enough. Consequently we try nothing, and we hold to no strong emotion, and we do much to ease the way to heaven, by means of indulgences, by means of easy doctrines, feeling that one sigh is enough (LW 10:351).

Here is some of the English text corresponding to WA 3:424,

Therefore woe to us, who are so snatched away by present things and foolishly do not see the devil’s trap! We act like the foolish heir who knew only how to squander the magnificent estate left by his parents and did nothing to build it up but always carried away from the pile. So the popes and priests pour out the graces and indulgences amassed by the blood of Christ and the martyrs and left to us, and they do not think there is any need to build up this treasure, nor to acquire the remission of sins and the kingdom of heaven in any other way than by their merits. Yet no one can share in the public good unless he, too, makes his contribution. To take from the church’s treasure and not also to put something back is impossible and deceitful presumption. [“He who does not work, should not eat either” (2 Thess. 3:10). He who is not a partaker of sufferings will not be a partaker of consolations either (2 Cor. 1:7)]. But they think they have this treasure ready in the safe so that they can use it whenever they want to. In their smugness they therefore surrender themselves to all the things that are in the world. Since the treasure obviously abides, while the world passes away, and since they want both, they first go after the world before it perishes, believing that heaven will be left over for them in abundance later. I say, this is what they think, that is, they act thus, that in fact they seem to believe it and to say what we read in Wisd. of Sol. 2:8, 5: “Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they are withered; for our time is the passing of a shadow.” But I am afraid that what has happened to prodigal heirs will also happen to us, namely, that, after all our goods have been dissipated and squandered, we become beggars and must endure every need in disgrace. Not that the church’s treasure can be used up, but I say that it can be used up as far as we are concerned. The treasure is unlimited in itself, but not for us, since a minority shares in it. Such a wastefulness of merits is present also in the religious, who scatter their brotherhoods and indulgences in every corner, just so they might have food and clothing. If they have these, they have no concern about such things. It is dreadful madness and wretched blindness that now we do not preach the Gospel unless we have to, not because we want to. And the number of such people is extremely large! O beggars, beggars, beggars! But perhaps the excuse is offered that you receive alms for God’s sake and that you reciprocate with the Word of God and all things without charge. So be it: You will see! (LW 10:361-362)

A much more practical way to read the sentence from Against Hanswurst  is that Luther was not aware of what the details were of the particular indulgences that were being hawked in Jütterbock and Zerbst. A similar conclusion is put forth by Michael A. Mullett in his biography of Luther,

The ambiguous form of words, 'I did not know what the indulgences were...' cannot, of course, mean, 'I did not know what indulgences were', and must therefore mean that Luther was in ignorance about this particular indulgence, itself a slightly implausible claim, given the extraordinary publicity surrounding and running ahead of Friar Tetzel. 

Mullet goes on to say that Luther's claim to not knowing the particular nature of Tetzel's indulgences is "implausible" on account of Tetzel's "extraordinary publicity." At least this author makes a rational historical criticism rather than the myopic contextless literalism employed by the discussion forum Roman Catholic.

Addendum

I did participate in  this discussion. From the time I stepped foot into it, it began to spiral out of bounds of the forum rules, provoking heavy deletions from the moderators, and in one case, a suspension of one of the Roman Catholic participants. There is a sense in which the recounting here of an interaction that occurred elsewhere is unfair.  If one wants to follow what remains of this discussion, the posts (that still remain, some edited by the moderators) from all interested parties occur in this order:

178; 181; 182; 185; 186; 188; 190; 191; 192; 193; 194; 195; 196; 197; 198; 199; 200; 201; 203; 204; 205; 208; 209; 212; 213; 214; 215; 216; 217; 218; 219; 220; 221; 222; 223; 224; 225; 228; 231; 233; 242; 260; 261.

The ultimate argument this defender of Rome appears to be making is that Luther's use of indulgences in the 95 Theses was "merely a convenient excuse to start his own revolt." His Luther is not an honest monk confronting the rampant abuses involved with indulgences. Rather, his Luther was already a deviant predisposed to revolt and simply needed a means to revolt. It does not necessarily follow that the indulgences mentioned in the 95 Theses were simply a means to revolt because Luther knew nothing or something about indulgences. He states, "Indulgences and their abuse were simply a convenient catalyst to begin his revolt. One need merely look at his what is glaringly absent in his Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum, as many of what would become the core tenets of his own religious system were not yet crystallized." This use of "Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum" also does not necessarily follow. Simply because something might be "glaringly absent" does not necessarily mean Luther was plotting to be a revolutionary and simply used indulgences as a means to revolt. I point this out to demonstrate on a presuppositional level, this defender of Rome's Luther appears to be his own concoction. He begins with a deviant man predisposed to revolt and then sifts Luther's writings to fill in what's needed.

Luther Privately Admitted He Was Wrong About the Lord's Supper?

On a discussion board I frequent someone mentioned "a myth which survived for centuries that Luther privately admitted he was wrong about the Supper but didn't want to admit it publicly because people might doubt his other doctrines," and further that "Schaff, a Reformed historian and polemicist, found it necessary or desirable to mention the myth and refute it in the nineteenth century."

These comments coincided with my recent entry, Luther Acknowledged His Errors on the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper? so I was intrigued enough to track down what  Philip Schaff stated. The comments in question appear in either Vol. 6 or 7 of Schaff's History of the Christian Church, "Modern Christianity: The German Reformation" depending on what edition is utilized. Google Books Second Revised Edition of 1916 has the comment at 6:659. After documenting Luther's last attacks on the Sacramentarians and his lifelong adherence to the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper, Schaff states:

In view of these last utterances we must, reluctantly, refuse credit to the story that Luther before his death remarked to Melanchthon: “Dear Philip, I confess that the matter of the Lord’s Supper has been overdone;"(1) and that, on being asked to correct the evil, and to restore peace to the church, he replied: “I often thought of it; but then people might lose confidence in my whole doctrine. I leave the matter in the hands of the Lord. Do what you can after my death." (2)

(1) “Der Sache vom Abendmahl ist viel zu viel gethan."

(2) Hardenberg, a Reformed minister at Bremen (d. 1574), reported such a conversation as coming from the lips of his friend Melanchthon; but Melanchthon nowhere alludes to it. Stahelin (John Calvin, I. 228 sq.) accepts, Kostlin (M.L., II. 627) rejects the report, as resting on some misunderstanding. So also C. Bertheau in the article “Hardenberg” in Herzog’, V. 596 sq. Comp. Diestelmann, Die letzte Unterredung Luthers mit Melanchthon uber den Abendmahlsstreit, Gottingen, 1874; Kostlin’s review of Diestelmann, in the “Studien und Kritiken," 1876, p. 385 sqq.; and Walte in the “Jahrb. fur prot. Theol.," 1883. It is a pity that the story cannot be sufficiently authenticated, for it certainly expresses what ought to have been Luther’s last confession on the subject.

Upon a little further digging I came across more details from The Lutheran Church Review:

DID LUTHER CHANGE HIS VIEW?
Already during Luther's lifetime the rumor was circulated that he had after all abandoned his former view in regard to the Lord's Supper. This caused him to publish one more declaration on the subject in 1544. Besides it was no secret to him that his great associate Melanchthon, “with a dangerous yearning for peace which must have been hollow and transient” (Krauth), had left the position which he had so clearly expressed in the Augsburg Confession of 1530. Moreover, Luther to his greatest indignation heard that one of his former students and housemates, Dévay, had smuggled the Reformed doctrine under his (Luther's) name into Hungary. These and similar provocations caused him to write this last declaration on the subject in the sharpest possible manner. In this “Short Confession” he does not argue; he simply reaffirms in the strongest possible terms his faith in the real presence; he also expresses his total and final separation from the Sacramentarians and their doctrine. “Standing on the brink of the grave and in view of the judgment-seat, he solemnly condemns all enemies of the sacrament wherever they are.” (Schaff). Still before a quarter of a century had passed the rumor again spread that Luther shortly before his death regretted the position he had taken against the Swiss. Hardenberg, a Reformed minister at Bremen, declared under oath that he had heard from the lips of Melanchthon that Luther had requested Melanchthon to come to him, and had then said: “Dear Philip, I confess that the matter of the Lord's Supper has been overdone.”—DerSache vom Abendmahl ist viel zu wicl gethan. And that on being asked to correct the evil he replied: “I often thought of it; but then people might lose confidence in my whole doctrine. I leave the matter in the hands of the Lord. Do what you can after my death.” Melanchthon never quotes such words in his writings or letters. Are they historical or not? Schaff very reluctantly rejects the correctness of the report, but adds in a foot-note: “It is a pity that this story cannot be sufficiently authenticated, for it certainly expresses what ought to have been Luther's last confession on the subject.” Several books and many articles were written on this question. The latest investigation is by Prof. Hausleiter, of Greifswald, in the Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, Vol. 1899. He proves (as we think beyond doubt) by unearthing new and so far unknown material that the words, at least in substance, came from Luther and Melanchthon, but referred to an entirely different subject. He proves that already during Luther's life-time the publication of Luther's collected writings was commenced (the Wittenberg Edition) though the printing of the first volume was not completed until two years after his death. In this first volume also the writings concerning the Sacrament were to be contained. Bucer, who now sided with Luther, desired that the scorching words of Luther referring to him and his miserable tactics (described in Article I.) should be omitted. He did not venture to ask this of Luther himself. but urged his request through the Elector and Melanchthon. Luther at first refused point blank, but a few days before leaving Wittenberg for Eisleben, where he died, consented to permit the change. The words quoted by Hardenberg referred to this omission. For this reason the words were omitted in the first Wittenberg edition. We have clear and very positive declarations of Luther made shortly before his death showing that he was far from abandoning or modifying his conviction in regard to the Lord's Supper. He remained steadfast in his confession unto the end.

That there have been historians that think Luther changed his view can be seen by the following example from Paul Emil Henry's  The Life and Times of John Calvin, the Great Reformer, Volume 2 (1849):

The testimony of Dr. Alesius Scotus, a professor at Leipzig, and the friend of Luther and Melancthon, is well known, and has been often printed. In his answer to Ruard Tapper's defence of the Louvain articles, he says, "They do as if they were ignorant of what Luther said to Philip, ere he set out for his native province, where he died. Philip related it to many, and in various ways, that Luther, unasked, said, 'I own that too much has been done respecting the sacrament:' and when Philip answered, 'Let us then, my good doctor, for the sake of the churches, publish some pacific treatise, in which we may clearly unfold our views'—Luther replied, 'My Philip, I have thought anxiously on this matter; but as I might throw suspicion upon the whole doctrine, I will only commend it to the good care of God. Do you do something after my death.' These words were written down from Melancthon's own mouth." It was the wish of the latter to mention the subject in his testament, but he died too soon. The witness of Dr. Alesius, who had the account from Melancthon himself, is therefore valuable. It seems certain, that as Zwingli had a deeper insight into the sacrament in the latter years of his life, Luther also, a year before his death, was of one faith and of one mind with Calvin. He regarded him as a brother, and viewed his doctrine as fitted to restore union to the distracted church. And as Luther inclined to Calvin, so did Calvin to Luther. He twice declared his assent to the Augsburg Confession, and stated that, in his opinion, the formulary of the Zurich Union contained whatever was found in the Confession.

Luther Acknowledged His Errors on the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper?

Here are two quotes attributed to Luther about Christ's not being present in the Sacraments.

The first is more indirect. Luther purportedly said in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are received by faith (in other words, not literally):

 Of the Cause of the Sacrament.

THE operative cause of this sacrament, is the Word and institution of Christ, who ordained it. The substance is bread and wine; they prefigure the true body and blood of Christ, which is spiritually received by faith; the final cause of instituting the same, is the benefit and the fruit, the strengthening of our faith, not doubting that Christ's body and blood was given and shed for us, and that our sins by Christ's death certainly are forgiven. Now these graces and benefits we have obtained, in that he is our Saviour, our Redeemer and Deliverer; For though in Adam we are altogether sinners and guilty of everlasting death, and condemned; but now, by the blood of Christ, we are justified, redeemed, and sanctified; therefore let us take hold of this by faith.

Along with this, the second quote (from the same source) Luther is recorded as saying the pope forces people to believe in the real presence:

Of the Pope's Proceeding touching the Sacrament.
THE Pope denieth not the sacrament, but he hath stolen from the laity the one part or kind thereof; neither doth he teach the true use of the sacrament. The Pope rejecteth not the Bible, but he persecuteth and killeth upright, good, and godly teachers. Like as the Jews persecuted and slew the Prophets that truly expounded and taught the Scriptures. The Pope Well permitteth the substance and essence of the sacrament and Bible to remain: but yet he will compel and force us to use the same according to his will and pleasure, and will constrain us to believe the falsely feigned and invented Transubstantiation and the real presence. The Pope doth nothing else, but perverteth and abuseth all that God hath commanded and ordained.

Besides my Lutheran readers howling "no way!", what's going on here? Did Luther contradict his well-established view of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament? We'll see below these quotes may have been the result of one man's efforts in the seventeenth century to get a book of Luther's published in England. He appears to have added a few words to the text in order to appease the powers that be. The following is a representation of the research of Gordon Rupp from his book, The Righteousness of God (New York: The Philosophical Library, Inc., 1953), p. 76.

Documentation

Both of these quotes come from the Table Talk. Luther didn't write the Table Talk. It is a collection of second-hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. For these two quotes in the form they are in presented above, they come from the earliest English edition of Luther's Table Talk translated by Captain Henry Bell in 1652: Dris Martini Lutheri Colloquia Mensalia: Or, Dr Martin Luther's Divine Discourses at His Table, etc. The account of how Bell came across Luther's German Table Talk and had it translated into English can be found here.  It is a fantastical story, almost sounding made-up. Preserved Smith's critical study of Luther's Table Talk refers to Bell's account as "such a tissue of mistakes and improbabilities that it is hardly worth serious criticism," and also, "The whole thing has the air of being invented to heighten the interest of the translation." On the contrary though, Gordon Rupp sifted through the details of Bell's story and deems it a plausible account (See Rupp. pp. 56-77).

The Luther quotes occur on page 263 of Bell's translation:

Captain Bell translated these quotes from Aurifaber's edition of the Table Talk, but, as Rupp point out, "Bell's edition corresponds to known edition of Aurifaber" (Rupp, 75). Rupp compares what Bell translated against Aurifaber's 1566 edition (published in Eisleben). The quotes above can be found in German on page 232 of the 1566 Eisleben edition:

A later version of this German  text can be found here (p. 305 for the first quote, p. 306 for the second) The first quote can also be found in WA TR 3:281, including a Latin version, 3354b (p. 280-281). The Latin version is attributed to being recorded by Conrad Cordatus. The second quote can be found in WA TR 3:203.

 Of these texts, note Rupp's analysis on page 76. He mentions that the quote had English words inserted in that are not to be found in the German text of  Aurifaber:

But the most interesting section is the drastic abridgment by Bell of the long section in the original on "Vom Sacrament des Waren Leibs und Blutes Christi," now translated as "Of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper." It will have been noted that the Parliamentary committee which examined Bell's book specially noted that in it Luther had acknowledged "his error which he formerly held touching the real presence corporaliter in coena domini." 

Luther, of course, never did anything of the kind, and as far as I know there is no German edition of the Table Talk in which he makes any such dramatic retraction. It is obvious that this was the price paid by Bell to get his book authorized and published. The two alterations will be found in Bell's edition of Luther's "Divine Discourses" (1652), p.263: 

"Of the cause of the Sacrament of the Altar. 'The operative cause... of this Sacrament is the Word and Institution of Christ who ordained and erected it. The substance is bread and wine, the form is the true body and blood of Christ which is spiritually received by faith."(1)

That could conceivably hold the Lutheran interpretation. The next is more explicit: 

"The Pope well permitteth the substance and essence of The Sacrament and Bible to remain: but yet he will compel and force us to use the same according as his will and pleasure is to describe it, and will constrain us to believe the falsely feigned and invented transubstantiation, and the real presence corporaliter." (2) 

1.TR. (1566) Dieses Sacraments, sprach Dr. Martinus Luther, Ursach ist Das Wort und Einsetzung Christi der es gestifftet und aufgerichtet hat. Die Materia ist Brot und Wein, die Form ist der Ware Leib und Blut Christi, die endliche ursach warurmb es eingesetzt ist der Nutz und Frucht das wir unsern Glauben starcken. 232. 

2. TR. (1566). Was die Substanz und das Wesen belanget, so lasst der Bapst die Sacramente und Bibel bleiben, allein will er uns zwingen das wir derselben Brauch sollen wie er will und zuschreibet. 232.

The sentence about transubstantiation and the real presence has no place in the original. 

Conclusion 
Lest anyone get lost in the details, Rupp is pointing out that in the first quote, the phrase "which is spiritually received by faith" has been inserted into the English text. In the second quote, "and will constrain us to believe the falsely feigned and invented transubstantiation, and the real presence corporaliter" has been inserted into the text. These same insertions were picked up in later English editions of the Table Talk:

Martin Luther's Colloquia Mensalia Vol. 1 (1840), p. 382-383.

The Table Talk or Familiar Discourses... (Hazlitt) (1848), p. 168, 203.

That there was an attempt by Bell to appease the powers that be has corroborating evidence in the prefatory material to Bell's translation. Note these words from the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons in Bell's edition (also mentioned by Preserved Smith):

Dr. White's correct rebuke of Dr. Robert Morey (with update - part 2)

Dr. White's correct rebuke of Dr. Robert Morey on the first 26 minutes of the Dividing Line on December 13, 2016. Also, I included Dr. White's Facebook response. This was very needed as clear communication and needed rebuke of Dr. Morey. He lost his credibility a long time ago. I hope many Muslims will see the proper Christian attitude come through here; and that other Christians will learn to pray for Muslims and learn to witness and reach out to Muslims and stop being afraid of them. https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/dr-whites-correct-rebuke-of-robert-morey/ _______________________ Update: Part 2 of Dr. White's rebuke of Robert Morey.

Lutheran Satire strikes again !

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/funny-contrast-between-english-and-german-christmas-hymns/

Why the Virgin Birth Matters

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/12/08/why-the-virgin-birth-matters/

Luther: The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "The Jews":

"The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves" (Weimar, Vol. 53, Pg. 502.)

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With these quotes, they attempt to show while Christ taught "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," Luther held the opposite in regard to the Jews.


Documentation
Luther Exposing the Myth cites "Weimar, Vol. 53, Pg. 502." It is probable that the quote actually was taken from  Peter F. Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor (1945). Wiener states,

It will be found, at close inspection, that Luther's laws are much more strict, or at least as severe, as those of Hitler. Very often he repeated his order, “The Jews have to be expelled from our country.” Or he gave the Christian advice. “The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves” (W53, 502).

The reference, "W53, 502" is accurate. It's from Luther's treatise, Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On The Jews and Their Lies, 1543). Here is WA 53:502. The text being referred to is lines 8-10 ("Denn ein Wucherer ist ein Ertzdieb und Landreuber, der billich am Galgen sieben mal höher denn andere Diebe hengen solt") from this paragraph:

Von den Juden und ihren Lügen was a response to a letter from Count Schlick of Moravia. The Count had sent Luther a Jewish apologetic pamphlet allegedly containing a Jewish attack against Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and Christian exegesis of the Old Testament. The Count asked Luther to refute it. Unfortunately, this letter and attack have been lost, so we are unaware of the exact tone of argument Luther was responding to. Whatever was in that Jewish writing, Luther erupted in vicious polemic, attacking not only through theology, but also in antagonistic ad hominem as well. Luther moved from his earlier writings of attacking Jewish theology to attacking Jewish people.

This treatise has been translated into English in LW 47. The quote can be found at LW 47:241-242. This treatise was translated "only to make available the necessary documents for scholarly study of this aspect of Luther's thought" and its translation "is in no way intended as an endorsement of the distorted view of the Jewish faith and practice or the defamation of the Jewish people which this treatise contains" (LW 47:123).

Context

If they were not so stone-blind, their own vile external life would indeed convince them of the true nature of their penitence. For it abounds with witchcraft, conjuring signs, figures, and the tetragrammaton of the name, that is, with idolatry, envy, and conceit. Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security. For a usurer is an arch-thief and a robber who should rightly be hanged on the gallows seven times higher than other thieves. Indeed, God should prophesy about such beautiful penitence and merit from heaven through his holy angel and become a flagrant, blasphemous liar for the sake of the noble blood and circumcised saints who boast of being hallowed by God’s commandments, although they trample all of them under foot and do not keep one of them [LW 47:241-242].

The context shows Luther was totally convinced of the medieval stereotype of the Jews as thieves, in this context, because of the practice of usury. The editors of Luther’s Works explain,

The practice of usury, in the simple sense of the taking of interest on loans (without any connotation of exorbitant rates), is prohibited in such texts as Exod. 22:25, Lev. 25:35 ff., and Deut. 23:19 f., but only with respect to fellow Israelites. The Deuteronomy text is the most explicit with regard to dealings with others: “To a foreigner you may lend upon interest, but to your brother you shall not lend upon interest” (23:20). The practice of usury was strictly forbidden to Christians by the medieval church, but permitted to Jews. They prohibition began to break down during the Reformation period; Luther himself, however, steadfastly maintained the medieval position [LW 47: 169 (footnote 31)].

Even if Luther was right that the Jews practiced some sort of usury, the situation during the sixteenth century was not as simple as Luther makes it out. Eric Gritsch explains,

In a sermon of 1519, Luther joined the discussion on the use and abuse of money-lending, linked to the practice of "usury." Jews were accused of usury. But the charge was linked to an arrangement between Christian princes and Jewish merchants: the Christian political authorities permitted Jews to charge interest rates, but also made the Jews pay considerable sums for protection. It was a form of pawn-broking or of retail trade. Jewish traders offered discount prices, and Christian artisans complained about being cheated, using popular anti-Semitic rhetoric. Roman Catholic Canon Law prohibited usury, referring to Luke 6:35 ("lend, expecting nothing in return") [Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism, Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eermans, 2012), p. 57].

Conclusion
In Luther studies there have been a number of researchers who conclude Luther's later anti-Jewish tracts were written from a position different than current anti-semitism. Luther was born into a society that was anti-Judaic, but it was not the current anti-Judaic type of society that bases it racism on biological factors. Luther had no objections to integrating converted Jews into Christian society. He had nothing against Jews as “Jews.” He had something against their religion because he believed it denied and blasphemed Christ. If one frames the issues with these two categories (anti-semitism, anti-Judaic), Luther was not Anti-semitic. The contemporary use of the word "anti-semitism" though does not typically consider its distinction from anti-Judaism. The word now has a more broad meaning including anti-Judaism. The current debate centers around whether the evolved use of the term is a significant step towards describing previous history or if it's setting up an anachronistic standard for evaluating previous history [see my entry here in regard to Eric Gritsch]. As I've looked at this issue from time to time, I'm beginning to think more along the lines of evaluating Luther with the current understanding of the word anti-semitism.

I don't have anything to gain by an exoneration of Luther's obvious societal stereotype against the Jews. Luther was not infallible. He said a number of things ranging on the scale of brilliant to typical to ridiculous to offensive. From my perspective, Luther's theology neither stands nor falls because of statements on the negative side of the scale. It's my opinion that Luther's attitude toward the Jews is part of Church history, and, to point a finger at Luther one needs to consistently point the fingers beyond Luther as well. This would be the consistent thing to do. There are though a number of Rome's cyber-defenders that think the Third Reich began with Luther and think posting Luther's dreadful comments from The Jews and Their Lies is a meaningful argument against Protestantism. Consider what Luther, Exposing the Myth states:

While I leave to the reader to draw his own conclusions, it suffices to say that what Luther really was; and the picture that is presented of him today by modern scholars, Lutherans and Protestants alike is far from the truth. Given this fact, it’s not difficult to see how a nation like Germany was able to blindly follow a person like Hitler if it had previously so readily embrace a person like Luther. Adolf Hitler himself was indeed no doubt a true (spiritual) son of Luther and in many ways was only being logical to the principles set forth by Luther in his approach to things. Hitler himself declared the reality of this point in one of his speeches saying: “I do insist on the certainty that sooner or later – once we hold power – Christianity will be overcome and the German Church established. Yes, the German church, without a Pope and without the bible, and Luther, if he could be with us, would give us his blessing.”

Despite the slander against the nation of Germany (as if there is something intrinsically wrong with them), it's simply illogical to think Luther invented Jewish oppression and that the church collectively didn't play it's part in creating the anti-Judaic culture Luther lived in. If Luther's spiritual son was Hitler, whose spiritual son is Luther? Nope, many of Rome's cyber-defenders won't touch that one. The story of Luther's negativity towards the Jews is really to tell the story of medieval Christianity and medieval society's negativity towards the Jews.

Intro lecture on "The Canon" by Dr. Micheal Kruger and the whole course

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/12/07/intro-lecture-to-the-canon-by-dr-michael-kruger-phd/

Excellent analysis of Irenaeus and Roman Catholic claims

Timothy Kauffman has a series entitled "The Visible Apostolicity of the Invisibly Shepherded Church"   ( a series of 8 articles)

I have read Part 5 which deals with Irenaeus and the Roman Catholic claims of Papal authority.

It is very good. I learned a lot of new valuable information about Irenaeus and church history.

I also read Part 1, which is very good also.  Tim has done a lot of work and provided a lot of great information at his web-site/blog.  I wish I had time to fully digest more of it.

I encourage everyone to check out his material on this 8 part series and the one below.

See the links to each of the 8 articles at Apologetics and Agape.

This is also very good in dealing with Mary and the lack of any evidence in the early Patristic sources on Mary's sinlessness or Immaculate conception.

Luther: "Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger!"

Here's an obscure Luther quote in regard to Luther's Mariology:  "Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger!" This one most often is cited by Rome's defenders attempting to demonstrate "Luther was extraordinarily devoted to Mary." Contrary to this, one can also find odd Protestant websites citing it against Luther for the same reason. For instance, this website uses it to demonstrate "Martin Luther worshipped [sic] Mary until his death," while on page 64 of this PDF "exposing" Reformed theology (not Lutheran!) the quote is included among a litany of context-less shock-value quotes.  Between these two extremes, making the same point, here's a Lutheran pastor citing it along with numbing qualifiers like "Luther was very catholic in his faith and piety and, though some of this changed or diminished slightly by the end of his life..."

What does it mean to say, "the Hail Mary"?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the Hail Mary (or Ave Maria) as a prayer to Mary:

Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death: By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the "Mother of Mercy," the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender "the hour of our death" wholly to her care. May she be there as she was at her son's death on the cross. May she welcome us as our mother at the hour of our passing to lead us to her son, Jesus, in paradise. (2677)

Whatever nuances a Roman Catholic may want to add to this, the bottom line is that for Rome, the Hail Mary is a prayer for Mary's intercession. In Roman Catholic practice it is not simply an occasional prayer, it's intended to be a daily and spiritually important religious exercise. When Luther says "Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger," is he advocating praying to Mary? Is he saying that someone with a strong "faith" can pray to Mary? If one were to simply take the quote in question at face value, that's what Luther appears to be saying. We'll see below this is not the case.


Documentation
As far as I can tell, the quote found its way to cyberspace originally in a sparse form like this:

"Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation" (Sermon, March 11, 1523).

The documentation provided refers simply to "Sermon, March 11, 1523."  The form of the quote and documentation make it likely it was originally taken from an article by William J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies 1970). Cole cites the quote verbatim to the way presented above:

Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation (WA 11, 61, 25 to 32) [William J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies 1970), p. 188].

Most likely Cole is responsible for the English translation of the quote in the popular form it is in. It appears that, for some unknown reason, whoever originally introduced this quote into cyberspace ignored the documentation Cole provided. Cole cites WA 11, 61, 25 to 32. This refers to seven lines from Luther's sermon of March 11, 1523, Predigt über Das Ave Maria. Here are lines 25 to 32 on page 61:

It is often the case that the primary text for Luther's sermons are not from the pen of Luther. Rather, a large number of  these sermons are the result of those who took shorthand Latin notes with German words mixed in while listening to him preach. The sermons were then adapted into a readable form. The wonders of the Internet never cease to amaze: this appears to be the actual copy of  Rörer's handwritten notes for this sermon.

To my knowledge, this sermon is not available in English. The interesting thing though about Cole's citation is the multiple-page detailed overview he gives of this particular sermon and Luther's understanding of the Ave Maria in general.  Below we'll examine the context of Cole's article, and in doing so, we'll notice that whoever originally took the quote from Cole's article did so by ignoring crucial qualifiers in the context.

The Context of William Cole's Article
Cole begins his exposition of Luther and The Hail Mary on page 183. He works through the subject in Luther's writings chronologically. He notes that by 1522, Luther "becomes more cautious about the Hail Mary" (p. 184). In a sermon on the Feast of the Annunciation, Luther says the Hail Mary is "no prayer... we cannot make out of the Hail Mary either a prayer or invocation, for it does not seem right to us that we should give these words a wider meaning than the Holy spirit Himself has given." Cole summarizes Luther:

Then Luther becomes practical. He claims that we make use of the Hail Mary in two ways: 1) as a meditation inasmuch as we recall the graces which God has given Mary and 2) as an expression of our desire that she would be recognized on this account by every man and be held in respect [WA 17 (2), 409, 8 to 17)]. Once he had adopted this position, he seems never to have abandoned it. (Cole, p. 184).

Cole goes on to document another writing from the same year, Luther's Little Prayer Book. Cole cites Luther saying,

No one blasphemes this Mother and her fruit so much as those who bless her with many rosaries and who have the Hail Mary always in the mouth, for these are the very persons who blaspheme the Word of God and the faith to the greatest degree! (Cole, p. 185).

Cole then explains,

Then Luther gives his own view of how the hail Mary should be used. He claims that there are two ways of really blessing this Mother and her fruit — a way according to the flesh and one according to the spirit. The former way, he points out, is "with the mouth and words of the Hail Mary" and this way he refers to as "blasphemy". But the second way, the spiritual way, is with the heart by which "I praise and bless her child Christ in all His words, works, and sorrows. this no one does unless he believes correctly, for without such a faith no heart is good, but us by nature full of curses and blasphemies against God and His holy ones" [WA 17 (2), 409, 8 to 17)] (Cole, p. 185-186).

Cole then cites Luther's conclusion to this by saying it's confusing because Luther does not seem to be excluding the Hail Mary as a prayer:

Therefore, if one does not believe, he should be advised to leave the Hail Mary and all prayers alone, for of such persons, it is written: "His prayer must be sinful" —(Psalm 109:7) [WA 10 (2), 408, 13 to 409, 22; 17 (2), 409, 8 to 410, 12] (Cole, p. 186).

 It is here where Cole begins his exposition of Luther's sermon from March 11, 1523.

Perhaps Luther's meaning becomes clearer in a sermon that he preached on March 11, 1523. It has come down to us in a shortened Latin version. The contents of the sermon, inasmuch as they relate to the Hail Mary, are very interesting. Luther mentions that a Christian must know three things: the Ten Commandments, the faith (the Apostles Creed), the Our Father. He then makes mention of the Hail Mary and gives as his reason for doing so that he does not wish to pass over it, since it is in use, but unfortunately, for the most part, has been abused. He then explains his point:

"Mary should be honored, but Christ should not be neglected because of this. We must again return to the right track. Christ has done everything for us. It cannot be said of Mary: "I believe in you"; that would be a blasphemy against God. This honor belongs to God alone, for we have no other mediator, neither Mary, nor the Apostles and the Prophets. This is the right faith—that we come to the Father through Christ. If Mary had not had this faith, she would not have been blessed. To keep this faith inviolate we must all be on our guard against honoring Mary too much."

He then complains of the common teaching of Mary as mediatrix which is accompanied by the portrayal of Christ as a strict Judge whom Mary renders gracious. He returns to his description of the Hail Mary and advises us that:

"It were best that the Hail Mary should entirely be laid aside because of the abuses connected with it. It is no prayer; it is a formula of praise (Lobpreis). When we think of it in this way, we use it correctly, but this is not the custom. Man prays in order to attain something." 

He then proceeds to point out that Mary is on the same level as we are, in support of his contention that we really should not pray to her: 

"We are brothers and sisters of Mary; we call her Mistress of the world, Queen of the Heavens. She is bodily virgin and is adorned with more gifts, but these are exterior advantages; in spiritual things, she is not better than we since she has no other Christ, no other Gospel, than we have. I would wish that the Marian cult were removed alone because of the misuse" [WA 11, 59f.].

This famous statement of Luther's must be seen in its context. It certainly cannot be used to support any contention that Luther purely and simply wanted to destroy the Marian cult, For in the same sermon he goes on to declare that the Marian cult must be dealt with in such a way that we remain in the faith and serve our neighbors, because nothing is perfected except through a firm belief in God and love of neighbor. He then concludes:

"Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation" [WA 11, 61, 25 to 32].

Five years later (1528) Luther declares of the Hail Mary:

"It is a great text, because the Mother is blessed and even more, because the Son is such a great child. Still there is no one on earth who truly prays the Hail Mary. Whoever once rightly prays it, prays it more often. But it was prayed perversely, just as the hypocritical Jews prayed so often, but perversely" [WA 27, 232, 17 to 23 — July 21, 1528] (Cole, p. 186-188).

Conclusion
One of Rome's defenders argues that the quote under scrutiny demonstrates Luther is "only forbidding a use of Marian devotions apart from heartfelt faith." Is this so according to Cole's overview? If in Roman Catholicism the Hail Mary is fundamentally a prayer to Mary, that's not what Luther had in mind when he is recorded as saying, "Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger." Luther explicitly says, "It is no prayer." Note Luther's words above, "she is not better than we since she has no other Christ, no other Gospel, than we have." For Luther, one could praise God for the gifts given to Mary, but praying to her, or using her as an intercessor was not spiritually appropriate. When Luther states, "Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation," the implications are those who pray to Mary or view her as any sort of intercessor, or pray to her in order to obtain something are those who utter the Hail Mary with danger to their salvation.

One interesting aspect brought out by Cole is Luther's attempt to present the Hail Mary in an evangelical context. Luther was not a radical reformer. He seems to have realized how ingrained the Hail Mary was in the tradition of the church and sought to allow for its use with a different meaning poured in. Martin Brecht point out, "Something new was his interpretation of the Ave Maria, which was intended to put an end to the practice of praying the rosary. In Mary, the only thing to be praised and honored is God and what he did in her" [Brecht, Martin Luther, Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 1521-1522, p. 120].

 Luther says in his Personal Prayer Book:

You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor. Similarly there is no petition in the first words of the Lord’s Prayer but rather praise and glorification that God is our Father and that he is in heaven. Therefore we should make the Hail Mary neither a prayer nor an invocation because it is improper to interpret the words beyond what they mean in themselves and beyond the meaning given them by the Holy Spirit (LW 43:39).

He goes on to suggest that while one shouldn't use it as a prayer, "we can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her [as one blessed by God] (LW 43:39-40). He adds, "...[I]n the present no one speaks evil of this Mother and her Fruit as much as those who bless her with many rosaries and constantly mouth the Hail Mary. These, more than any others, speak evil against Christ’s word and faith in the worst way [LW 43:40]. Those who pray "with lips and the words of the Hail Mary; such persons blaspheme and speak evil of her most dangerously" [LW 43:40].

Instead of abandoning the Hail Mary, Luther allowed it as a form of meditation and a way to praise God, even though "It were best that the Hail Mary should entirely be laid aside because of the abuses connected with it." If it has to be used at all, this is how one uses it correctly with a "good (firm) faith," as a contemplative meditation.  In his sermon on the Feast of the Annunciation, he compared meditating on it in the same way one would meditate on the magnificence of creation: one thanks God for the splendid glory of creation, one could also praise God for the mother who brought the messiah into the world.   He says also, "We cannot make of the 'Ave Maria' either a petition or a call for help to Mary for these words must say nothing more than what they actually say and what the Holy Ghost has established" [Joel Basely, The Festival Sermons of Martin Luther (Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005) p. 284-285 ].

Addendum #1: Luther's Form of the Hail Mary vs. Its Contemporary Form 
This author asserts that the form of the Hail Mary in Luther's Prayer Book was, "Hail, Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen." He contrasts this to its contemporary wording: "Hail, Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of death. Amen." This makes sense as to why Luther did not overtly reject the Ave Maria but rather reinterpreted it.

Addendum #2: Rome's Defenders React to Luther's Interpretation of the Hail Mary

Like his other writings, Luther’s Personal Prayer Book was subjected to attack. In 1524 Christoph von Schwarzenberg published a pamphlet branding Luther’s book as a subtle mixture of poison with much that was good. He charged that Luther disparaged the prayers of Christians in the past and encouraged moral laxity (e.g., one was to observe the Sixth Commandment “as much as possible”). Schwarzenberg contended that Luther taught that all would be saved, even the devils, because they believe in God. However his main objection was Luther’s evangelical interpretation of the Hail Mary, which was bound to offend many who were accustomed to, the cult of the Virgin. Shortly thereafter, in 1525, Christoph’s father Johan Schwarzenberg attacked his son’s criticisms in a book himself, and a lengthy debate ensued between son and father, attacking and defending Luther’s Personal Prayer Book. [LW 43:9-10]

Addendum #3 (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2009. 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.