Luther: The Gospel Made Things Worse Than Before

Here's an obscure Luther quote used by a defender of Roman Catholicism. It is used as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism":

Everyone now complains that the gospel causes much unrest, . . . and since it has come up, everything is worse than ever before. (In Denifle, ibid., 25. Luther quote from Werke, Erlangen edition, 43, 63)(link).

The quote is documented to Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denifle. Denifle uses this quote to show Luther considered his followers had become worse due to his preaching and teaching. Denifle cites Luther stating: "Therefore it is that everyone now complains that the gospel causes much unrest, bickering and disordered conduct, and, since it has come up, everything is worse than ever before," etc. [link]. Why Denifle's Luther quote was cited with the removal of "bickering and disordered conduct" is anyone's guess. Note this other difference as well: For the defender of Rome the quote serves as proof Luther agonized over the state of Protestantism. For Denifle, the quote proves Luther thought those who accepted his teaching were morally worse (two Roman Catholics, two different interpretations of a historical source).

Another old Roman Catholic writer also cites this quote, Johannes Janssen, in History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages, Volume 5. It appears among a variety of quotes strung together from two different sources (and different pages!) to present yet another picture of Luther:

The attachment of the people to Luther's doctrine was no greater than to his person. 'They say nowadays,' wrote Luther in the year before the Augsburg Diet,'"Ah, yes, the monks used to sing, and pray, and fast a great deal; and they did all this for the honour and glory of God. That sort of thing pleases the common people hugely. They cannot restrain themselves from applauding it."' But the people went much further than this. ' They accuse us of being rebels,' exclaimed Luther, 'of having destroyed the unity of the Church, and of being the authors of all the evils of the day.' 'Formerly, under the papacy,' so went the popular cry, 'things were not so bad. But now, since these teachers have come, there is nothing but disaster —famine, war, and the Turk.' 'Many are saying, Peace is at an end; the world is topsy-turvy; men are confused and bewildered in spirit; religion is going to the dogs; there is no reverence for God; obedience to law is a thing of the past. What good has come out of the Gospel? Everything was formerly in far better state.' Shortly after the close of the Diet of Augsburg Luther made the avowal: 'Everybody is now complaining and crying out that the Gospel has brought much discontent, wrangling, and disorderly living into the world, and that everything is in worse condition since its introduction than before, when things ran smoothly and there was no persecution, and people lived peacefully together, like good friends and neighbours.' The people would willingly drive him, 'together with the Gospel'— to wit, his peculiar tenets— 'sheer out of the country, or else starve him to death.' On the other hand the people clung so tenaciously to the ways of the old Church that Luther declared : 'Were I so disposed I am confident that with two or three sermons I could easily preach my people back into popery and re-establish pilgrimages and Masses.' ' I know for certain that here in Wittenberg you shall scarcely find ten men whom I could not seduce if I returned to practise the sanctity "which I practised in popery when I was a monk.' [link]

For Janssen, the quote serves to show the people were angry with Luther, and this provoked Luther to sarcastically say, "Were I so disposed I am confident that with two or three sermons I could easily preach my people back into popery and re-establish pilgrimages and Masses." Thus, three different Roman Catholics, three different pictures of Luther!

Documentation
The documentation provied is "Werke, Erlangen edition, 43, 63." This reference is to the Erlangen edition of Luther's works. It is usually referred to as EA. 1826-1857. Sometimes this set is referred to as "Dr. M. Luthers Samtliche Werke" or "E". The set includes German and Latin writings from Luther. Volume 43 can be found here.  Here is page 63, and the paragraph the quote comes from:

This text is from Luther's comments on the Sermon on the Mount (found also in WA 32: 299-544). The clue given by Janssen is that Luther made the statement in question "Shortly after the close of the Diet of Augsburg." This would place the statement around 1530. Luther was continually writing and preaching. Around this time he was preaching from the book of Matthew, and it's from a sermon this quote was taken from. Technically speaking, Luther did not write the paragraph cited above. It is the result of those who heard Luther preach and took notes, then transcribing the material into a written form. LW 21 states that there is uncertainty as to exactly who took down the notes to these sermons from Luther.  Note the caution expressed by the English edition of Luther's works:

Because the evolution of the work from the pulpit to the appearance of the finished commentary is so completely obscure, a certain amount of caution is necessary in referring to it as a source for our understanding of Luther’s thought. We cannot be sure whether the editor or editors, whoever they may have been, took certain liberties with the text of Luther’s sermons as delivered. We know that this happened with other works (cf. Introduction to Vol. 1 of Luther’s Works). At the same time, there seems to be no warrant for the extreme skepticism of certain scholars regarding the reliability of this commentary. There are many parallels throughout Luther’s works for most of the ideas and many of the terms that appear here. (LW 21: xx-xxi)

Luther's sermons on Matthew 5 can be found translated into English in LW 21.The quote comes from Luther's comments on 5:11-12 (particularly verse 12), "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." See for yourself if the context justifies the conclusions of the Roman apologist, Denifle, and Janssen.


Context

These are really sweet and comforting words. They should gladden and encourage our hearts against all kinds of persecution. Should not the dear Lord’s Word and comfort be dearer and more important to us than that which comes from a helpless bag of worms, or the rage, threats, excommunication, curses, and lightning of the miserable pope, even though he deluged us with the very dregs and the whole hell of his wrath and cursing? For I hear my Lord Christ telling me that He is truly delighted, and commanding me to be happy about it. In addition, He promises me such a wonderful reward: the kingdom of heaven shall be mine and everything that Christ has, together with all the saints and all Christendom—in short, such a treasure and comfort that I should not trade it for all the possessions, joy, and music in the whole world, even though all the leaves and all the blades of grass were tongues singing my praises. This is not a Christian calling me “blessed,” nor even an angel, but the Lord of all the angels, before whom they and all the creatures must kneel and adore. With all the other creatures, therefore, with the leaves and the grass, they must cheerfully sing and dance in my honor and praise.

And those who slander and curse me, what are they by comparison but nits and lousy paunches—if you will pardon the expression—so shameful that there is no name for them. If every creature, the leaves and the blades of grass in the forest and the sand on the shore, were all tongues to accuse and destroy them, what would all that be in comparison with a single word of this Man? His voice sounds clear enough to fill heaven and earth and to echo through them, silencing the slobbering coughs and the hoarse scratching of His enemies.

You see, that is how we should learn something about using these words for our benefit. They are not put here for nothing, but were spoken and written for our strengthening and comfort. By them our dear Master and faithful Shepherd, or Bishop, arms us. Then we shall be unafraid and ready to suffer if for His sake they lay all kinds of torment and trouble upon us in both words and deeds, and we shall despise whatever is offensive to us, even though contrary to our own reason and heart.

For if we cling to our own thoughts and feelings, we are dismayed and hurt to learn that for our service, help, counsel, and kindness to the world and to everyone we should get no thanks except the deepest and bitterest hatred and cursed, poisonous tongues. If flesh and blood were in charge here, it would soon say: “If I am to get nothing else out of this, then let anyone who wants to, stick with the Gospel and be a Christian! The world can go to the devil for help if that is what it wants!” This is the reason for the general complaint and cry that the Gospel is causing so much conflict, strife, and disturbance in the world and that everything is worse since it came than it was before, when things moved along smoothly, when there was no persecution, and when the people lived together like good friends and neighbors.

But here is what it says: “If you do not want to have the Gospel or be a Christian, then go out and take the world’s side. Then you will be its friend, and no one will persecute you. But if you want to have the Gospel and Christ, then you must count on having trouble, conflict, and persecution wherever you go.” Reason: because the devil cannot bear it otherwise, nor will he stop egging people on against the Gospel, so that all the world is incensed against it. Thus at the present time peasants, city people, nobles, princes, and lords oppose the Gospel from sheer cussedness, and they themselves do not know why.

So this is what I say in reply to these idle talkers and grumblers: “Things neither can nor should run peacefully and smoothly. How could things run smoothly, when the devil is in charge and is a mortal enemy of the Gospel? There is good reason for this, too, since it hurts him in his kingdom, where he can feel it. If he were to let it go ahead unhindered, it would soon be all over and his kingdom would be utterly destroyed. But if he is to resist it and hinder it, he must rally all his art and power and arouse everything in his might against it. So do not hope for any peace and quiet so long as Christ and His Gospel are in the midst of the devil’s kingdom. And woe upon the peaceful and smooth situation that used to be, and upon those who would like to have it back! This is a sure sign that the devil is ruling with all his might and that no Christ is there. I am worried that it may be this way again and that the Gospel may be taken away from us Germans all too soon, which is just what these rioters are struggling for now.”

But we have the assurance that it is not our fault when there is trouble. It would give us heartfelt joy if everything went right. We have done our share. We have been teaching, warning, pleading, beseeching, and giving in, even to our enemies, offering them peace, and doing everything we should do. We have given help and counsel with all our might, at our own risk and disadvantage, tolerating what we should. Yet all we accomplish is shameful and poisonous persecution, slander, and abuse from men who will not stop till they have cooled their rage in our blood. Since the situation will never be different, we let them go ahead with their threatenings, fury, and blasphemy, and hold on to the comfort we have heard. We are sure that they cannot accomplish what they desire until they first topple Christ from heaven and make a liar out of Him, with all that He has said. [LW 21:50-52].

Conclusion
Once again, the context doesn't validate anything any of these three Roman Catholic writers claim: The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism," that Luther thought those who accepted his teaching were morally worse,  that the quote serves to show the people were angry with Luther. Rather, Luther's comments are in regard to persecution. Luther understood that the Gospel would cause societal and personal hardship and strife. Contrary to Rome's interpreters, what we find is something quite different when the quote is put back into its context. Remember, truth never fears a context, only propaganda does.

Addendum (2016)
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.

Luther: People are Worse Than They Were Under The Papacy

Here's a point about the evils of the Reformation substantiated by a quote from Luther. The following is found in Catholic apologist Steve Ray's book, Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church, footnote #97 on page 65-66:

According to Mr. Ray, Luther admitted his teaching made people worse, not provoking anyone to holiness. This is a typical charge. It is argued by many of Rome's defenders that Luther was vexed and agonized that his teaching made things worse. If Luther's teachings really were from God, wouldn't truth make people better? Another defender pf Rome cites it on his blog and also in his book Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic (2007), p. 92. He uses it as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism."

Documentation and Sources
Mr. Ray and friends cited Luther via Heinrich Denifle's Luther and Lutherdom.  Volume 1 is being cited, not volume 2 (this may be a scan error). To my knowledge, volume 2 has never been translated into English. Also, unless it's a different edition used by Mr Ray, the quote does not appear on page 47, but on page 25. Also note the quote Denifle's use of the quote is longe than that cited by Mr. Ray:

Even in 1523, he had to acknowledge that he and his followers were become worse than they had been formerly, This he later repeats. "The world by this teaching becomes only the worse, the longer it exists; that is the work and business of the malign devil. As one sees, the people are more avaricious, less merciful, more immodest, bolder and worse than before under the Papacy." (p.25)

Denifle uses this quote to prove Luther "had to acknowledge that he and his followers were become worse than they had been formerly." Out of all the quotes I've looked at over the years, this one has a rich history of usage, and appears to have been very popular with older Roman Catholic apologetic works. I found at least a dozen or more older Roman Catholic authors using it, with many differing English translations.

This quote is available from two primary English sources. It's from a 1533 sermon (not 1523) that was written down by two people who heard it: Veit Dietrich and Georg Roerer. Dietrich's account can be found in Dr. Martin Luther's House-Postil, in the First Sunday in Advent sermon (Matthew 21:1-9). Roerer's version can be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 5 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 25-30. Both accounts are very similar, except that Dietrich's is longer, containing additional material at the end. Scholars say Roerer's transcriptions are more exact and trustworthy (see p.15 of The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 5 for more information).

This sermon wasn't preached at church to the general public. It was preached to his close circle of friends, family, and a few others at Luther's residence. The text of the sermon was Matthew 21:1-9. If you haven't read any of Luther's sermons, this would be a good one to begin with.

Context
Luther first explains how the Jews expected a grand powerful king, not a meek man riding on a donkey. They expected a man of might and power like all earthly rulers. A king who could provide earthly riches and power, thrusting the Jews to a powerful place over all the nations. Rather, this man on a donkey had a different power: the forgiveness of sin and everlasting life:

For we are all poor sinners, but in baptism, and afterwards in our whole life, if we turn unto Christ, He comforts us, and says: Give me your sins and take my righteousness and holiness; let your death be taken from you, and put on my life. This is, properly speaking, the Lord Jesus' government. For all His office and work is this, that He daily takes away our sin and death, and clothes us with His righteousness and life.

Luther explains that a king with such extraordinary gifts should be most coveted, yet it is not:

"This announcement we should indeed hear with great joy, and every one should thereby be bettered and made more holy. But alas, the contrary is true, and the world grows worse as it grows older, becoming the very Satan himself, as we see that the people are now more dissolute, avaricious, unmerciful, impure and wicked than previously under the papacy." [Dietrich''s version]

"We must certainly receive this message eagerly and gratefully, by it becoming more pious and godly. Unfortunately there's the opposite side, that by this teaching the world becomes more and more hostile, wicked, and malicious; yet not through the fault of the teaching but of the people, thanks to the pernicious devil and death. Today people are possessed by seven devils, whereas before it was only one. The devil now bulldozes the people so that even under the bright light of the gospel they become greedier, slyer, more covetous, crueler, lewder, more insolent and ill-tempered than before under the papacy." [Roerer's version]

Notice in Roerer's version, Luther doesn't blame his teaching, but the people and ultimately Satan.
Luther goes on to say:

What causes this? Nothing else than that the people disregard this preaching, do not use it aright for their own conversion and amendment, that is, for the comfort of their conscience, and thankfulness for the grace and benefit of God in Christ; but every one is more concerned for money and goods, or other worldly matters, than for this precious treasure which Christ brings us. For the most of us, when we do not feel our misery, the fear of sin and death, would rather, like the Jews, have such a king in Christ as would give us riches and ease here on earth, than that we should comfort ourselves in Him in the midst of poverty, crosses, wretchedness, fear and death. The world takes no delight in this, and because the gospel and Christ do not give it what it desires, it will have nothing to do with Christ and the gospel.[Dietrich's version]

"Why so? Not through fault of the teaching but because the message is not met with thankful acceptance; people cast it to the wind and pay more attention to money and goods than to the blessed treasure which our Lord Christ brings to us." [Roerer's version]

In harmony with his earlier points, he explains people seek after earthly riches, not heavenly riches. Most people want the same powerful king the Jews expected, not the foolishness of Christ. With a pastoral heart, Luther warns:

Therefore our Lord in turn rebukes this world and says: Do you not rejoice in this, nor thank me, that through the sufferings and death of my only begotten Son, I take away your sins and death? Then I will give you sin and death enough, since you want it so; and where you were possessed of and tormented by only one devil, you shall now be tormented by seven that are worse. We see farmers, citizens and all orders, from the highest to the lowest, guilty of shameful avarice, inordinate life, impurity and other vices. Therefore let every one who would be a Christian be hereby warned as of God himself, joyfully and thankfully to hear and receive this announcement, and also pray to God to give him a strong faith, that he may hold fast this doctrine; then surely the fruit will follow, that he will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people.

Luther states those who accept this gospel will have fruit follow and "will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people." Then there are those who will not accept the gospel:

But those who will not gladly receive it, become seven times worse than they were before they heard it, as we see everywhere. And the hour will surely come when God will punish this unthankfulness. Then it will appear what the world has merited by it. Now, since the Jews would not obey the prophet, it is told to us that our King comes meek and lowly, in order that we may learn wisdom from their sad experience, and not be offended by His poverty, nor look for worldly pomp and riches, like the Jews; but learn that in Christ we have a King who is the Just One and Savior, and willing to help us from sin and eternal death. This announcement, I say, we should receive with joy, and with hearty thanks to God, else we must take the devil, with walling, weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Conclusion
I have to question exactly what Denifle was reading when he concluded that Luther's followers were worse because of the gospel. In context, it's the world which grows worse because of the gospel being preached. Those who accept the gospel are transformed by the gospel. Luther consistently held that the gospel would find great opposition, and would be attacked from all sides. The gospel would be used by the world as a license to sin and all sorts of evil because of Satan. The gospel would indeed make those of the world worse.

Steve Ray butchered the citation by leaving out the fact that Luther blamed the devil for people being worse. He actually took a quote being misused by Denifle, and added his own error to it. Why would there be an outbreak of holiness by those who hate the gospel already?

Was this quote an example of Luther agonizing over the state of early Protestantism as the Romanist claims in a published book? Hardly. Once again, these guys should read something in context before publishing.

Steve Ray Sells Luther?

Here's an irony that TurretinFan and I put together. Steve Ray was selling the Collected Works of Martin Luther on his website, I kid you not. I suggested a few days ago perhaps Steve Ray buy this product from himself and at least cite Luther accurately. Tfan added, "It's amusing the Leo X tried to stop Luther's work from being sold and Steve Ray actively promotes it - yet claims to be on the "same side" as Leo X."

Lo and behold.... now Steve Ray isn't selling it anymore, unless I've got my URL's wrong, or he moved it around. See for yourself:

http://www.steveraysstore.com/collected-works-of-martin-luther.html

Whoops, our bad....The page you requested was not found, and we have a fine
guess why.
•If you typed the URL directly, please make sure the spelling is
correct.
•If you clicked on a link to get here, the link is outdated.
What can you do?Have no fear, help is near! There are many ways you can get
back on track.•Go back to the previous page.•Use the search bar at the top of
the page to search for your products.•Follow these links to get you back on
track!

Was this just a coincidence? I think not. It appears while traveling the world, Mr. Ray had a sudden change of heart about selling the works of Martin Luther. Luther's Works was also removed from his page of software for sale. Also the store search page returned no hits for "Luther".

Thanks for reading Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics, Mr. Ray.

Is transubstantiation a Monophysite doctrine?

CrimsonCatholic and Perry Robinson participated a few months ago in a fairly technical but somewhat interesting discussion at David Waltz's blog.
CrimsonCatholic made a very interesting statement:

The key feature of Chalcedonian theology is that Christ's nature is exactly the same as ours, so what happens to the human nature in Christ happens to everyone who is "in Christ Jesus" (to use St. Paul's term) by grace, including the sharing of the divine glory.

I'd like to ask a few questions, if we're going to take this consistently with the rest of our theology.
So Christ's nature is exactly the same as mine. My nature is human. Part of being human (as opposed to being divine) is to be limited to a particular physical location at any one time, is it not? My body cannot be in more than one place at any one time. That's obvious.

Now, Christ Himself, at the time of His Incarnation, took upon Himself a human nature and a physical body. At the time of His Resurrection, His body became glorified and immortal; He doesn't necessarily have blood anymore, but He retains flesh and physical tangibility, among other properties. He can perhaps walk through walls, or perhaps not; John 20 simply says, "when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, 'Peace be with you.'" Maybe He created a key and let Himself in; maybe He knocked and they let Him in; maybe He passed through the door via "teleportation"; the text does not tell us. Obviously He can perform miracles such as walking on water and perhaps passing through walls, disappearing right in front of two disciples at dinnertime on the road to Emmaus, etc, but we never see Christ in more than one place at any one time.

CCC 1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."

1379 The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood. . . ."

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

On any given Sunday, or really most any day of the week, Mass is performed at thousands of churches across the globe. On any given Sunday morning, to be sure, the Eucharistic host is transubstantiated in multiple locations, at the same time. How well does this match with the conception of Christ's body's substance? It is supposed to be of human substance, yet here it displays a trait better assigned to divinity, that of omnipresence. Christ's human body, it turns out, is NOT "exactly the same as ours", as I don't think CrimsonCatholic has ever been at two or more places at once. I know I haven't, much as I'd like to be; I could get a lot more accomplished!

And the situation seems to be even worse than that. Take a look at this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

On the contrary, He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the consecrated Hosts and particles that remain on the or in the ciborium after the distribution of Holy Communion.

Thus the red candle/light that one often sees perpetually lit on the altar of a Roman church - one or more transubstantiated hosts are still there. The real and substantial body of Jesus Christ is enclosed there. In many hundreds or thousands of churches across the world, simultaneously.

So, taking the doctrine that CrimsonCatholic has expressed and applying it consistently across the board, we run into a serious snag in the doctrine of the Eucharist. It would seem that, if transubstantiation is true, then the RC position leads to a denial of the true human nature of Christ, because the substantial, real human body of Christ is simultaneously in thousands of different places, thus applying a divine trait to Christ's human nature. Not Chalcedonian at all, then; more like Monophysite.

Luther: Women were made either to be wives or prostitutes

Over on the CARM boards, we find the following:

I'm hoping that someone with a complete works set, can authenticate and contextualize the following luther quote, it is all over the web, but I can't locate the source anywhere online. "The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes." Works 12.94 From the volume number, it appears to be coming from a commentary on the psalms.

The Source
The quote isn't bogus. It is from Weimar 12 on page 94, and also in Erl. 51:6. It isn't from Luther's commentary on the Psalms either. In the English version of Luther's Works, it can be found in LW 28 in Luther's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7.

It's interesting to see how far this quote (out of context) has traveled in cyber space by a simple Google search. It is yet again, another blunder by Peter F Wiener: "Nothing sacred about marriage Luther knows of. But what he has to say about women is still worse. 'The word and work of God is quite clear, viz. That women were made either to be wives or prostitutes' (W12, 94). [Peter F Wiener, Martin Luther, Hitler's spiritual Ancestor].

You know something like this is being taken out of context, when even one of Luther's most severe critics, Hartmann Grisar defends him on it:

One sentence of Luther's, which, as it stands, scarcely does honour to the female sex, runs as follows : "The Word and work of God is quite clear, viz. that women were made to be either wives or prostitutes." By this statement, which so easily lends itself to misunderstanding, Luther does not mean to put women in the alternative of choosing either marriage or vice. In another passage of the same writing he says distinctly, what he repeats also elsewhere: " It is certain that He [God] does not create any woman to be a prostitute." [source]

The Context
This comment from Luther was written in 1523, in a treatise designed to defend Christian marriage against celibacy, and to promote the freedom to marry or not marry. Luther went through 1 Corinthians 7, one of the primary proof-texts used by those in favor of priestly celibacy. In fact, the treatise was dedicated to a friend's wedding, a wedding that Luther himself performed. Luther states his intention:

I have taken it upon myself to interpret the seventh chapter of the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians—this I do as a service to you and as an aid to all those who take a liking to it. My reason for this choice is that this very chapter, more than all the other writings of the entire Bible, has been twisted back and forth to condemn the married state and at the same time to give a strong appearance of sanctity to the dangerous and peculiar state of celibacy. And to tell the truth, none have given themselves such airs with this chapter as the very people who have been least chaste. I, too, once considered chastity as ordinary as they pretend it to be. But, thank God, the last three years have taught me how little chastity there is in the world outside marriage, both in convents and monasteries. But God has laid it upon me to preach about marriage and to tear the veil from the chastity which is of the devil, so that there may be less fornication and our poor youth may not be so pitiably and dangerously misled by falsely glorified chastity. Therefore I must take particular care that this chapter, which is their principal defense, no longer remain to cover their shame but be understood according to the true meaning of St. Paul. [LW 28:1]

Luther presents the view he's critiquing:

These fellows view the state of marriage as a superfluous, presumptuous human thing that one could dispense with and do without, just as I can do without an extra jacket or coat. Then they fill the world with their foolish and blasphemous scribbling and screeching against the married state, advising all men against it, although they themselves feel—and abundantly demonstrate by their actions—that they cannot do without women, these being created specifically for marriage; instead they run after and plague themselves with whores day and night.. [LW 28:5]

Then Luther identifies the specific person he's writing against: John Faber’s 1521 Opus adversus nova quaedam eta christiana religione prorsus aliena dogmata Martini Lutheri:

Of this kind is that arch-fool, Johann Schmid of Constance, that renowned whoremonger, who has written an immense book, recently printed in Leipzig, against the state of matrimony. He tries to talk everyone out of it but says nothing more than that there is much effort and labor connected with it, as though this were not sufficiently known throughout the world and as if this ass must first teach us what every village peasant knows. If I were chastity herself, I could think of no greater and more unbearable shame and disgrace than to be praised by such rascals, whoremongers, and enemies of chastity. They rail against us, charging that we are enemies of chastity and promoters of marriage who prefer to see men married; and we are to consider them extremely wise, though they cannot but devote themselves to incessant fornication and though they praise chastity with their pens only and defame the married state.. [LW 28:5]

Luther then argues that God intended there to be marriage. God didn't simply create women in order for sex:

They are rascals, not only on the surface but in the bottom of their hearts, and they are unworthy of an answer. And what matter if the whole world were to complain about the state of matrimony? We see right before our eyes that God daily creates not only men but also women and maintains their lives; and yet it is certain that he does not create any woman for the purpose of fornication. [LW 28:5]

Then comes the obscure quote:

But since God’s work and Word stare us in the face, declaring that women must be used either for marriage or for fornication, these heathenish pretenders should shut their blasphemous mouths and leave God’s Word and work uncriticized and unhampered; unless perhaps they would like to teach us according to their own famed sagacity and contrary to God that all women should be strangled or banished. This would make a fine fool of God: what He does is no good; what we do is well done. [LW 28:5]

The point is that biologically, people are typically designed with the desire to procreate. In fact, "God's work and Word" prove this, and this desire can either be carried out in a God pleasing way (marriage) of a non-God pleasing way (fornication). Then in a hyperbolic argument, Luther suggests those who argue for celibacy might as well argue that women should be strangled or banished in order to maintain a celibate life because the desire for sex is so strong. This would be the only way to avoid un-chastity.

Luther continues:

Now therefore since God created woman that she should and must be with man, it should suffice us that God is on our side, and we should honor the married state as a divine and noble institution. And if the wiseacres do not want to enter it, then let them continue in their heathenish blindness to practice rascality and fornication so long as God may allow it. We have God’s Word on our side; that will remain and not be moved by such blundering Smiths, though they were more numerous than the sands of the sea. Still it is a great sin and shame that we Christians have become such great fools that we first have to ponder and decide whether women ought to be married or not, just as though someone should ask whether he ought to eat and drink in this life. [LW 28:5]

Luther: There are now as many doctrines as there are heads

TurretinFan is much more gracious than I am. He's been going through Steve Ray's 35 loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" (PDF alert). TurretinFan came upon #30:

30) If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that “there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?

TFan did a great job of locating a very similar Luther quote, via a book by Joseph Lortz:

The whole history of philosophy and religion, of Christian heresies, and finally of the Reformation itself, is convincing proof of a statement that Luther himself affirmed in his First Lecture on the Psalms: “Unless doctrine is authoritatively promulgated by a living human being endowed with the authority to teach, there will be as many doctrines as there are heads.” Joseph Lortz, The Reformation: a problem for today‎ (Newman Press, 1964), p. 246

In his lecture on the Psalms (about 1512), he had said: “Unless doctrine can be authoritatively guaranteed by one living man, there will be as many doctrines as there are men.” Joseph Lortz, The Reformation: a problem for today‎ (Newman Press, 1964), p. 149

I say TFan is more gracious, because he says, "I'm quite sure Steve Ray cannot give an accurate citation for that alleged quotation from Luther." I'd go a bit further, and say Steve Ray probably doesn't even know what a "Lortz" is. In fact, I'd speculate that Ray (or David Palm, if it was his question) actually was using a different Luther quote, but cited it incorrectly (see this link also).

As TFan points out, if indeed these men are using the same quote Lortz is referring to, it's a pre-Reformation quote, not a quote from the end of his life, and it has nothing to do with Luther being "frustrated." But if my suspicion is correct, the botched quote they are using is from 1525: not the end of his life either. So, when Ray says,"frustrated at the end of his life," this was just added on for propaganda purposes. Either scenario demonstrates the question is bogus.

It is true that Luther lamented the rise of sects, as well as sects within Romanism. But Luther doesn't blame the perspicuity of Scripture, nor does his blame sola scriptura. He blames Satan and sin. He fully expected the Gospel to cause divisions. He fully expected the preaching of the Scriptures to be attacked by those misusing it.

If any of you haven't read TFan's critique of Ray's 35 Loaded Questions, I strongly suggest you begin doing so. The questions are loaded alright: their loaded with errors, and I doubt we'll see any serious responses by Mr. Ray to TFan's analysis.

One final irony: Steve Ray sells the Collected Works of Martin Luther on his website, I kid you not. I suggest perhaps he buy this product from himself and at least cite things accurately.

Luther's Drinking (Part One)

Through the centuries, one of the popular personal charges against Luther was alcoholism. I've written about this before, and probably elsewhere if you search through the blog. Of course, the majority of those making this charge were (and are) Roman Catholics.

The most detailed look at Luther's drinking I've ever seen is found in Hartmann Grisar's Luther III. Grisar was a Roman Catholic scholar. His work is typically classified with the earlier Roman Catholic destructive criticism of Luther. While Grisar is indeed a hostile critic whose approach is no longer followed by Roman Catholic scholars, his six volumes on Luther are indeed valuable research tools. If there's one thing that can be said about Grisar, his work on Luther was thorough, and his documentation and use of primary sources is good. He didn't simply cite works that cited Luther. In fact, he was bold enough to actually correct insinuations and errors in Heinrich Denfile's (another Roman Catholic scholar) work on Luther. Grisar worked with primary sources. For the topic of Luther's drinking, Grisar's analysis spans twenty five pages. Reading it depends on how well one can handle tedium.

Some of the most facinating (yet tedious!) material is Grisar's exploration of earlier Roman Catholics that charged Luther with alcoholism. Grisar basically did what I've been doing: looking up obscure quotes, and putting them in a context. He states, "Luther's enemies must resign themselves to abandon some of the proofs formerly adduced for his excessive addiction to drink" Here are some of his Luther quotes and analysis. Time allowing, I'd like to work through all twenty five pages.

1. "If I have a can of beer, I want the beer-barrel as well."

...the fact being overlooked, that he only made use of this expression in order to illustrate, by a very common example, the idea expressed in the heading of the chapter in which it occurs, viz. that "No one is ever satisfied." Everyone, he continues, desires to go one step higher, everyone wants to attain to something more, and, then, with other examples, he gives that mentioned above, where,for "I," we might equally well substitute "we," which indeed we find employed elsewhere in this same connection : "If we have one Gulden, we want a hundred.


2."We eat ourselves to death, and drink ourselves to death; we eat and drink ourselves into poverty and down to hell."

Here Luther is merely speaking against the habit of drinking which had become so prevalent, and dominated some to such an extent that death and hell were the lamentable consequences to be feared.

3. Luther says that he is not "drunk," but is writing "in the morning hours."

Must we infer, then, that he was in the habit of writing when drunk, or that in the afternoon he was not usually sober? Must he be considered drunk whenever he does not state plainly that he is sober? The truth is that such expressions were merely his way of speaking. In the important passage here under consideration he writes: "Possibly it may be asserted later that I did not sufficiently weigh what I say here against those who deny the presence of Christ in the Sacrament; but I am not drunk or giddy; I know what I am saying and what it will mean to me on Judgment Day and at the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ." Thus he is speaking most seriously and uses this curious verbal artifice simply to emphasise his earnestness. Were additional proof necessary it might be found in other passages ; for instance: "Christ was not drunk when He said this," viz. the Eucharistic words of consecration, the literal meaning of which Luther is upholding against the Strasburg Sacramentarians.

4. In a letter to his wife, Luther says that he preferred the beer and wine he was used to at home to what he was having at Dessau, and "Yesterday I had some poor stuff to drink so that I had to begin singing: 'If I can't drink deep then I am sad, for a good deep drink ever makes me so glad".

It is quite unnecessary to take this as a song sung by a "tipsy man"; it is simply a jesting reference to a popular ditty which quite possibly he had actually struck up to get rid of his annoyance at the quality of the liquor. "You would do well," he continues in the same jocular vein, "to send me over the whole cellar full of my usual wine, and a bottle of your beer as often as you can, else I shall not turn up any more for the new brew."

5. Luther calls himself, "The corpulent Doctor"

No one who is familiar with his homely mode of speech will take offence at his calling himself on one occasion the "corpulent Doctor," and in any case this involves neither gluttony nor drunkenness. Moreover, the words occur in a serious connection, for we shall hear it from him during the last days of his life: " When I return again to Wittenberg I shall lay myself in my coffin and give the worms a corpulent doctor to feast on," referring, of course, to his natural stoutness. Offence has also been taken at a sentence met with in Luther's Table-Talk, where he says of his contemporaries of fifty years before : "How thin they [i.e. their ranks] have become" ; from which it was inferred that he wished them a luxurious life and corpulence, and that he "regarded pot bellies as an ornament and a thing to be desired." From its context, however, the meaning of the word "thin" is clear. What Luther means is : How few of them remain in the land of the living.

6. Luther says he would like to be more frequently in the company of those "good fellows, the students," "the beer is good, the parlour-maid pretty, the lads friendly."

Such is one of the statements brought forward against him to show his inordinate love of drink. Yet, when examined, the letter is found to say nothing of any yearning of Luther's to join in the drinking-bouts of the students or of any interest of his in the maid. "Two honest students" had been recommended to Luther, and the letter informs its addressee, the Mansfeld Chancellor Miiller at Eisleben, of the rumour that "too much was being consumed without any necessity by the pair"; the Chancellor was to inform the Count of Mansfeld of the fact in order that he (whose proteges they may have been) "might keep an eye on them." Then come the words: "What harm would friendly supervision do? The beer is good, the parlour-maid pretty and the lads young; the students really behave very well, and my only regret is that owing to my weak health, I am unable to be oftener with them." This letter surely does Luther credit. It testifies to his solicitude for the two youths committed to his care; seeing they are still " good and pious," he is anxious to preserve them from intemperance and other dangers, and regrets that, owing to his poor state of health, he is unable to have the pleasure of visiting these young fellows more often.

7. Lemnius (a contemporary of Luther)is reported to have said: "His excessive indulgence in wine and beer made Luther at times so ill that he quite expected to die."

No such statement occurs in the works of Lemnius... The above words are a modern invention, though one author, strange to say, actually tacked them on to the authentic passage in Lemnius as though they had belonged to the latter.

8. Excessive indulgence in some Malvasian wine was, on Luther's own admission, the cause of a malady which troubled him for a considerable time in 1529.

Luther's letter in question speaks, however, of a "severe and almost fatal catarrh," which lasted for a long time and almost deprived him of his voice; others, too, says Luther, had suffered from the catarrh (no great wonder in the month of March or April), but not to the same extent as he. He had imprudently aggravated the trouble possibly by preaching too energetically or and here comes the incriminating passage " by drinking some adulterated Malvasian to the health of Amsdorf." Such were his words to his confidential friend Jonas. The fact is that a wine so expensive as Malvasian was then very liable to being adulterated, the demand far exceeding the supply of this beverage, which was always expected to figure on the table on great occasions. At any rate, there is no mention here of Luther's illness having arisen from continuous and excessive indulgence. in wine.

On Spinning Luther

I recall hearing John Gerstner explain that one of the best scholars on Jonathan Edwards wasn't even a Christian, or even a theist. I've always found that fascinating - a person would choose to be an expert on a historical personage in whom he personally disagreed with on a basic presuppositional level.

I'm not an expert on the life and work of Martin Luther by any means, though I do share something similar with this gentleman. I'm a non-Lutheran that has a keen interest in Martin Luther. That is, I've studied Luther from a non-Lutheran perspective.

I've explained this before, but yet, I'm still viewed with deep suspicions from Lutherans and probably even some of my Reformed brethren (when my back is turned). I'd probably have a lot more Lutheran support if I were Lutheran. I'd probably have a lot more Reformed support if I didn't spend the time on the subjects I do. But this blog is not about climbing to the top of the theological food chain. It's about providing a source for the truth about obscure quotes and facts that get thrown around the Internet as propaganda. Will a lot of people read it? No, probably not. But those people that read some sort of outrageous Luther quote, wonder about it, and take two seconds to do a little further digging, will be pleasantly surprised at what they find. Reformation History has never been a close friend of the current batch of pop-Roman Catholic apologists. They've written enough on Luther to keep me busy for years.

Typically Roman Catholics don't trust me, but for much different reasons. In dialog recently with a Roman Catholic, it was stated, "Please stop with the spin and give a straight answer." Some Roman Catholics think any defense or counter evidence on Luther's life is a deceptive ploy. They think I'm so dedicated to the original Protestant that every ounce of his being gets a free pass, and I'm the master spin doctor. Then there was this comment left recently on this blog:

I do recognize you normaly [sic] refuse to take a position on what a particluar [sic] quote DOES mean (to you), but prefer only to put yourself in a position to criticize what other people say about it. You depict yourself as being someone who knows A LOT about Luther, and no doubt you do, so why not take a stand in regards to what you actually believe about the man?

So, if I discuss the historical facts of Luther's life, I'm a spin doctor. If I simply post something Luther said out of interest, I'm not taking a stand as to what my opinion is of his words. With the former, my hero must be protected by all means possible. With the later, I'll do whatever it takes to avoid contradicting the depth of wisdom of my hero. I assume most people wouldn't arrive at these conclusions. Indeed, they are ravings without substance.

Roman Catholics try to deflect the guilt of their church’s abuses and doctrinal confusion that Luther rightly fought against. Instead of dealing with the blatant abuses, need for reform, and muddled theology inherent in the sixteenth century church, the tactic is to discredit Luther by any means possible. Simply because Luther was wrong on say, something like his attitude toward the Jews does not necessarily mean he was wrong on the need for church reform, the proclamation of the gospel of justification by faith alone, or sola scriptura. No serious or sane Protestant argues that Luther was an infallible interpreter, divine authority, or immaculately conceived. We realize Luther was a man of many faults. Yet when he proclaims the gospel, he is absolutely correct because the Bible clearly teaches it. When he speaks out against the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church he is right because history shows this was the case. When he makes terrible statements, he’s not right (or wrong) because he was somehow a Protestant pope or the originator of Protestantism, he’s wrong because a clear exposition of the Scriptures do not support such terrible statements.

There are plenty of theological areas I disagree with Luther on. Always keep in mind, I'm a Calvinist, really. There are also things Luther said or did that I think were sinful, but then again, this is the plight of all mankind. When I defend Luther's life, in some instances it's not to simply give him a free pass, it's to point out the argument being employed by a Roman Catholic (or whoever) is usually flawed, a double standard, or historically inaccurate.

On The Acronym TULIP: Who's Responsible?

Where did the acronym TULIP come from? In preparing some lecture materials, I came across the following web page: The Points of Calvinism: Retrospect and Prospect (PDF alert). The author asserts the TULIP acronym may be of late origin. He asserts the earliest reference to the acronym is in Loraine Boettner’s The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932). The author documents his sifting through Reformed literature over the centuries. While I don't agree with all the points being made, it was a very interesting read. I've often wondered who coined the acronym.

Boettner simply states: "The Five Points may be more easily remembered if they are associated with the word T-U-L-I-P; T, Total Inability ; U, Unconditional Election; L, Limited Atonement; I, Irresistible (Efficacious) Grace;and P, Perseverance of the Saints." Simply because he uses it, doesn't mean he was the mastermind of the acronym, but it is a rather curious fact that his is the first book to use it.

From TurretinFan: He found a Google book that predates Boettner:

Some eight years ago I had the privilege of hearing a popular lecture, by Dr. McAfee, of Brooklyn, upon the Five Points of Calvinism,given before the Presbyterian Union of Newark, New Jersey, which was most interesting as well as instructive. To aid the mind in remembering the Five Points, Dr. McAfee made use of the word Tulip, which, possessing five letters, lends itself nicely to the subject in hand, especially as it ends with the letter P, as will be seen later.

Taking the five letters, Dr. McAfee used them as follows:

1st, T stands for Total Depravity.

2d, U " " Universal Sovereignty.

3d, L " " Limited Atonement.

4th,I " " Irresistible Grace.

5th,P " " Perseverance of the Saints. Source

Luther: We must remove the Decalogue [Ten Commandments] out of sight and heart

A few years ago, I went looking for this Luther quote: "We must remove the Decalogue [Ten Commandments] out of sight and heart." I wrote about it here. I found something very similar to this quote in Luther’s Commentary on John, but this quote actually comes from a letter.

This one made it's way to cyberspace via Patrick O’Hare's The Facts About Luther (Illinois: Tan Books, 1987), 311. If you do a simple Google search, you can see how far this quote has travelled.

O'Hare documents it as De Wette 4, 188. "De Wette" refers to a collection of Luther's letters. The source is actually Luther's letter to Jerome Weller from 1530. I have that letter posted here, and I also have a follow up post planned on the entirety of the letter. The relevant section is:

When I drink my wine unmixed, prattle with the greatest unconcern, eat more frequently, do you think that I have any other reason for doing these things than to scorn and spite the devil who has attempted to spite and scorn me? Would God I could commit some real brave sin to ridicule the devil, that he might see that I acknowledge no sin and am not conscious of having committed any. We must put the whole law entirely out of our eyes and hearts,--we, I say, whom the devil thus assails and torments. Whenever the devil charges us with our sins and pronounces us guilty of death and hell, we ought to say to him: I admit that I deserve death and hell; what, then, will happen to me? Why, you will be eternally damned! By no means; for I know One who has suffered and made satisfaction for me. His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Where He abides, there will I also abide.

Hartmann Grisar provides an alternate translation:

Sometimes it is necessary to drink more freely, to play and to jest and even to commit some sin (peccatum aliquod faciendum) out of hatred and contempt for the devil, so that he may get no chance of making a matter of conscience out of mere trifles; otherwise we shall be vanquished if we are too anxious about not committing sin. ... Oh that I could paint sin in a fair light, so as to mock at the devil and make him see that I acknowledge no sin and am not conscious of having committed any! I tell you, we must put all the Ten Commandments, with which the devil tempts and plagues us so greatly, out of sight and out of mind. If the devil up braids us with our sins and declares us to be deserving of death and hell, then we must say: I confess that I have merited death and hell, but what then? Are you for that reason to be damned eternally? By no means. I know One Who suffered and made satisfaction for me, viz. Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Where He is, there I also shall be.

Grisar and O'Hare are using two different sources. O'Hare is using Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken (5 volumes of letters), and Grisar is using the Weimar Edition of Luther's Works (which includes 11 volumes of letters). Interestingly, O'Hare actually cites the letter elsewhere in his book.

Usually this letter is singled out because of the counsel Luther gave to his friend to "drink more freely." For this quote though, Luther's alleged aversion to the Ten Commandments is in view. This is hardly the case, as I've documented here. When Luther makes strong statements against the Law, it's always the Law considered as a means of salvation or justification.

Luther: Is The Church Over Scripture?

Further they object: The church has accepted the four gospels, others they have not accepted. Thus the church is master over them. If not, who would know which gospel were true, perhaps Bartholomew's gospel or another? That sounds just as if we had the gospels from the church and not from God. Christianity has accepted the book, they say, therefore Christianity is over the book. I accept the teaching of Paul, therefore I am over his teaching. Oh, that they had made the distinction between confessing and haying authority! The Christian church confesses that the teaching, the Gospel, the book are true. But thereby the church is not given the authority over it. Then I could also say: I accept Christ, therefore I am over Christ. Or I would say of the prince of the land: Duke Hans of Saxony is my prince, not Duke George and the Margrave. I accept the former, not the latter; therefore because he is my prince, I am over him. Would he allow this? Would he allow his command to be changed? Is that indeed consistent?

Similarly, a lawyer could say: This command the emperor has fixed, that one a false teacher has fixed. Therefore this scholar stands over the emperor because he can distinguish between what the emperor has fixed and what another fixes. You've got to be kidding yourself! So they conclude quite foolishly: The Christian church confesses that this book and its teaching are true, therefore it is over them. These are rotten hoaxes. Christ has given the church this authority, to separate between truth and falsehood, as he says in Matthew 7:15: "Beware of false prophets!" When the evangelical teaching spread throughout the world from the apostles, upright teachers saw and received it; but other books that did not correspond to this, they discarded. So we also do. But I cannot conclude: Because I accept John's gospel, I am over the same. For this reason say: It is not true; the Christian church does not have the authority to change a single letter. For it is written in Matthew 5:19, "Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." Add nothing and take nothing away. It should remain as Christ has ordered it.

Source: Irving L. Sangberg, Tr., The 1529 Holy Week and Easter Sermons of Dr. Martin Luther (St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press, 1999), pp. 40-41.

Luther Condemned the Word "Trinity"?

Here's one I found over on the Catholic Answers Forums:

"does anybody have documentaiton [sic] on Luther's criticism of the word 'Trinity'? I read about this in Newman, but don't have a source (I don't recall Newman giving one)"

Here is the Cardinal Newman quote in question:

Lutheranism has by this time become in most places almost simple heresy or infidelity; it has terminated, if it has even yet reached its limit, in a denial both of the Canon and the Creed, nay, of many principles of morals. Accordingly the question arises, whether these conclusions are in fairness to be connected with its original teaching or are a corruption. And it is no little aid towards its resolution to find that Luther himself at one time rejected the Apocalypse, called the Epistle of St. James "straminea," condemned the word "Trinity," fell into a kind of Eutychianism in his view of the Holy Eucharist, and in a particular case sanctioned bigamy. Calvinism, again, in various distinct countries, has become Socinianism, and Calvin himself seems to have denied our Lord's Eternal Sonship and ridiculed the Nicene Creed. {199}[source]

I've been searching around looking for exactly what Newman may have been referring to. Given the examples he uses, it's obvious, his Luther scholarship was a bit weak. That is, he repeats the popular Roman Catholic polemic against Luther.

Each instance I've read from Luther using the word "Trinity" is positive. If Luther did strongly condemn the word, it must have been an isolated instance, or a few isolated instances. That is, if one simply searches Luther's Works for the word "Trinity," you would never arrive at Newman's "Luther condemned the word 'Trinity' ".... at least as something consistently held throughout Luther's career. Keep in mind, condemning a word is not the same thing as condemning a doctrine. Even Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar stated,

Certain controversialists have undoubtedly been in the wrong in making out Luther to have been skeptical about, or even opposed at heart to, many of the ancient dogmas which he never attacked, for instance, the Trinity, or the Divinity of Christ. A few vague and incautious statements occasionally let slip by him are more than counterbalanced by a wealth of others which tell in favour of his faith, and he himself would have been the last to admit the unfortunate inferences drawn more or less rightly from certain propositions emitted by him. [source]

Even the folks on the Catholic Answers board figured this one out. One person quoted a sermon from Luther that states:

Today we celebrate the festival of the Holy Trinity, to which we must briefly allude, so that we may not celebrate it in vain. It is indeed true that the name “Trinity” is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man. For this reason it sounds somewhat cold and we had better speak of “God” than of the “Trinity.”
This word signifies that there are three persons in God. It is a heavenly mystery which the world cannot understand. I have often told you that this, as well as every other article of faith, must not be based upon reason or comparison, but must be understood and established by means of passages from the Scriptures, for God has the only perfect knowledge and knows how to speak concerning himself.

The source for this quote can be found here in a limited preview with some pages missing. The full text can be found in the Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), vol. 2.1 p. 406-407). In this early sermon from 1522, Luther goes on to vigorously argue for the Trinity from the Bible.

A very helpful explanation as to Luther's approach to the word "Trinity" and the limitations of human language and reason can be found here:

In fact, in the very sermon quoted on the Catholic answers forum, Luther immediately goes on to say:

The great universities have invented manifold distinctions, dreams and fictions by means of which they would explain the Holy Trinity, and have made fools of themselves. We shall therefore quote only passages from the Scriptures in order to determine and establish the divinity of Christ. In the first place, we quote from the New Testament, where we find many proof texts; for instance, John I, I-3 : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made." Now if he is not made, but is himself the Maker, he must indeed be God. John also says afterwards: "And the Word became flesh." [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.1 p. 407].

He concludes a few sections later, "Therefore we cling to the Scriptures, those passages which testify of the Trinity of God, and we say: I know very well that in God there are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; but how they can be one I do not know, neither should I know it."

Elsewhere Luther comments on the inadequacy of the term "Trinity": "The words trinitas, unitas are really mathematical terms. And yet we can't talk about God without using such words. But at the same time, it is also true that when we use human language to speak about God, it seems to have a ring to it, a whole new connotation" [Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 6, pp. 206-207]. "True [Trinity] is not choice German, nor has it a pleasing sound, when we designate God by the word 'Dreifaltigkeit' (nor is the Latin, Trinitas, more elegant): but since we have no better term, we must employee these" [Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 4.2, pp. 7-8]. I'm sure a plentiful supply of similar sentiment from Luther could be brought forth as testimony to the fact he didn't deny the Trinity, and also used the word positively.

Paul Althaus provides a good overview of Luther's understanding of the Trinty:

Source: Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966], pp. 199-201

Here's another tidbit to go along with this:

Though correct for leading the Reformation Movement, Martin Luther had been deceived for years on 95 or more points of Roman Catholic teaching. The trinity was not a subject of concern to him. As it turns out, the trinity was the 96th point that Martin Luther did not include in his thesis nailed to the church door.[source]

First it's asserted The Trinity didn't concern Luther. Then it's asserted the Trinity was left off the 95 Theses. Interestingly, the Trinity does appear in Luther's earlier Disputation Against Scholastic Theology, but in no sense important to the charge being asserted. Perhaps the writer is intending to say, "the Trinity should have been the 96th point." That is, the author of the web page finds the Trinity to be a heretical concoction of the Roman Catholic Church. This is probably the sense in which it's intended.

Clash of the Titans- Staples vs. Sungenis

If you enjoy the unity of Roman Catholic apologetics, you'll enjoy this one:

Tim Staples vs. Robert Sungenis

Highlights-

Staples: I sent a private email to a friend to warn her of Bob Sungenis’ whackiness” that was not intended to become public information. I am not going to enter into a lengthy argument with you about this. I have gone down that road before with Mr. Sungenis and I have made the judgment that it is not worth the time. But now that I have been threatened with some untold “consequences” for my actions, and I have been accused of “slander” by Mr. Sungenis, I will spell out for you SOME of the reasons why I said what I said to my friend.

Sungenis: The real problem, in my opinion, is that Catholic Answers (for whom Tim works) has chosen to take the politically correct road in their treatment of this issue. Karl Keating was sent my Galileo Was Wrong books, but as far as I know, he still hasn’t read them and has never interacted with any of the arguments presented in them. Instead, Karl keeps repeating the same elementary viewpoints he has used in the past, but which have all been scientifically disqualified.

Where Did the Term "Sola Ecclesia" Come From?

You were all shocked when the truth was revealed that Al Gore invented the Internet. Now, the inventor of the phrase "Sola Ecclesia" steps forth:

Cajetan on the Canon: Roman Catholic Says: He's Ok Because He's One of Us!

A contemporary of Martin Luther, Cardinal Cajetan was a leading Roman Catholic scholar and deeply affiliated with the Papacy. Cajetan's opinions on the canon of Sacred Scripture are interesting to juxtapose against Martin Luther's, especially since Roman Catholics often malign Luther mercilessly on the canon. For instance, in an online discussion I was involved with, it was stated, 

Luther was a Catholic who denigrated Scripture, removed 7 Books from the Old Testament as he saw fit, and attempted to do the same with Revelation, James, Jude and Hebrews. He tampered with Scripture to boost his new doctrines...

A person stating something like this typically has no idea how to navigate their way through Cardinal Cajetan's view on the canon. Recall some of the charges against Luther: he questioned (or denied) the canonicity of James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. He saw these books as not the works of apostles, but of second century Christians. He also classified the Old Testament Apocrypha as: not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.  

Cardinal Cajetan also questioned the authenticity of certain Biblical books and if they were canonical. The Catholic Encyclopedia points out he questioned “the authorship of several epistles… Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia takes a stronger position on his questioning and says, “He expressed strong doubts about the literal meaning of Canticles and the Apocalypse; the authenticity of Mk 16:9-20 and Jn 8:1-11; and the authorship of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John, and Jude.” In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII). In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical. The English rendering of Cajetan's text on this is most often cited as found in William Whitaker's A Disputation on Holy Scripture:

Thirdly, the papists themselves understand and interpret Augustine and the rest in the same manner as we do. For so many persons after Augustine and after those councils would never have denied these books to be canonical, if they had not perceived the reasonableness of this interpretation, If then they blame our judgment, let them at least lend some credit to their own companions and masters. I will bring forward no man of light esteem, no mean or obscure doctor, but a distinguished cardinal,—that special pillar of the popish church, Cajetan, who assuredly excelled all our Jesuits in judgment, erudition, and authority. I will recite his words, because they are express and should always be in remembrance.

Thus, therefore, writes Cajetan at the end of his commentary upon the History of the old Testament: ‘Here,” says he, “we close our commentaries on the historical books of the old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters ‘of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

Thus far Cajetan; in whose words we should remark two things. - First, that all the statements of councils and doctors are to be subjected to the correction of Jerome. But Jerome always placed these books in the apocrypha. Secondly, that they are called canonical by some councils and Fathers, and customarily received in the canon of the bible, because they propose a certain rule of morals. There are, therefore, two kinds of canonical books: for some contain the rule both of morals and of faith; and these are, and are called, truly and properly canonical: from others no rule, but only of morals, should be sought, And these, although they are improperly called canonical, are in truth apocryphal, because weak and unfit for the confirmation of faith (William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, pp. 47- 49).

Original text (Cajetan): Et hoc in loco terminamus commentaria librorum historialium veteris Testamenti: nam reliqui (videlicet Judith, Tobiae, et Maccabaeorum libri) à divo Hieronymo extra canonicos libros supputantur, et inter apocrypha locantur, cum libro Sapientiae et Ecclesiastico: ut patet in prologo galeato.— Nec turberis novitie si alicubi repereris libros istos inter canonicos supputari, vel in sacris conciliis vel in sacris doctoribus. Nam ad Hieronymi limam reducenda sunt tam verba conciliorum quàm doctorum: et juxta illius sententiam ad Chromatium et Heliodorum episcopos, libri isti (et si qui alii sunt in canone Bibliae similes) non sunt canonici, hoc est non sunt regulares ad firmandum ea quae sunt fidei. possunt tamen dici canonici (hoc est regulares) ad edificationem fidelium: utpote in canone Bibliae ad hoc recepti et authorati. cum hac enim distinctione discernere poteris et dicta Augustini in secundo de doctrina Christiana, et scripta in concilio Florentino sub Eugenio quarto: scriptaque in provincialibus conciliis Carthaginensi et Laodicensi, et ab Innocentio ac Gelasio pontificibus (Cajetan, In omnes authenticos veteris Testamenti historiales libros Comentarii, p. 397).  

There is an obvious dilemma for Rome's defenders: how can Martin Luther be chastised for being the sixteenth century Marcion, while Cajetan held very similar views, and was a leading Roman Catholic scholar? The Roman Catholic in the beginning of this entry solved the Luther vs. Cajetan dilemma by giving Cajetan a free pass because he wasn't deemed a heretic like Luther was. This is a spurious solution, ignorant of history (as will be demonstrated below). He could have at least helped himself by utilizing the preface to Cajetan Responds by the Roman Catholic scholar Jared Wicks. This author points out some of Cajetan's Roman Catholic contemporaries were not pleased with his view on the canon:

Cajetan's biblical commentaries occasioned no little admiratio. From Luther, there is a recorded remark, "Cajetan, in his later days, has become Lutheran." Considerable zeal was expended by Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P., against the exegetical work of his retired Master General. Catharinus submitted a denunciation before the still acerbic faculty in Paris and proceedings began that could have led to another book-burning Clement VII intervened in a letter to the Parisian professors in September, 1533, to protect the man who was by then the Pope's regular source of valued theological advice. Proceedings were halted at this time in Paris, but not before an open letter of the Parisian theologians had begun to circulate listing the censurable propositions excerpted from the commentaries. The Sorbonne masters charged Cajetan with imprudently taking these notions from Erasmus or even Luther. The letter ended with a stinging rebuke of Cajetan's rashness in abandoning the long approved Vulgate text to base his work on new versions in no way guaranteed for their exactness. In 1534 a Wittenberg printer, no doubt with considerable glee over this discomfiture of Luther's old adversary, brought out the open letter in pamphlet form. Catharinus published his criticisms of Cajetan's commentaries in 1535, revised and expanded them in 1542, and obtained a censure by the Paris faculty against Cajetan's biblical works in August, 1544.

The specific charges brought against Cajetan concerned the reservations and plain doubts he had expressed about the apostolic origin of the final eleven verses of Mark's gospel, the story of the adultress in John 8, and five whole epistles of the New Testament (Hebrews, James, Jude, and 1 and 2 John). These views were especially serious in Cajetan's case, since he had laid down the rule that apostolic authorship or direct approval by an apostle was normative for inclusion in the New Testament canon. Following Jerome, Cajetan also relegated the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety but not the teaching of revealed doctrine (Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy, pp. 36-37).

-snip-

Certainly Cajetan's commentaries deserved better treatment than they received at the hands of the fearful Catharinus and the censorious Parisian faculty. Cajetan's confident approach to the biblical text did not fit into the mentality of cautious defensiveness that began to predominate in the Catholic world less than a decade after his death. From our vantage point, it may well be that the most significant results of Cajetan's dedicated work on Scripture are to be found in the concise treatises he wrote in the final four years of his life (Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy, pp. 38).

I did not realize Cardinal Cajetan's canon views did cause some controversy among his peers. So... what does this information do to the Luther / Cajetan comparison? First, it shows us that someone close to the papacy was able to express similar ideas as Luther and be protected by the papacy... and why not? Cajetan, and Luther had every right within the Roman Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon before a dogmatic declaration by a council.

Second, the quest for ad fontes sources was a major impetus provoking the textual and historical criticism of sixteenth century scholars, both on the Roman Catholic and Protestant side. Other documents besides Scripture were being looked over as well. Forgeries of the Early Church Father's were uncovered. Jared Wicks points out that Cajetan's criticism of the Vulgate drew heated response as well. The tradition of the Vulgate appears to have clouded many minds.

Third, the problem of Roman Catholic bias still stands. How is it not a double standard for contemporary Roman Catholics to chastise Luther's canon criticism, while completely ignoring Cajetan (or Erasmus as well)? Why is it the man protected by Clement VII gets a free pass?

One interesting source has found its way on to the Internet: Pre-Tridentine Doctrine: A review of the Commentary on the Scriptures of Cardinal Cajetan. It's an old source but gives yet another look into the life of Cardinal Cajetan, clearly demonstrating the Roman Catholic dilemma:

Following St. Jerome, the Cardinal finds great difficulty in assigning the Epistle of St. James to the " brother of the Lord " its opening salutation which differs so greatly from the ordinary apostolic formula playing in his mind a preliminary obstacle to its apostolic origin. The violent abuse which the Roman advocates have heaped upon Luther for entertaining the same doubt stands in strange contrast with the fact that Cajetan s views on the doubtfulness of this and many other parts of the canon have never given him a place in the " Index," or even detracted from his general authority as a divine. The salutation appears to him so brief and secular as to present no point of affinity to those of the other apostles.

-snip-

The Second Epistle of Peter he held to be of very doubtful authenticity, but considers that St. Jerome's scepticism regarding it, on account of its difference of style from that of the former, would tell against either epistle with equal force. For either might represent St. Peter s style, and two of the Catholic Epistles claim to be his. But difference of style he regards as not a sufficient criterion, as many writings of the same author (as the Registrum of Gregory the Great and his other works) present equal differences.

-snip-

Yet (and this is not a little remarkable) the writings of Cajetan, notwithstanding the freedom with which he rejects the Apocrypha, and claims a "liberty of prophesying" such as the Roman Church has never admitted in its greatest saints, have never been placed in the Index, though the bitter attack of Catharinus, himself a member of the Council of Trent, and of great influence in Rome, might have well secured for them a place in that Walhalla of sacred and profane literature. The writings of Cajetan, however, needed not this posthumous advertisement. Nay, he has a yet more illustrious one in the great work of Pope Benedict XIV., " De Synodo Dicecesana " (1. xiii. c. xix. sect, xxviii.), where he is bravely defended by the Pope against Catharinus. "Catharinum excessisse in censura, tum quia non fideliter Cajetani sententiam retulerit, tum quia non admodum solide eam impugnaverit, facillime ostenditur."

Revised April 2026 

Roman Catholic Tradition: It's Roots and Evolution - By: William Webster

William Webster has revised his website, and has a page dedicated to mp3 audio lectures:

Part 1 » 8 Lectures Dealing with the subjects of

• 1 - Introduction, Overview of the Issues
• 2 - Sola Scriptura: What does Scripture say?
• 3 - The Canon
• 4 - Sola Scriptura: The Fathers Say Yes
• 5 - Tradition: It's Meaning in the Early Church
• 6 - The Papacy: Matthew 16 - Peter and the Rock
• 7 - The Papacy: Papal Primacy - Fact or Fiction?
• 8 - The Papacy: Fallible Infallibility

Part 2 » 8 Lectures Dealing with the subjects of

• 1 - Mary: Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity
• 2 - Mary: Assumption, Medriartrix - CoRedemptrix
• 3 - The Sacraments, The Priesthood, Baptism
• 4 - The Eucharist, The Mass
• 5 - Confession and Penance, Purgatory
• 6 - Justification
• 7 - Faith
• 8 - Summary and Conclusion

The Long Ending of Mark

"This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent." [source]

I didn't know that, or if I did at one time, I've since forgotten it.

Interesting tidbit: Every reference I've checked so far indicates Luther treated the long ending as Sacred Scripture.

A contemporary Luther's, the great Roman Catholic theologian Cardinal Cajetan,doubted the authenticity of Mk 16:9-20.