Sunday, June 11, 2017

Did Martin Luther repent before he died?

I came across an article from Catholic Say entitled, Did Martin Luther repent before he died? The primary information given was by Tom Nash, a research associate from Ave Maria Radio. Here's what was posted:




Did Martin Luther repent before he died?

Full Question

Did Martin Luther repent before he died?

Answer

It is rumored that Luther asked for the last rites but was refused them, and that he said, “It is easier to live as a Protestant, but it is better to die as a Catholic." However, neither assertion has been substantiated by reliable sources.
The best evidence supports that Luther died with a prayer on his lips, but unfortunately not one of repentance. He may have even taken a shot at the Catholic Church at the end. In any event, in this year of the quincentennial of the Reformation, let us pray for the repose of Luther’s soul and the restoration of unity among all Christians in Christ’s one Catholic Church.



In regard to the first quote in the first paragraph, "It is easier to live as a Protestant, but it is better to die as a Catholic," it's probably spurious. In regard to the information in the second paragraph, the link given is to one my older blog entries: Did Luther Recant on His Deathbed? I appreciate that Mr. Nash used my old entry to answer the question!

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

Anti-Luther Propaganda

Here's a brief Luther discussion from the CARM boards. I keep a record of these things because they eventually disappear.


Humility

"No man can be thoroughly humbled until he knows that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, devices, endeavors, will, and works, and depends entirely on the choice, will, and work of another, namely, of God alone."
-- Martin Luther
I'm just gonna leave this here...
"We are not to understand the other side; we are to discuss to expound the truth." -- A misguided apologist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Law is a storm which wrecks your hopes of self-salvation,
but washes you upon the Rock of Ages."
-- Charles Haddon Spurgeon


“If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.”
(ref. Of Married Life).

“The word and work of God is quite clear, viz., that women are made to be either wives or prostitutes.”
(ref. On Married Life).

“If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham”
(ref. Grisar, “Luther”, Vol. V. pg. 413).

“Like the drivers of donkeys, who have to belabor the donkeys incessantly with rods and whips, or they will not obey, so must the ruler do with the people; they must drive, beat throttle, hang, burn, behead and torture, so as to make themselves feared and to keep the people in check.” (ref. Erlangen Vol 15, Pg. 276).

“To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!” – “If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs”
(ref. Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294).

“Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”
(ref. ‘Let Your Sins Be Strong, from ‘The Wittenberg Project;’ ‘The Wartburg Segment’, translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521. – Cf. Also Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 404))

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.
(ref. Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107.

“Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes.”
(ref. J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248).


​​​​​​​I'm just gonna leave these here.




The Luther quotes do appear to be cut-and-pastes from the webpage, Luther, Exposing the Myth. One doesn't even need to say that the contexts are grossly being ignored (which they are)... there are a number of tedious errors demonstrating propaganda:

Originally posted by Heir of Salvation View Post
“If the "husband is unwilling", there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.”
(ref. Of Married Life).
This quote is actually from two different treatises of Luther. The first part is from The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, the second part is from Luther's Treatise on Marriage.

“The word and work of God is quite clear, viz., that women are made to be either wives or prostitutes.”
(ref. On Married Life).
This quote is not from "On Married Life," but rather Luther's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7.

“If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham”
(ref. Grisar, “Luther”, Vol. V. pg. 413).
"Grisar" is not a primary source, but rather refers to a Roman Catholic biography of Luther.

“Like the drivers of donkeys, who have to belabor the donkeys incessantly with rods and whips, or they will not obey, so must the ruler do with the people; they must drive, beat throttle, hang, burn, behead and torture, so as to make themselves feared and to keep the people in check.” (ref. Erlangen Vol 15, Pg. 276).
Accurate reference to a German source.... how did the quote end up here in English?

“To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!” – “If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs”
(ref. Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294).
This quote is actually from two different treatises.Only one of the sentences is found at Erl 24, 294.

“Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”
(ref. ‘Let Your Sins Be Strong, from ‘The Wittenberg Project;’ ‘The Wartburg Segment’, translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521. – Cf. Also Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 404))
There is no such thing as "The Wartburg Segment."

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.
(ref. Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107.
"Trishreden" Trish who? Regardless, this is not something Luther actually wrote.

“Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes.”(ref. J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248).
"Dollinger" is not a primary source. Dollinger was a Roman Catholic historian.


​​​​​​​I'm just gonna leave these here.
Sure, leave them.... but ask yourself where in the Bible God blesses and condones propaganda? Shouldn't an heir of salvation strive to honor God by presenting accurate research?

Monday, June 05, 2017

Luther: Should a tyrant succeed in destroying the Holy Scriptures and only a single copy of the Epistle to the Romans and the Gospel according to John escape him, Christianity would be saved.

A fellow blogger sent me the following quote attributed to Martin Luther:
Luther is reported to have said that if a tyrant succeeded in destroying the Holy Scriptures and only a single copy of the Epistle to the Romans and of the Gospel of John escaped him, Christianity would be saved. He spoke truly; for the fourth Gospel presents the object of the Christian faith in its most perfect splendor, and the Epistle to the Romans describes the way of faith which leads to this object, with an incomparable clearness. What need of more to preserve Christ to the world and to give birth ever anew to-the, Church ? [Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary of John's Gospel, Kregel 1980 reprint of Funk and Wagnall's 1886 edition - p. 2].
Frederic Louis Godet did not include this comment in early editions of the commentary (for instance, this comment is not found in the 1876 edition).  The quote in its popular form can be found as early as 1881:
It is no wonder that in all ages this has been regarded as the most remarkable of our four Gospels. Testimony after testimony to this could be quoted from leading minds through the centuries. Luther's words are often quoted: "This is the unique, tender, genuine, chief Gospel. . . . Should a tyrant succeed in destroying the Holy Scriptures and only a single copy of the Epistle to the Romans and the Gospel according to John escape him, Christianity would be saved."
Another variation from 1903-1904 states,
And Luther said, "This is the unique, tender, genuine, chief Gospel, far preferable to the other three. * * * Should a tyrant succeed in destroying the Holy Scriptures, and only a single copy of the Epistle to the Romans and the Gospel according to John escape him, Christianity would be saved."
I could find no helpful documentation verifying "Should a tyrant..." etc. If it exists at all, it sounds like a Table Talk utterance. As shown above, sometimes the quote is linked with a genuine statement from Luther: "This is the unique, tender, genuine, chief Gospel, far preferable to the other three." This comment comes from Luther's Preface tot the New Testament (1522, omitted in later editions],
If I had to do without one or the other—either the works or the preaching of Christ—I would rather do without the works than without his preaching. For the works do not help me, but his words give life, as he himself says [John 6:63]. Now John writes very little about the works of Christ, but very much about his preaching, while the other evangelists write much about his works and little about his preaching. Therefore John’s Gospel is the one, fine, true, and chief gospel, and is far, far to be preferred over the other three and placed high above them. So, too, the epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces. [LW 35:362].

Monday, May 15, 2017

Good Reasons to keep on celebrating the Reformation of 1517 and to keep on studying the issues

Pray for Dr. White and his schedule and the debate tonight against Roman Catholic Peter D. Williams on the Marian dogmas.

1.  The upcoming debate tonight:  https://www.facebook.com/events/755459547963738/

2.  Dr. White had a recent radio debate/discussion with Peter D. Williams on the Protestant Reformation, that was started by Martin Luther:

https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-The-Reformation-return-to-truth-or-tragic-mistake-James-White-vs-Peter-D-Williams

3.  A recent entry by Dr. White at his Facebook page about the earliest sources for a lot of Mary doctrines and doctrines that were in later centuries "developed on steroids" (my words) that are so unBiblical and crazy that it really mystifies me as to how anyone can go along with these unBiblical doctrines, dogmas, and pious beliefs and practices regarding Mary.

The earliest sources that gave rise to the eventual Marian dogmas are truly troubling when you take the time to read them in their context. I was listening to my debate with Gerry Matatics on Long Island from long ago and the topic of the Odes of Solomon came up. He was questioning my identification of them being "tinged with gnosticism."

There is a big debate about that, but, you tell me! Here's one of the key texts that eventually became important in the development of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary:

Ode 19
A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord's kindness.
The Son is the cup, and the Father is He who was milked; and the Holy Spirit is She who milked Him;
Because His breasts were full, and it was undesirable that His milk should be ineffectually released.
The Holy Spirit opened Her bosom, and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father.
Then She gave the mixture to the generation without their knowing, and those who have received it are in the perfection of the right hand.
The womb of the Virgin took it, and she received conception and gave birth.
So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies.
And she labored and bore the Son but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose.
And she did not require a midwife, because He caused her to give life.
She brought forth like a strong man with desire, and she bore according to the manifestation, and she acquired according to the Great Power.
And she loved with redemption, and guarded with kindness, and declared with grandeur.
Hallelujah.
Add in the character of the Protevangelium of James, another key source, and you really start getting a good idea of where these concepts came from, and it was NOT from the Apostles or from Scripture.

4.  Also, Dr. White's recent Dividing Line Program on why the Reformation was necessary and good reasons to celebrate the 500 Anniversary of the Reformation that we have historically dated to Oct. 31, 1517, when Luther nailed the 95 theses up on the Wittenberg Castle Church door.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zDt6ItBgO0

Monday, April 17, 2017

Part 1a Review at Amazon.com, of Rod Bennett's book, "Four Witnesses", has disappeared! (with Update, it has not disappeared)

I noticed that my "Initial Review" of Rod Bennett's book, Four Witnesses, that I put up at Amazon.com and linked to in this article, is no longer there.  It is actually "part 1a" of my article.

Update: (April 18, 2017)
see Rob's comment in the com-box:

Ken, I found it.
The Amazon grading system wants to show Verified purchases only. If you click on the filter for verified purchases, it will alternate to "All Reviewers. Then your review does show.

see my comment also in the combox.  I will leave this up here. and adjust the title

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/01/my-initial-review-of-rod-bennetts-book.html

Fortunately, I kept a copy on my computer, and so I have published it here at my other blog, "Apologetics and Agape".

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/04/17/review-of-rod-bennetts-book/


Sunday, April 16, 2017

The Empty Tomb! He has risen!

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/empty-tomb/

Have a blessed Resurrection Day; as every Sunday for some 2000 years has been.

See also the Resurrection Debate between Dr. James White and James Renihan for the Scriptures and reality of the Resurrection of Jesus, vs. two famous liberals, John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg.

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ-debate/

Friday, April 14, 2017

More on Hank Hanegraaff from Dr. White - excellent analysis

"Can a Consistent Eastern Orthodox Believer be "the Bible Answer Man" ?

More like the "Bible in the light of sacred oral tradition in the liturgy of EO history-Answer Man"

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/can-a-consistent-eastern-orthodox-believer-be-the-bible-answer-man/

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

On Hank Hanegraaff and his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy

I link to lots of sources on the issue of Hank Hanegraaff's recent conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy, Dr. White's analysis, other resources on Eastern Orthodoxy in general.

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/on-hank-hanegraaff-and-his-conversion-to-eastern-orthodoxy/

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Triablogue: Putting all your chips on the Resurrection

Triablogue: Putting all your chips on the Resurrection: I'm discussed this before, but I'd like to address it in more detail. Nowadays there are prominent Christian apologists who say tha...

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Luther Preferred Islam to Papism? The Turks Exhibit Greater Devotion Than Christ?

Luther preferred Islam over the Papacy? Luther commended their devotion as being above and beyond that of Jesus Christ?  I came across the following comment left on an old entry from the What's Wrong with The World website:
When it comes to seeing Islam as preferable to Papism, Luther can speak for himself:
"From this book, accordingly, we see that the religion of the Turks or Muhammad is far more splendid in ceremonies -- and, I might almost say, in customs -- than ours, even including that of the religious or all the clerics. The modesty and simplicity of their food, clothing, dwellings, and everything else, as well as the fasts, prayers, and common gatherings of the people that this book reveals are nowhere seen among us -- or rather it is impossible for our people to be persuaded to them. Furthermore, which of our monks, be it a Carthusian (they who wish to appear the best) or a Benedictine, is not put to shame by the miraculous and wondrous abstinence and discipline among their religious? Our religious are mere shadows when compared to them, and our people clearly profane when compared to theirs. Not even true Christians, not Christ himself, not the apostles or prophets ever exhibited so great a display. This is the reason why many persons so easily depart from faith in Christ for Muhammadanism and adhere to it so tenaciously. I sincerely believe that no papist, monk, or cleric or their equal in faith would be able to remain in their faith if they should spend three days among the Turks. Here I mean those who seriously desire the faith of the pope and who are the best among them." -- Martin Luther, preface to the Tract on the Religions and Customs of the Turks, published in 1530.
As I said above I expect that Luther's purposes were polemical; but it is some polemic that can draw a comparison to Islam and find "even Christ himself" lacking. (N.b. it might be interesting to see alternate English translations of this passage, if any exist.).
Here were some responses to the quote:
"That Luther quotation is really appalling." (link)
"The Luther quotation is _so_ bad that I really do not believe any translation could make any difference, as long as the one given is reasonably accurate, which we can assume. I haven't seen much to equal it. A polemical purpose is no excuse. One assumes he meant what he said, regardless." (link)
The person originally posting this quote was "Zippy" (who appears to be the same author of the Zippy Catholic website). "Zippy" has posted this quote elsewhere: here and here. In these other postings, "Zippy" has placed these words from Luther in bold, "Not even true Christians, not Christ himself, not the apostles or prophets ever exhibited so great a display." That Jesus Christ is mentioned (seemingly negatively) in comparison to the works of the Turks appears to be that which irked Zippy. In fairness, "Zippy" does point out that the entirety of Luther's remarks here appear polemical, but he (she?) goes on to state, "...it is some polemic that can draw a comparison to Islam and find 'even Christ himself' lacking." Below, let's look at this polemical remark and see if it really is offensive.


Documentation
The documentation provided refers to "Martin Luther, preface to the Tract on the Religions and Customs of the Turks, published in 1530." A link is also provided to an English translation from which this quote is taken: Martin Luther—Translations of Two Prefaces on Islam:Preface to the Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcorum (1530), and Preface to Bibliander’s Edition of the Qur’an (1543) by Sarah Henrich and James L. Boyce (updated link). I commend "Zippy" (a Roman Catholic) for providing a useful reference (often lacking from Rome's defenders).  The link contains a translation of the entire short treatise from which the quote was taken from.  Originally, the quote can be found in WA 30 (2):206,


At the time this quote was originally posted (2007), the link provided appears to be the first complete English translation of this short preface from Luther (1996). Since that time, an English translation appeared in LW 59:255-262 (2012).

Context
Therefore, from this book we see that the religion of the Turks or of Mohammed, in its ceremonies (I might almost say in its behavior), is much more attractive in appearance than our own, even among our religious and clerics. The modesty and simplicity [of the Turks] in food, clothing, buildings, and all things, as this book declares—as also in fasts, prayers, and common assemblies of the people—are not to be seen anywhere among us. Indeed, it is impossible to persuade our people to do likewise. Then there are the miracles and marvels of abstinence and discipline among their religious—who among our monks, whether he be a Carthusian (who wish to be regarded as the best) or a Benedictine, is not embarrassed in the face of these things? Our religious are only a shadow compared to them, and our people are simply profane in comparison to theirs. Not even true Christians nor Christ Himself nor the apostles nor the prophets ever presented such a fine appearance. And this is why so many people readily abandon faith in Christ for Mohammed and cling to him so stubbornly. To be plain: I believe that no Papist, monk, cleric, or anyone else sharing their faith would remain steadfast in their faith if they lived three days among the Turks. I am speaking here about those who take seriously the faith of the pope and are the best among them. The rest of the crowd and the greater part of them, particularly the Italians—because they are "swine from Epicurus' herd" and believe nothing whatsoever—are protected from all heresy and error and are strong and invincible in their Epicurean faith, as much against Christ as against Mohammed, and even against their own pope himself. (LW 59:259).

Conclusion
The ultimate comparison Luther is making is between those who profess the outward demonstration of religiosity, particularly the works righteousness of "those who take seriously the faith of the pope and are the best among them."  As a subset, he includes "among us" "true Christians" (evangelicals). Of the first group, Luther repeatedly attacked Rome for works righteousness. Of the second group, Luther would make repeated (and lifelong) exhortations that those with the Gospel demonstrate its possession by true good works done out of gratitude to God. Compared to both groups, Luther saw the outward display of religious devotion by the Turks to their convictions surpassing the outward demonstrations of the papists and the evangelicals.  One author states of the Luther quote in question:


Why though would Luther include in the comparison "Christ Himself nor the apostles nor the prophets ever presented such a fine appearance"? Nowhere in the immediate context does Luther explain the remark. The defender of Rome who posted the quote is on the right track: the comment is indeed polemical. When Luther mentions the "fine appearance" of religion, that's exactly what I think he means: the external outward appearance of religiosity. As he goes on to say in the very writing in question,
For the gospel teaches that the Christian religion is by far something other and more sublime than showy ceremonies, tonsures, hoods, pale countenances, fasts, feasts, canonical hours, and that entire show of the Roman church.
When Jesus walked the earth, he and his disciples were judged by the religious authorities of his day. Consider his interaction with the Pharisees in Matthew 15:1-10. They judged that Christ was allowing his disciples to break the tradition of the elders. Think of the scandal that provoked the Pharisees when they noticed Jesus allowed his disciples to eat food with unwashed hands (Mark 7). Or think of the judgment of John's disciples when in Matthew 9:14 they ask, “How is it that we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?” The teachers of the law judged Jesus to be a blasphemer in Mark 2:6-7. Jesus defied the religiosity of the Pharisees by picking grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-27). this was followed by Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6), such a violation of religiosity that the Pharisees  began plotting to kill Jesus. When Luther is comparing Christ and the apostles to Islam, the comparison is in regard to those with the outward appearance of religion. According to Luther, the Turks had a stellar appearance of religion. When it comes to keeping the rules and the appearance of religion, Luther is saying that they excel over and above anyone, including Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets.

 Luther says elsewhere:
Human works appear attractive outwardly, but within they are filthy, as Christ says concerning the Pharisees in Matt. 23[:27]. For they appear to the doer and others good and beautiful, yet God does not judge according to appearances but searches “the minds and hearts” [Ps. 7:9]. For without grace and faith it is impossible to have a pure heart. Acts 15[:9]: “He cleansed their hearts by faith.” [LW 31:43].
It's surprising to me that more of Rome's defenders have not used this quote against Luther. I suspect the reason is that the quote may have escaped older generations of Rome's anti-Luther writers, and the current-day cyber-apologists haven't come across it in any of their typical secondary-source research. One of the only instances I could find of the quote being used in the blogosphere was from an ex-defender of Rome.

Monday, February 13, 2017

Thank You For Visiting!


Sometime today, this blog will have had over two million page views. I do realize there are other blogs and websites that have easily surpassed this milestone in a much quicker time.  Considering though what the subject matter here typically is, this statistic is amazing. Considering that blogs have been replaced by Facebook and Twitter, this statistic is amazing. Considering that I've never really advertised and I don't sell anything,  this statistic is amazing.

I've appreciated meeting so many of you over the years, and I'm grateful that folks stop by to read the posts.

James

Tuesday, February 07, 2017

Martin Luther Believed Mary Was Crowned Queen of Heaven?

Did Martin Luther believe Mary was "crowned Queen of Heaven" and made sure to have it "carved on his grave"? A defender of Roman Catholicism stated:
We Catholics do believe that Mary was crowned Queen of Heaven. I respect that you don't believe it, probably because it is an event not recorded in the Bible. But Martin Luther believed it. I believe he had it carved on his grave! He expected to meet his Queen in Heaven... We Catholics believe it is part of Sacred Tradition handed down from the Apostles, and from Jesus himself. Mary likely would have MUCH rather have died for humanity than see her son die, if it were only possible, but in her humility and wisdom she certainly knew that only God can do that. She knew her place, always. In icons, she is always pointing to Jesus. 
The response to a request for documentation was: "Just google it. It's out there." We'll see below that there's a strong dose of embellishment going on in regard to Martin Luther's use of the phrase "Queen of Heaven" and there is significant error in regard to what's printed on hiss grave.

Queen of Heaven
Luther was against the Salve Regina (Hail, Holy Queen hymn) and the Regina Coeli ("'Joy to Thee, O Queen of Heaven,' an Eastertide anthem of the blessed Virgin," LW 21:327, fn. 27, WA 7:573). These venerations blatantly affirm Mary's queenship.  I know of only one direct instance in which Martin Luther positively uses the precise phrase "Queen of Heaven," and he does so in order to downplay the excessive Marian devotion of his day. In his 1521 exposition of the Magnificat, he writes,
It is necessary also to keep within bounds and not make too much of calling her “Queen of Heaven,” which is a true-enough name and yet does not make her a goddess who could grant gifts or render aid, as some suppose when they pray and flee to her rather than to God (LW 21:327-328) .

Original text: Es darff auch wol ein maß, das man nit zuweyt treybe den namen, das man sie ein konigyn der hymel nennet, wie wol es war ist, aber doch sie da durch keine abtgottin ist, das sie geben odder helffen muge, wie etliche meynen, die mehr zu yhr denn zu got ruffen und zuflucht haben. Sie gibt nichts, szondern allein got, wie folgt (WA 7:573-574).

In Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, the Mary described by Luther in 1521 and the Mary described by sixteenth century Rome have significant differences.  In the later view, Mary is someone to pray to and flee to who grants gifts... what Luther would describe as, a goddess. According to Luther, by pouring more into the term Queen of Heaven "we can easily take away too much from God’s grace, which is a perilous thing to do and not well pleasing to her." When Luther here says, "Queen of Heaven" "is a true enough name," he does not mean the same thing Rome's defenders do. If there's any agreement here between the defenders of Rome and Luther, it's only surface level.

In fact, Luther's exposition of the Magnificat was seen in his day as an attack against popular Marian piety. There's a sense in which it was a transitional work in Luther's Mariology not entirely reflective of his later thought. In chronological order, Luther's 1521 positive use of "Queen of Heaven" in his exposition of the Magnificat is followed in 1522 with "doing Christ a disservice" if one uses the title. Then for the rest of Luther's career, the Salve Regina and the Regina Coeli were to be avoided as blasphemous:
Here I must say a few words about the song which is called Salve Regina. It is a great blaspheme of God. For it says, "Hail you queen of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope." Is that not too much? Who could justify calling her our life, sweetness and mercy when she is satisfied to call herself, a "handmaiden of the LORD?" Now people sing that prayer in every corner of the world and also the bells ring out, and still today in nearly every church the Salve Regina is, unfortunately, retained and sung.
It is the same with the Regina Coeli, which is not much better, in which she is called the queen of heaven. Is that not doing Christ a disservice when you account to a creature what only belongs to and is proper to God? So forget these ungodly and unchristian words. I will gladly concede that Mary prays for me, but I deny that she must be my comfort and my life. Your prayer on my behalf is also just as precious to me and hers. Why? If you believe that Christ dwells just as much in you as He does her, your prayer can help me just as well as hers. [The Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, pp.160-161].

Original text #1:Item von der hailigen jungkfrawen Marie im Salve, was do wort seind die man ir zülegt 'biß gegrüßt ain künigin der barmherzigkait, unser leben, unser süssigkait und unser hoffnung'. Ist das nit züvil? wer wil das verantworten, das sy unser leben, barmherzigkait unnd süssigkait sein sol, so sy sich doch laßt genügen, das sy ain arms gefeß sey? Das gebet singt man durch die ganzen welt und leytet groß glocken darzü. Also ist es auch mit dem Regina celi, das ist auch nicht besser, do man sy ain künigin des himmels nennet. Ist das nit ain unere Christo gethon, das man ainer creatur züleget das allain gott gebürt?

Darumb laß man von den unverschampton worten. Gern will ich sy haben, das sy für mich bitte, aber das sy sol mein trost und leben seyn, das wil ich nicht, und dein gebet ist mir gleich als lieb als irs. Wie so? dann wenn du glaubest, das Christus gleich als wol in dir als in ir wonet, kanst du mir gleich als wol helffen als sy. Darumb halt man die eer der lieben hailigen, als wir ainander schuldig sein züeeren als gotes kind, aber dannocht das man sich hüt vor den zwen schäden, das man Christum nicht verdunkel, lasse den ja unser leben unnd trost sein und ere sy also, das du ye eher... (WA 10.3:322-323).

Original text #2: Secht nu was das fur wortt seind, die wir der heiligen iunfrawen Marie zu legen im salve regina. Wer wil daß verantwurten das sy unser leben, unser trost, unser süßykeitt sein sol, so sy sich doch last benügen, das sie ein armes gesesz sey? solich gebet singt mann durch die gantzen welt und leut gros glocken darzu. Der gleichen ist es mit dem Regina celi, welches nit beser ist, do man sy ein kungin des himels nent. Ist das nit ein on ehr Christo gethon, daß einer creatur wirt zu gelegt das allein got gebürt?

Darum last von solchen ongeschickten worten. Gern wil ich sie haben das sy für mich bit, Aber daß si mein trost und leben sey wil ich nit, unnd dein gebet ist mir gleich als lieb als das ir. Wie so? Wen du glaubst das Christus gleich als wol in dir als in ir wont, kanstu mir als wol helffen als sy. Drum halt du die er der lieben heilgen gleich der, mit welcher wir ann andern schuldig seind zu ehrenn. Einer sol den andern ehren als gottes kind. Hüten euch vor den zween schadenn: verdunckelt mir Christum nit, Las den unsern trost und leben sein, Ehr Mariam und die... (WA 10.3:321-322).

 
Did Luther's Grave Display the Words, "Queen of Heaven"?

According to some of Rome's defenders, Luther's acceptance of the title "Queen of Heaven" became a lifelong deep belief provoking him to make sure to have it "carved on his grave" after died. I've covered this myth before. As far as I can tell, it may have been Rome's defender Peter Stravinskas who popularized it:
Nor was Luther an iconoclast, for he strictly forbade the fanatical destruction of images and demanded at least a crucifix and a representation of Our Lady for his own use. He quite clearly did not see the Old Testament prohibition against images as having any application, so long as the images were not used in an idolatrous manner.  Most interesting of all, perhaps, is the realization that his burial chamber in the Wittenberg church, on whose door he had posted his ninety-five theses, was adorned with Peter Vischer’s 1521 sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin, with the inscription Ad summum Regina thronum defertur in altum: Angelicis praelatia choris, cui festus et ipse Filius occurrens Matrem super aethera ponit.
This “archaeological” fact would seem to speak volumes about Luther’s final thoughts on the place of Mary in the life of a Christian.
In noting Luther’s absolute and unswerving adherence to the doctrines of Mary’s perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception, Wright suggests the reason as Luther’s “holding more closely to the late medieval world of thought than Calvin” (Peter Stravinskas, Mary and the fundamentalist Challenge, pp. 73-74).
Let's let another defender of Rome correct this error of Peter Stravinskas. Tim Staples of Catholic Answers says:
Luther Was Not Buried Beneath An Image of Our Lady....  Martin Luther did retain much of his Catholic Mariology after having left the Church. But there are also not a few myths about what Luther did and taught floating about in Catholic circles. If you haven't heard this one yet, you will. It has been written about and spoken about by quite a few Catholics, and I have personally heard some very well-known apologists state it as true as well. The myth claims there to be a relief of the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary with an accompanying inscription by Peter Vischer the Younger over the tomb of Martin Luther in the Wittenberg "Schlosskirche" ("Palace Church") where he is buried. "See?" The argument goes. "Luther believed in Mary assumed into heaven and crowned as Queen of Heaven and Earth!" Unfortunately, it is actually a memorial plaque for Henning Gode, the last Catholic Prior of that church, who died in 1521. Same building, but not connected to Luther.
Conclusion
Yes, if one Google's the information it is "out there," both the errors and the actuall facts. For some of Rome's defenders, anything that remotely seems like their version of Mary becomes "Luther expected to meet his Queen in Heaven" and so should Protestants today.  All their typical attacks against Luther cease and he becomes a staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from.

Yes: Luther had a Mariology. It reflected his commitment to Christ and stood in antithesis to popular Roman Catholic belief in the sixteenth century. Roman Catholics during Luther's day actually were suspicious of his Mariology, particularly his explanation of the Magnificat. Even later Roman apologists, some quite hostile to Luther understood this. For instance, Hartmann Grisar commenting on Luther’s Magnificat states, 
[Luther] certainly was in no mood to compose a book of piety on Mary. The result was that the book became to all intents and purposes a controversial tract, which cannot be quoted as a proof of his piety or serenity of mind during those struggles (Hartmann Grisar, Luther IV, p.502).
Revised April 2026