Luther vs. Rome

Vanity, based on the writings of Martin Luther ^ | 6-20-2009 | Dangus

[dangus]

Praise God, that we are saved by grace alone. Works without faith are utterly without merit. This is not merely a Protestant notion.

Such has been the persistent teaching of the saints throughout the ages. Yet a whitewashing of Martin Luther has led to many people, even Catholics, fundamentally misunderstanding the Catholic Church's criticism of him.

Please understand that what I write here is no ad-hominem attack on Luther for any purpose, including the slander of Protestantism. Attacking the moral character of Martin Luther is gainless, for no-one supposes Luther to be imbued with the gift of infallibility. But when the counter-reformation is known by most people only by what it opposes, it becomes necessary to clarify what it was that it opposes. Further, given the whitewashed history of Martin Luther, it is imperitive to remember the context of the Catholic Church's language and actions, which seem terribly strident, presented out of the context.

The Catholic Church does not believe that one could merit salvation by doing good works. Nor could one avoid sin by one's own strengths. In fact, the Catholic position is one held by most people who believe they follow Luther's principle of sola fides. We are saved by grace alone, by which we have faith, which necessarily leads us to righteous works, and the avoidance of sin.

This is not Luther's position. Luther held that it was impossible to avoid sin. “As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin.” (Letter to Melanchthon, 1521) "They are fools who attempt to overcome temptations by fasting, prayer and chastisement. For such temptations and immoral attacks are easily overcome when there are plenty of maidens and women" (Luther's Works, Jena ed., 1558, 2, 116; cited in P. F. O'Hare, "The Facts About Luther", Rockford, 1987, 311).

As such, it was not necessary to avoid sin. “If grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world.” In fact, the way to conquer sin, he taught was to indulge it: “The way to battle a tempting demon was to “in-dulge some sin in hatred of the evil spirit and to torment him.” Even the greatest sin was permissible, so long as one believed in Christ.: “Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder a thousand times a day. (all quotes from Letter to Melanchthon, 1521)

These quotes are often brushed aside as being hot-headed rhetoric. (Ironically, one passage to suggest that such intemperate statements were righteous is Jesus' warning that should one's eyes cause him to lust, he should cast the eye into Gehenna. How diametrically opposed to Jesus' teaching is Luther's!) But they were not said in a harmless context. Luther counseled Prince Phillip that it would be fine to take a mistress. And his comments that peasants were born to be cannon fodder is horrific in light of the deaths of 100,000 peasants in a rebellion of which he spoke, “I said they should be slain; all their blood is upon my head... My little book against the peasants is quite in the right and shall remain so, even if all the world were to be scandalized at it.” (Luther's Works, Erlangen ed., 24.299)

Such beliefs are not incidental to Luther; they are a major part of the reason for many princes siding with him against the Catholic church. Without such support, his movement would have no base. But he also appealed to their financial motives, arguing that they had no obligation to fight Muslims. In fact, Luther preached that Islamic domination was superior to Catholicism. His horrors at the excesses of Rome were pure fiction, aimed at weakening Rome's military strength. His lies are betrayed by his ignorance of Rome's geography. (He mistakenly thought that the Vatican was built on one of the seven hills of Rome, an assertion he'd make time and time again in asserting that the Papacy was Babylon.) Again, the context is horrifying: Belgrade fell in the very same year as the Council of Worms, 1521. By 1529, the Islamic horde had reached Vienna.

Luther even attacked the Holy Bible, itself. Nowhere does the bible say we are saved by “faith alone.” In fact, those words exist only in the Letter of James. So, Luther sought to have that book struck out of the bible. At the Council of Worms, he was shown how the 1st Letter of Peter refers to purgatory, how Revelations depicts the saints in Heaven praying for the souls below, how James explicitly states that “faith alone is dead, if it has not works.” Later Protestant apologists offered alternate explanations for these difficult passages, but Luther simply declared that they were false: “Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain. 'Faith justifies' and 'faith does not justify' contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor's hood and let him call me a fool “

His violence to the Word of God was worse still regarding the Old Testament. In condemning the Ten Commandments, he said Moses should be “damned and excommunicated; yea, worse than the Pope and the Devil.” Yet this man argued that the bible alone was authoritative?

When confronted by the Catholic church over his statements, Luther never disavowed these statements, or claimed they were exaggerations, or apologize for putting his foot in his mouth. Instead, he boasted, “Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me.”

Thus, the Catholic church was in the position of defending Western Civilization militarily against the Islamic horde, when an outrageous heretic preached all manner of hatred against it, instigating insurrection, and leading political forces to align against it. In doing so, he attacked not only the Church, but the historical and biblical under-pinnings of the bible. Could there be any wonder that the church responded harshly? Luther is dead, and he has never been held to be infallible or sinless. This is not an attack on him, but a defense on the Catholic Church, which he assailed.

It's 1529. The Muslims are in Bavaria. There's a madman boasting that he's responsible for 100,000 dead peasants, and he sides with the Turks. Can you really say that the Church treated him too harshly?

[Petronski]

Foxe’s Book of Martyrs?

ROFLMTO

Riiiiiiiight.

[Mr Rogers]

Protestants often deny that temporal penalties remain after forgiveness of sin, but they acknowledge it in practice—for instance, when they insist on people returning things they have stolen. Thieves may obtain forgiveness, but they also must engage in restitution.

Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.

---

Returning what you have stolen is neither punishment nor forgiveness. If someone steals my car, and then later gives it back, I still want them punished.

None of this has anything to do with the health and wealth heresy.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“We as individuals do not send anyone to prison.”

We don’t, but the principle is the same.

“In a nation-state model of justice (as opposed to tribal), the State is the one offended and punishing.”

So if you beat a man within an inch of his life only God is offended? Only the state is offended? Not the beaten man?

“On one occasion, when my son went into debt, after much discussion, I paid the bill for him. He did not pay me back. Had I insisted on repayment, it would not have been forgiveness, but a business arrangement.”

Let’s say he played ball in the front yard and broke the bay window - after you told hom to not play ball in the front yard

And then you grounded him for two weeks. You forgave him shortly after you grounded him of course as any good father would. Would you still make him serve out the two weeks or not?

“And if I grounded my kids, it was punishment. THEY were paying the price, not me.”

Right. Isn’t that the point? They committed the offending act. They are now punished. And you would punish them EVEN AFTER YOU FORGAVE THEM.

[Mr Rogers]

It relieves you from punishment you would otherwise receive for sins that have been forgiven by a very unforgiving person.

Even I, a mere human, know that when I forgive my son a debt, it no longer exists. I do not forgive his debt, then demand repayment...

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Returning what you have stolen is neither punishment nor forgiveness. If someone steals my car, and then later gives it back, I still want them punished.”

So you would want them punished even AFTER you presumably forgave them? Isn’t that EXACTLY what we’re talking about here?

“None of this has anything to do with the health and wealth heresy.’

Yeah, actually it does.

[Petronski]

None of that, or anything you’ve posted, changes the fact that indulgences do not pardon sins.

Blur the distinction, misunderstand the distinction, it does not matter: the distinction remains.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Even I, a mere human, know that when I forgive my son a debt, it no longer exists. I do not forgive his debt, then demand repayment...”

Your example is a poor one because there is no offending party. A financial debt in itself is not a sin or crime.

I know of a local story where a 16 year old stol something - really in his mind as a prank. The victim ended up having to pay $1100 to remedy the problem caused by the theft. The boy was caught. His parents paid the $1100 to the victim, but are forcing the boy to work all summer to pay it back to them. They are a very devout Christian family, and have undoubtedly forgiven their son, but they are still making him pay off that debt.

That would be a better example than the one you offered.

[dangus]

What’s your source for that article? It isn’t the 1911 Brittanica article to which you were link. The notion that Luther didn’t have any problem with proper indulgences is uproarious; the 95 theses mostly dealt with indulgences, and surrounding issues. I’ll grant you, that if one presumes sincerity on Luther, than one could suppose that the initial germ of what so upset him was the corruption of the sale of indulgences.

I did not challenge that the monetary indulgences were common. What I was denying as orthodox was the assertion, attributed to Tetzel, that one could go ahead and sin and make up for it by indulgences.

But your history does confuse indulgences with pennances. Pennances were necessary to be received back into the church, after one had committed a mortal sin. Pennance, therefore, had to do with eternal salvation. Indulgences, on the other hand, had to do with shortening time in purgatory; they were unnecessary for salvation.

Also, pennances were issued by one’s confessor, for specific sins. Indulgences were available to anyone at any time, and were proclaimed by the Pope.

[Mr Rogers]

On the contrary, I was much offended! And if you don’t repay a financial debt, it is most certainly a crime.

If not - can I borrow $10,000 from you...

[Alamo-Girl]

Even I, a mere human, know that when I forgive my son a debt, it no longer exists. I do not forgive his debt, then demand repayment...

Er, if I may add a few cents here.

God will forgive us exactly the same way we forgive others to which we agree every time we say the Lord's Prayer.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. - Matt 6:12

Forgiveness is precondition to having our petitions granted. After the Lord's Prayer, He says:

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. - Matt 6:13-14

And again here:

Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive [them], and ye shall have [them]. And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. – Mark 11:24-26

God's justice is absolutely perfect.

In this life, we build the scales whereby we ourselves will be judged, measure by measure, weight by weight:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. - Matthew 7:1-2

That is why I personally do not demand restitution. I forgive absolutely and also forget.

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: - Luke 6:37

Blessed [are] the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. - Matthew 5:7

I do not expect to be subjected to a purgatory because I do not demand restitution from others.

To God be the glory!

[Petronski]

I do not expect to be subjected to a purgatory because I do not demand restitution from others.

I certainly hope that works out for you.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“On the contrary, I was much offended! And if you don’t repay a financial debt, it is most certainly a crime.”

The original debt wasn’t to you. You choose to pay the debt. If you’re offended, then you can forgive him. Making him pay the debt does not mean that you have not forgiven him for offending you.

“If not - can I borrow $10,000 from you...”

No, your family track record on debt isn’t so hot and I’m not so “forgiving”. :)

[dangus]

>> Foxe says that Luther was at the Universirty of Erfurt and found a Latin Bible. He “read it over very greedily” That tells me that the Bibles printed in German were extremely thin. Foxe also said the Luther “was amazed to find that a small portion of the scriptures were rehearsed to the people” (John Foxe, Foxe’s Book of martyrs P 175) <<

Well, that’s where there’s a bald-faced lie. And Foxe was a slandering propagandist who would have made Stalin proud, although he is not the origin of the lie. As I noted, any daily communicant or seminarian would have heard every verse of St. Paul regularly.

>> That’s what I meant by controlled. <<

I said the defense of his statement, not that it was true. It’s unknown for certainty that his parents did possessed a bible, but it’d have actually been rather unusual. And the fact that some of his seminarian access may have been structured means precisely zero to his claim of unfamiliarity.

[Alamo-Girl]

I certainly hope that works out for you.

Thank you, dear Petronski!

One of the most beautiful assurances God has given me was in the graduation of my sister, mother and husband from this mortal life. In my sister and mother's case I felt their spirits go through me when they entered their final comas. In both cases I felt them full of joy and glad to be home as if God granted me a moment to share in what they had received. In my sister's case, four days went by before her body stopped. In my mother's case it was about a half a day. In both cases, the family needed to gather and accept the loss, and the bodies "held on" until that happened.

My husband's homegoing was during a deep sea dive in the emerald sea which is so called because of the color of the water near the surface is green. Water becomes bluer the deeper one dives. He had his final heart attack at about fifteen feet of water and I was diving after him as he fell back unconscious to the depth of over seventy feet. And when I arrived the color of the water around him, like a spot light, was golden. I felt him and I knew he was home.

Conversely, my daughter and I did not experience that same assurance when another loved one passed until about six weeks afterward. Then the assurance came. Perhaps the difference was a purgatory? I really don't know but it seemed there was a delay in his case, though I couldn't tell you why.

All four of these are Christian, two of them are Catholic. So evidently their theology had nothing to do with it.

[Mr Rogers]

The source for the article I posted is here:

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Martin_Luther

This came earlier in the article:

“Luther began his work as a Reformer by proposing to discuss the true meaning of Indulgences. The occasion was an Indulgence proclaimed by Pope Leo X., farmed by the archbishop of Mainz, and preached by John Tetzel, a Dominican monk and a famed seller of Indulgences. Many of the German princes had no great love for Indulgence sellers, and Frederick of Saxony had prohibited Tetzel from entering his territories. But it was easy to reach most parts of Electoral Saxony without actually crossing the frontiers. The Red Cross of the Indulgence seller had been set up at Zerbst and at Jizterbogk, and people had gone from Wittenberg to buy the Papal Tickets. Luther believed that the sales were injurious to the morals of the townsmen; he had heard reports of Tetzel’s sermons; he had become wrathful on reading the letter of recommendation of the archbishop; and friends had urged him to interfere. He protested with a characteristic combination of caution and courage. The church of All Saints (the castle church) was closely connected with the university of Wittenberg. Its doors were commonly used for university proclamations. The Elector Frederick was a great collector of relics and had stored them in his church. He had procured an Indulgence for all who attended its services on All Saints’ Day, and crowds commonly gathered. Luther nailed ninety-five theses on the church door on that day, the 1st of November 1517, when the crowd could see and read them.

The proceeding was strictly academic. The matter discussed, to judge by the writings of theologians, was somewhat obscure; and Luther offered his theses as an attempt to make it clearer. No one was supposed to be committed to every opinion he advanced in such a way. But the theses posted somehow touched heart and conscience in a way unusual in the common subjects of academic disputation. Every one wanted to read them. The University Press could not supply copies fast enough. They were translated into German, and were known throughout Germany in less than a fortnight. Within a month they had been heard of all over western and southern Europe. Luther himself was staggered at the way they were received. He said he had never meant to determine, but to debate.

The theses were singularly unlike what might have been expected from a professor of theology. They made no attempt at theological definition, no pretence at logical arrangement; they were anything but a brief programme of reformation. They were simply ninety-five sledge-hammer blows directed against the most flagrant ecclesiastical abuse of the age. They were addressed to the “common” man and appealed to his common sense of spiritual things.”

---

I believe the writer’s point was that Luther was objecting, not to the theology of indulgences, but their abuse. But once the closet door opened, there was more waiting to fall out...

[Mr Rogers]

My background was in electronic combat, not theology. I’d feel more comfortable on the whole discussing ways of defeating surface to air missiles. However...another thread today y’all might enjoy reading - on Calvin.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2275124/posts

[AnalogReigns]

{Sigh} Same ol' same ol'.

Luther did NOT teach people to sin--but he did reject the late Medieval teachings of Gregory Biel--predominate in Roman Catholicism at the time(and amoung many, up to today)--that was basically, "Do you best, and God's grace will do the rest." Luther's writings proported to teach people to sin, "sin boldly..." (in a private letter to the fearful but eminent theologian and friend, Philip Melanchton) are all part of his argument against Biel's works + grace theology.

Some less informed Protestants say that Luther opposed Catholic "works righteousness" and so he did--but, neither Luther, or any other well informed Protestant has ever said that Rome was fully Pelagian--that is--denied that grace was absolutely necessary. Notice the expression above (very similar to "God helps those who help themselves") acknowledges grace is necessary but it also says we do our best--first--then God gives the grace we need to make it. THIS is what Luther, and subsequent classical Protestants have opposed: It is properly called semi-Pelagianism.

Pelagius was a Welsh monk, popular in the Christian Roman world, and a contemporary of St. Augustine (ca. AD 400). He taught that God would never command us to follow his laws, if we didn't have the full capacity, within ourselves unaided, to obey them fully. So grace for Pelagius was nice, but not necessary... Pelagius was condemned as a heretic--and Rome has never been fully Pelagian.

The Biel theology, in contrast, of "do your best and God's grace will do the rest" basically says our good works prepare us to receive that absolutely necessary grace we must have to make it.... But since our works are a necessary prerequisite for God's grace--this is why this is called semi-Pelagian. Biel didn't deny grace was necessary--only that our works were needed for it to be given.

Luther's hangup--and mine too--as well as that of all other classical Protestants--was/is that, my BEST good deeds are impure--and since they are done first merely to avoid Hell--out of abject fear of God...are really not good at all, since they are done for selfish motives. Hence, there is no preparation at all for grace, only sin--and following the Biel logic--only damnation awaits.

That was Luther's great fear--as he was honest with his good works and sins--and knew he couldn't hold up his side of the "do your best...." formula. Hence when the breakthrough came--while reading Romans (or maybe another book by St. Paul) that "by grace we are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2:8)

The formula was NOT:

good works + grace = salvation

RATHER:

grace + salvation = good works.

In theological language, "justification" (becoming right with God) was separated from, and comes before, "sanctification" (maturing in holy living)--but both are essentials in the Christian's life. What Luther was reacting against, was the confusion of the two...or...putting sanctification BEFORE justification.... which logically infers we earn a PART of our salvation--and insults God's grace.

Luther taught the 10 Commandments, and you will find no licentiousness among the early (or late) Lutherans.... The whole of Lutheran (and later, even more so) Reformed theology affirmed Christian ethics and good works.... The whole idea that Luther promoted sinning is preposterous--and shows a complete misunderstanding of basic Protestant doctrine.

The "mistress" of Philip of Hesse is a red herring. He had that mistress before following Luther (as a Roman Catholic in good standing...)--and he only asked Luther if he should marry her. After years of badgering, Luther said yes he should--marry her, as a 2nd wife. THAT is what was scandalous, that is the bigammy, not the fact that she was his mistress.

I don't know of a single Roman Catholic royal at the time in Europe who did not have at least one mistress--in addition to their official wife. Mistresses were SOP for renaissance-era monarchs (just as its carried over in southern Europe VIP's today).

Luther made a mistake, based on the fact that bigamy (and polygamy) is never overtly condemned in the bible...and he was going strictly by the bible. Polygammy/bigamy was banned by the early Church--but is only mentioned by St. Paul in the bible as a disqualifier for the ministry...not condemned for everyone. Naturally, the Church reflecting on that--and how there was only one Eve for Adam--ended up banning polygamy completely for Christians. But Luther didn't take for granted anything the Church had done--so many corruptions had he also seen her done...

Below find a painting done by one of Luther's best friends, and devout Lutheran, Lucas Cranach the elder. It is huge (6' by 10'(?)) was hung in the City Council meeting hall of Wittenberg for many years--throughout Luther's career at least.

Serious evidence that Luther and Lutheranism were anti-law, right?

[AnalogReigns]

Oh, just for the record, in case you can’t discern, that painting above is called “The Ten Commandments.”

You see how each command is being disobeyed by some, AND obeyed by another in each frame? See the demons urging disobedience...and the angels urging obedience?

[dangus]

Well,

The point of the article was about the white-washing of Luther.

Your source is completely unfamiliar with indulgences, seemingly utterly confusing them with pennances.

You’re source is Anglican, trying feverishly to reconcile Luther with their own very non-Lutheran theology. If among Lutherans there’s a whitewashing trend to adapt Luther to their reformation of the reformation, among sectarian anti-Catholic Anglicans it’s in over-drive. The same article even calls Luther, “the greatest religious genius which the 16th century produced.” That’s quite a high praise for a man who had been so devestatingly defeated at the Imperial Council of 1519, destroyed the bible rather than being able to reconcile St. Paul with St. James, swung back and forth on the most important issues of his time, and whose defenders cite his supposedly meager background to explain why his language is rash, self-contradicting, illogical, and prone to outrageous incitement. Luther’s “genius” was his political skills, his theology reads more like a transcript at the imminence of a bar brawl.
3. If such articles are at a mere tangent to truth, you’ve read into them a meaning which is 180 degrees away. Have you read the 95 theses? Luther opposed all indulgences, all pennances, all confessions, the underlying theologies to them, the very understanding of the nature of God by which they make any sense, and even the validity of the scripture from which they were established. Luther didn’t oppose the indulgences because they were corrupted by Tetzel, he used the corruption of Tetzel to provide an emotional undercurrent for his complete denunciation for the notion of atoning for sins, which he freely acknowledges was based on his own desperation of combating his own sins.

Your refutation of sources quotes is entirely generalizations and analysis. Your source, authoritative as it was in 1911 England, makes mere assertions based on the very conventional wisdom I was refuting.

[dangus]

If Biel taught that we can earn salvation, than he was wrong. He certainly was never canonized, unlike those who taught the opposite, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. John Vianney, etc. I’d certainly say that Biel seems to cite an ethos very popular in modern pop culture, but I’d hardly blame Catholics for American pop culture. Which is not to say that the Catholic church did not need reform; the great saints are mostly reformers and denouncers of heresies: St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Francis of Assissi, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Therese of Avila, St. Dominic, and again, St. Augustine, St. John Vianney, and, St. John Crysostom, who was named “the golden-mouthed” for saying that the floor of Hell was paved with the skulls of bishops.

But Luther brought not reform and grace, but slander and incitement to violence. His most famous writing depicts a trip to Rome which was a complete fiction. He advocate the wholesale slaughter of the peasantry. He turned princes against the emperor in a time of pagan invasion.

As for Prince Phillip, Luther’s point was precisely that mistresses were common. But rather than convict Phillip to strive for righteousness, he counselled Phillip that he could never overcome his desires, and so he might as well resign himself to a life of adultery. Phillip himself was horrified, and sought a more normalized relation, perhaps through divorce which would have been scandalous. Luther told him instead to take a second wife illicitly. You call it bigamy, but it was adultery, plain and simple.

And that’s my point: not to indict Luther of being an evil-doer. Many popes were evil-doers, and we Catholics must nonetheless defend their infallibility despite their occasionally horrifying lack of impeccability. Luther is not impeccable, or infallible, so I do not delude myself into thinking that demonstrating Luther was a heretic will make anyone abandon Protestantism. But what I do intend to show is that the Catholic Church had grave theological issues that weren’t merely political or plutocratic that compelled it to denounce Luther

The Council of Trent certainly did not assert, “Do your best and God’s grace will do the rest.” What it asserted was that Luther’s promiscuity was a bad fruit; that when people’s faith is proper, they necessarily perform good works. And that to increase in grace, it is effective to seek out the sort of mortification which Christ modeled, Paul preached and Luther condemned. Is that what you mean by “Do your best and God’s grace will do the rest?” If so, you do violence to the intention. I would instead refer to Paul, who relied entirely on God’s grace, but nonetheless worked out his salvation in fear and trembling (which Luther despised), striving for righteousness as a runner strives to finish the race.

It’s ironic that you sigh, “Same ol’, same ol’.” It’s you who made your arguments by citing convention.

As for the art, I am at a loss to interpret it. I see many images which could be interpreted as demonization of the law, but I couldn’t possibly assert that with any certainty. In 9 of the 10 panels, there seems to be some demonic or darkened figure influencing someone in authority, whether directing an execution (Panel 5), or watching as a woman turns away from her husband in their marital bed to listen to a lawyer or cleric or nobleman (Panel 9). In Panel 1, is he equating Moses receiving the law with idolatry, or posing him in opposition to idolators? I can’t tell.