“I read years ago that Luther, like many others did not get to read all of the Bible until he went to the University as a student...”
And that is one of the most idiotic and yet enduring MYTHS about Luther's life and it was a quote from Luther that began it all. Luther most certainly did see and read Bible and individual Biblical books since the time he was a child. There were more than 14 German language editions of the Bible published before Luther produced his own, and there were plenty of Latin editions around as well.
Luther, in his table talks later in life made stories like this: “ I was twenty years old,” says Luther, “before I had ever seen the Bible. I had no notion that there existed any other gospels or epistles than those in the service. At last I came across a Bible in the library at Erfurt, and used often to read it to Dr. Staupitz, with still increasing wonder.”
This is simply impossible. Impossible. As the Catholic Encyclopedia points out:
His accidental discovery in the Erfurt monastery library of the Bible, “a book he had never seen in his life” (Mathesius, op. cit.), or Luther's assertion that he had “never seen a Bible until he was twenty years of age”, or his still more emphatic declaration that when Carlstadt was promoted to the doctorate “he had as yet never seen a Bible and I alone in the Erfurt monastery read the Bible”, which, taken in their literal sense, are not only contrary to demonstrable facts, but have perpetuated misconception, bear the stamp of improbability written in such obtrusive characters on their face, that it is hard, on an honest assumption, to account for their longevity. The Augustinian rule lays especial stress on the monition that the novice “read the Scripture assiduously, hear it devoutly, and learn it fervently” (Constitutiones Ordinis Fratr. Eremit. Sti. Augustini”, Rome, 1551, cap. xvii). At this very time Biblical studies were in a flourishing condition at the university, so that its historian states that “it is astonishing to meet such a great number of Biblical commentaries, which force us to conclude that there was an active study of Holy Writ” (Kampschulte, op. cit., I, 22). Protestant writers of repute have abandoned this legend altogether.
The story is a fabrication or at the very least a gross exaggeration and a reference to a massive single volume Bible rather than the usual two volume version. In any case, the story is a tale and not the truth. And that is like much of what the Protestant Revolution is built on.
“It was there that he read the actual words and realized that the Catholic Churxch had moved away from the original idea of salvation by grace, “justified by faith””
Wrong. The Church before then, at that time and today believes in salvation by grace alone. That is NOT the same thing as “justified by faith” which is a peculiar and novel Protestant idea started by Luther. Luther himself cut books from the canon for a time that he believed went against his understanding of “justified by faith”. The idea that he “realized” anything other than his own fantasies is farcical.
Why I believe that Luter never saw a Bible to read the whole thing is that it wss not normal for the peasants to have any books even Bibles...they were expensive and the peasants could not read...
The parish priest might have a Bible and noble families would but not peasants...
The Catholic Church controlled the reading of the Bible...
However when the students got to the University..there was the Bible...
Several of the leaders in the Reformation had the same experience...
If Bibles were in every home like today...I own a dozen Bibles and commentaries..then I’d saw Hmmmmmm
But the odds are that Luther was correct when he said “ I was twenty years old,” says Luther, “before I had ever seen the Bible. I had no notion that there existed any other gospels or epistles than those in the service...” meaning the Mass etc in which the priest or bishop would have quoted the scripture from the Bible...
About the same thing happened in England France, Germany..the Catholic Church had a central governing office...the Vatican...with a set way of doing things..
Information was controlled...both secular and church...
Remember my family if they were churched (Usually they were by law) were all Catholics back then...before they were Protestants...
Let’s just say that Luther SHOULD have seen a bible*. His arguments for the nonexistence of purgatory and for faith alone were so thoroughly destroyed at the Imperial Diet that one might suppose he had never; he was so completely surprised at the Diet’s citations, that the best response his response was to assert that no fewer than fourteen books did not belong in the bible, including Revelations, Hebrews, James and four other New Testament works.
Consider how amazing this was: He had gone to the Diet with the assertion that only the bible was valid for disputing theology, and he left arguing that no fewer than sixteen books (two, Daniel and Esther, were merely reduced by Luther) did not belong in the bible.
(*I am quite confident he did; most of his arguments were biblical. He just didn’t hadn’t been the world’s best scholar.)
So you are forgiven, but must still be punished ("required by Divine justice"). That is a very odd idea of forgiveness.
I must start applying it to others. "I forgive you for what you have done to me. Show up at my house on Saturday and pull weeds for 2 hours."
I have a friend who was raised Catholic and he said he never saw a Bible until he was an adult and I think a quite mature one, at that.