GiovannaNicoletta.
I suppose one could say, since you wrote nothing of your own in this post, that you left no fingerprints on what you posted. On the other hand, due to the fact that you posted it without comment, one is left to draw one’s own conclusions about your reasons, which I will not presume to divine. But the very fact that you excerpted what you did excerpt and post from what are already self-evidently (c’mon, the site is nobeliefs.com!!!!!!!) agenda-driven excerpts does not engender in me any confidence in your scholarship or ethics.
As to the treatise, “On the Jews and their lies,” both its writing and publication were unfortunate, but sadly typical of late medieval Europe. Jews were entirely expelled from England in 1290, from France in 1394, and from Spain in 1492 with the support of the Inquisition. The various and many disparate German states began to do similarly in the 16th century. It is a sad chapter in the history of Europe from which no one emerges without some degree of guilt. You, of course, know all this, do you not?
Several things should be said about both what Luther wrote in the treatise and about Lutherans in general. First, Luther did not advocate their death. He expressly wrote: “We dare not avenge ourselves.” (Luther’s Works, vol. 47, p. 268) Second, he concluded the treatise by saying, “My Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of Him, which is eternal life. Amen.” (LW 47, p. 306) Beyond pointing out those two facts, I will not defend any of Luther’s advice to the governing authorities. Third, the very fact that he said, “dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule - if my counsel does not please you, find better advise ...” tells you something about the Lutheran doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. The church has no power of the sword. That belongs to the state. To their great credit the Lutheran princes either did not follow Luther’s advice in this or, if they took any of it, it was very little. But their decision to decline Luther’s advice did not in the end stop the growth of anti-semitism in the German states. And it certainly did nothing to reverse what had already happened in England, France, and Spain, nor would it do anything to alter the anti-semitism which was widespread in the various Slavic states farther east. As I said, this is a sad chapter in Europe’s history. No one comes out looking very good.
Lastly, official Lutheran doctrine is to be found in the Book of Concord, which in our day all pastors of the Lutheran groups in America subscribe to unconditionally ... except those of the ELCA. In it there is no endorsement of the kind of thinking behind Luther’s wrong-headed advice regarding the Jews whatsoever. One could even go so far as to say there is not even a hint of it whatsoever. It was repudiated. And it remains so to this day. Those few Lutheran-in-name-only officials of the era of the Third Reich were just that, Lutherans in name only. Naziism by its very nature is anti-Christian, even pagan. The same could be said for any of the so-called Roman Catholics in that era, they were Catholics in name only. I can be very critical of Roman Catholicism, as you and others know, but I readily state that it does not endorse persecution of the Jews, nor to my knowledge does any other reputable variant of Christendom. Thus even the attempt to brand Hitler as a Catholic is ludicrous. Whether he was Catholic at some time earlier in his life he is immaterial. As an adult he was apostate, pagan, and utterly anti-Christian.
The Lutheran bottom line is that Martin Luther too falls under the authority of the Holy Scriptures, which alone interpret themselves and determine true heavenly doctrine from false. Martin Luther was no pope, nor was he ever accepted or endorsed as such. His advice in this case was sadly and inexplicably wrong and shameful. It was rejected. That is the fuller story, brief though it is here given, that your mere quotation of the worst of the excerpts did not bother to touch on.
This will also be a big part of my fictional story. The LCMS does not follow its rules. P#4 knows the Book of Concord very well. A debate between P#4 and DP will show the lack of Book of Concord understanding of DP.
So Belteshazzar, Reading your post says Martin Luther was antisemitic because everyone else was at the time. The thesis of my OP may be correct because virtually everyone in Europe at the time believed in replacement theology.
well written, I agree, thank you