Replies

Please! Just stop with the attempts to smear Luther with out-of-context, UNSOURCED snippets from works I highly doubt you have taken the time to read. I shouldn't have to follow Catholics around correcting all the misinformation they spew about a Godly man! I'm not a Lutheran but I DO care about truth. If you cared about writing the truth and being "kind", you would take the time to research rather than toss out inflammatory words which no one should just accept at face value unless they look at the quotes further.

I've given you this link before, please take a few moments to look up a passage to get the real point rather than have a knee-jerk reaction to words ripped from their context and designed to give the false impression of the speaker being "nasty, heretical and evil". When I went to http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=did+luther+say+jesus+became+a+sinner, I find out:

Scholars know how difficult, if not impossible, it is to link the lapidary "table notations" of Luther's friends to Luther's own views. The editors of the American Edition speculate in a footnote that the "probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647) in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer" (LW 54:154).

A more probable context is Luther's account of the atonement. One of his basic assertions is that our sins become Christ's and Christ's perfect righteousness becomes ours by faith. This idea of "the happy exchange" is found in many Luther texts. Given his central soteriological and christological concern, the theological irony in Schlagenhaufen's remembered notation becomes clearer: The "godly" Christ becomes or is made a sinner through his solidarity with sinners, even to the point of dying as a God-forsaken criminal on the cross. This is how Luther understood Paul's statement, "God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21).

So Christ "becomes" an adulterer, though he does not actually commit adultery with Mary or anyone else. He puts mercy front and center, and rejects the legalism which demanded that the woman caught in adultery be killed and the woman at the well and Mary Magdalene be shunned. The holy one becomes the sinner by putting himself into the situation of sinners, by loving and forgiving them, and ultimately by taking their sins on himself. For this gospel reason, Luther could also remark that God made Jesus "the worst sinner of the whole world," even though he also acknowledged that the sinless, righteous Christ actually committed no sin himself.

Please take a few extra moments next time to find out if what you are saying IS actually what Luther said and in what context he said it and why. That way, you will look less like a slanderer and more like a truth-seeker who is kind.

Dear Boatbums. You have evinced no sign you possess the charism of afflatus so you may as well just stop trying to attribute malign motives to me.

That aside, your suggestion that the fat, violent, antisemitic, vow breaking, drunk (I don't mean that in a bad way) is "Godly" is risible.

Now, if you were to write that Luther was insane and, thus, perhaps, not culpable for his manifest works of evil and his fetid heresies, then, maybe, you'd find in me a sympathetic ear.

Here is The Heresiarch in his,likely, mundane insanity.

Facts about Luther

March 3, 15 19, Luther addressed another letter to the Pope overflowing as usual with expressions of the greatest loyalty and most perfect submission. In it, amongst other things, he "calls God and man to witness that he has never wished and does not now desire to touch the Roman Church or the Pope's sacred authority; and that he acknowledges most explicitly that this Church rules over all and that nothing in heaven or in earth is superior to it, save only Jesus Christ our Lord." Only two weeks before he made this pronouncement calling God and man to witness his words, he wrote to his friend Scheurl I have often said that hitherto I have only been playing.Now at last we shall have to act seriously against the Roman authority and against Roman arrogance." (De Wette i, 230.)

This detestable hypocrisy is further confirmed when ten days after sending to the Pope the letter of March 3rd, he declared to his friend Spalatinus: 'I do not mind telling you, between ourselves, that I am not sure whether the Pope is Antichrist himself or only his apostle." (De Wette I, 239.)

A putative "Godly" man who is so manifestly emotionally labile is more accurately assessed as obviously insane; ok, I could grant you that he was intentionally "duplicitous" but that would mean he was culpable for his intellectual dishonesty and bearing of false witness.

Either way, as a Catholic writing about one who was Catholic and then fell away from the Faith (2 John 9 teaches that such a man hath not God), I will rely on Catholic sources rather than protestant sources who will try and explain away his many manifest works of evil.

Dear boatbums: You linked to a site that defended Luther'e abominations about Jesus by referencing his table talks with the excellent defense being offered that the man you identify as Godly was probably drunk

But what I cited was not from Luther drunk but from Luther sosber:

But Christ took upon Himself all of our sin, and thus He died upon the cross. Therefore he had to become that which we are, namely a sinner, a murderer, evildoer, etc. . . . For insofar as he is a victim for the sins of the whole world, He is not now such a person as is innocent and without sin, is not God's Son in all glory, but a sinner, abandoned by God for a short time; Psalms 8:6.

[Detailed Explanation of the Epistle to the Galatians, part 2, fourth argument, Walch edition, vol. 8, p. 2165, nos. 321-324; cf. Commentary on Galatians, translatd by Erasmus Middleton, ed. J.P. Fallowes, London: 1850; reprinted by Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 1979, 164-165]

Ping me when they address his printed words not his slurred words when he was drunk.