4 Books That Made a Priest Leave the Church

CCC Discover ^ | May 24, 2017 | Nicholas Davis

[Gamecock]

The year 2017 is the year of Martin Luther—or at least it should be. Nearly 500 years ago on October 31, 1517, Luther nailed (or “mailed,” for some historians debate this point) his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg Castle Church.

Even so, Luther didn’t become a full-fledged protestor of the church in that single moment. It took him about eight years (1513-1521) to challenge and hammer out a more robust understanding of the gospel.

Have you ever wondered what Martin Luther was reading during this crucial time in his life? Maybe I’m just a nerd, but I thought at least someone else might be interested in what Luther was reading during his slow, but steady, transition out of the medieval church and into the world of reformation.

Remember, Luther’s goal wasn’t to invent or start an entirely new church. His goal was to reform the church and call her to repentance and faith in the abiding Word of God.

Here are four books Martin Luther read that made him question everything:

1. The Psalms Luther spent time studying and lecturing through the Psalms in the Bible. He began to realize that the Bible teaches we are not generally sinful, we are totally sinful. Here, Luther had the beginnings of what theologians later would refer to as “total depravity,” meaning that we are sinful in our thoughts, words, and deeds.

2. Romans After that, Luther lectured through Paul’s letter to the Romans. He came across Romans 1:17, “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” The last part of this verse is a direct quotation from Habakkuk 2:4.

Luther began to see something that he never saw before. He began to see the doctrine of imputation—that we are declared right before God not by our own righteousness, but by the righteousness of another. He began to understand that the righteousness of God that was such a terror to him as a priest (because it told him that he was unholy and unworthy), was actually the righteousness from God that told him he was holy and worthy. God gives this right standing by faith alone. It is a righteousness that is received as a gift and not earned.

3. Galatians It wasn’t until Luther started lecturing through Galatians that he began to realize that faith does not justify us before God. Faith is merely an instrument that God uses. Faith is a tool by which we embrace Jesus Christ as he is offered to us in the gospel.

Faith is, as John Murry once said, “extrospective.” It looks outward—not inward—to embrace the God who gives himself. In other words, faith is only an empty hand. It justifies because it grabs hold of the Jesus who justifies (Rom. 3:26).

4. Hebrews The last book that turned a medieval priest into a true Reformer was the letter to the Hebrews. Luther began to embrace an entirely different understanding of how the Old and New Testaments relate to one another. He realized that the law is not simply the Old Testament and the gospel is the New Testament, but that the gospel of God can be seen as preached throughout both Old and New Testaments.

The same Jesus of the same gospel was offered freely to both Jew and Gentile alike, throughout the whole Bible. Sure, there was a greater and fuller proclamation of that message, such that it went out to the whole world instead of only Israel and their close neighbors—but the gospel was preached nonetheless!

In short, reading and studying the Bible is what ultimately made Martin Luther “protest” the medieval church. Luther was convinced that the Bible was worth listening to. So this year we celebrate the anniversary of a “recovery of the bright light of the gospel.” To God alone be all the glory (Soli Deo Gloria).

[af_vet_1981]

Looks like Luther was right and Catholics are wrong.

Rather, looks like Luther was wrong, wrong, wrong, on so many levels.

So it goes on and on; and the more we read Luther, the more we find how justified are those biographers of his who say: “It seems difficult to dismiss here the hypothesis of neuropathic disorder “(Maritain). Others describe his sufferings as “delirious hallucinations” (Funck-Grentano), “religious fanaticism” (Professor B. Schoen), or describe him simply as “mentally deranged” (ibid).

Even his greatest admirers and apologists have to admit that he suffered from “religious melancholia”, “mania for persecution”, or “a mania for greatness”(Professors A. Hausrath, J. Husslein, A. Harnack).

The older he grew, the worse he got. He suffers from “temptations” and especially from “devil-mania”. Everything he disliked, everybody who disagreed with him, was inspired by the Devil. “He was subject to numerous strange hallucinations and vibrations which he attributed invariably to the direct action of Satan. Satan become, in consequence, the dominating conception of his life.” “It is one of the chief characteristics of Luther that in his intellectual life, in his social intercourse, in speech, in writing, and in preaching he always brought in the Devil—attributed far more influence and importance to him that is warranted by Scripture, and by his writings gained for him in Germany a popularity which he had never before enjoyed. . . .All the slumbering germs of superstition both among the rude masses and the higher circles were by this means awakened and set in motion.”

Luther's sayings on the subject are too numerous to be quoted. But it certainly is true that he forced back upon Germany a belief in miracles, superstitions, mysticism, a fanatical belief in evil powers which under the influence of the Renaissance were rapidly losing ground.

Here it must be mentioned that there is something which makes it difficult to quote his sayings, not merely on the Devil, but on many other subjects. This is his language. “Satan sleeps with me much more than my wife does”, is a relatively harmless remark. Other quotations can be given only with dashes indicating unprintable indecencies.

Luther's language was indeed something quite abominable and indescribable. “He is obsessed with filth and obscenity”, writes Maritain. To call it “revolutionary journalism” is an understatement. “He would be furiously angry, and when he was angry he fairly vomited filth. He wrote things one cannot quote in decent English,” is much nearer to the mark. This again, was only the natural outcome of his neurotic character. There was nothing godlike or holy about him, there was little patience or human understanding; he loved to scream, shout and blaspheme in the manner of the most vulgar German politician, such as our generation has seen more than enough. With pride he himself exclaimed; “Rage acts as a stimulant to my whole being. It sharpens my wits, puts a stop to the assaults of the Devil and drives out care. Never do I write or speak better than when I am in a rage. If I wish to compose, write, pray and preach well, I have to be in a rage” (“Table Talk,” 1210).

[Luircin]

Are... are you serious? Did you...?

You did.

Oh. My. Gawd. YOU DID.

You...

You...

YOU INVOKED GODWIN’S LAW!

SWEET MERCIFUL JEEBUS YOU COMPARED LUTHER TO HITLER!

That. Is. HILARIOUS!

That is an epic loss if I do say so myself. Great job buddy; if you had to lose this argument THAT badly, at least you did it in style!

I’m gonna be smirking about this the rest of the night.

[papertyger]

So again, it doesn’t say what you claim, just like I didn’t say what you claim, and just like the Bible doesn’t say what you claim.

I have no doubt of your desire to disengage from me. It mustn’t be easy to have ones credibility shredded over and over again by someone else using nothing but ones own words.

[papertyger]

Collaboration, pfft. As if that’s anything but works-righteousness by a different name.

So it's not a matter of the Catechism saying what you allege, it's matter of you refusing to accept the definition of "collaboration" in favor of an unbiblical doctrine that can not integrate verses like James 2:17 into the Thumpers self-serving definition of "grace."

[af_vet_1981]

Walking in the flesh is not an excuse for breaking commandments, nor is poor reading comprehension an excuse for false statements.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

...

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

...

Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

...

Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.

Exodus, Catholic chapter twenty, Protestant verse seven,
Exodus, Catholic chapter twenty, Protestant verse sixteen,
Ephesians, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses one to seven,
James, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses twenty one to twenty four,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[boatbums]

BTW, Yehudi does not mean “Jewish,” but of Yehuda’s tribe. The two are not interchangeable,except to followers of the idiocy of Hal Lindsay. Judaism is phariseeism, not a genetic label, but the name of a man made sect.

Judah (Hebrew: יְהוּדָה‎‎, Standard Yehuda Tiberian Yəhūḏāh) was, according to the Book of Genesis, the fourth son of Jacob and Leah, the founder of the Israelite Tribe of Judah. By extension, he is indirectly eponymous of the Kingdom of Judah, the land of Judea and the word "Jew".

The Hebrew name for Judah, Yehudah (יהודה), literally "thanksgiving" or "praise," is the noun form of the root Y-D-H (ידה), "to thank" or "to praise."[2] His birth is recorded at Gen. 29:35; upon his birth, Leah exclaims, "This time I will praise the LORD," with the Hebrew word for "I will praise," odeh (אודה) sharing the same root as Yehudah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_(son_of_Jacob)

See how much you could do to educate others if you could only let go of the knee-jerk animosity?

[af_vet_1981]

BTW, Yehudi does not mean “Jewish,” ,

It does if one speaks Hebrew.

[Mark17]

Both my wife and I are ex Catholics, but I was not a priest, and she was not a nun. 🙃😂👍

[Luircin]

I have no interest in speaking to you any more. Leave me alone or I report you.

[boatbums]

The quoted Catechism didn't go far enough (I wonder why?):

2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

The Catholic frequently changes definitions so that one cannot EVER know assurance of his salvation. They call that the "sin of presumption".

[Luircin]

Of course they do.

Gotta keep the money coming in, after all.

[daniel1212]

Hardly. The 95 thesis was the culmination of Luther's work to design a pseudo-Christianity whereby he could keep his clerical vocation while simultaneously getting himself out from under the authority of the true Church.

I see, so your propensity to rely on mind-reading extends into psychohistory. Quite fitting.

He DESIGNED it to resist scrutiny by the real Church, just like every other cult.

And which "real Church" declares itself as impossible to err in official teaching due to unique special protection in order to resist scrutiny in the light of the real supreme standard, just like every sola ecclesial-type cult. And which presumed premise certain RCs hide behind in avoiding such actual examination.

[Mark17]

I’ve read Catholic doctrine. It’s salvation by works.

I am an ex Catholic. I was taught salvation by works.

[boatbums]

Some people need to get over their raging hatred of a man dead for 500 hundred years. It's best, if one is seeking to know the truth about a person, look at sources OTHER THAN ones equally hating him.

From Peter F. Wiener's "Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor," a Literary Feud Revisited:

In 1945, a literary feud put the theme "Luther and the Jews" into the limelight. One year earlier, a British teacher of German and French, Peter F. Wiener, published a book contending that Luther was Hitler's spiritual ancestor. It is sheer propaganda with the intention to show that Luther's radical anti-Semitism made him "one of the darkest figures history has yet produced." This is "proven" by a chain of historical distortions: Luther tolerated Jews in order to gain their support in his struggle against the papal church, but turned against the Jews when they did not join him; his demonic anti-Semitism was not grounded in theology because his "religion" was a "Teutonic anti-Christian faith." Wiener misquotes, misinterprets, and intentionally misunderstands . His work "is nothing but a historical forgery based on ignorance and malice." [so says Gordon Rupp].

The British Luther scholar Ernest Gordon Rupp offered a devastating, yet elegantly executed critique. One cannot win the peace, Rupp observed, by reviving the propaganda of Joseph Goebbels, the late but unlamented Minister of Nazi Propaganda. "The Nazi uniforms which Mr. Wiener has put on Luther fit very oddly on the facts: they were not made for him, nor he for them. Whatever be the truth about Luther, it is not Mr. Wiener's caricature." [Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 118-119].

[Luircin]

Far as I can tell, it goes like this.

Luther: Salvation by grace.

Evangelicals: Salvation by grace.

Protestants: Salvation by grace.

Greek Orthodox: Salvation by grace.

St. Paul: Salvation by grace.

Jesus: Salvation by grace.

Catholics: Salvation by works. Oh, excuse me, “merit.”

o/’ One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong. o/’

I think, when I get a day off, I’ll make a meme on the subject if I can find a good gif for it.

[Luircin]

What you write is true.

But Imma be honest here, when a man Godwins, he's beyond truth or logic. The only real response left is to point and laugh.

Like so!

[daniel1212]

Yawn. Look at what the Catholics did and you’ll see far, FAR worse. If you really want to start comparing, I think your so called church is FAR ahead on atrocity count. - Luircin

...Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal

So just how is this a refutation of the charge that Rome shed more blood than what you attribute to Luther?

And would you agree that Catholic salvation is by works, in that one is justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God, being accounted to have truly merited eternal life by these very works he did in God (meriting salvation by grace)? And that being formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis) means that one must actually become good enough in character to be with God via the torments of RC Purgatory, unless he has attained to the state by the time (and maintains to the time) he dies?

[Luircin]

The man compared Martin Luther to Hitler. I think he's beyond reason.

But I'm going to take the chance to post some more memes about it at least, and grin the whole time.