Clearing up myths about "Doctor" Martin Luther?

Question

I see a lot of false information being spread about Martin Luther. But do Protestants know:

1. Luther added his own words to his German translation. For example he added "alone" so that Scripture read "justified by faith alone apart from works of the law."

2. Luther called the book of James a "book of straw" and wanted to have it removed from the New Testament

3. When questioned about tampering with Holy Scripture his response was: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so! And he says that a papist and an *** are one and the same thing."

4. He took faith alone to the extreme writing "No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day"

5. His arrogance was unbounded: "“I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ” and Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me"

Anyone have any other historical information or quotes from Luther to help us better?

References: An Open Letter on Translating, 1530 A.D, Martin Luther

Lecture at Wittenberg, Martin Luther

Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107

Answer 1

Veritas, thanks for the information.

As a former Protestant, I can tell you that in the 30 years I was Methodist, I never knew much about Martin Luther. He was hailed as a great man leading the people out of the clutches of the evil Pope. But no one ever said I should read his works and no one ever taught from his works or writings.

These quotes you've given were certainly never mentioned. But as a Catholic, I've come to find out that Martin Luther had many issues, personal and otherwise. Hardly the pillar of the reformation he was held up to be.

From what I know of Protestants, they will not be that interested in what Martin Luther said. Because they do not really see him as that important. All they know is he "rightly" protested Catholicism. After that, everyone was on their own. So they do not see they are as connected to him as we see.

Answer 2

Still skeptical ...

1. The question is if it reflects the meaning of the Greek within the whole of Paul's writing, not whether it was different from previous translations. Erasmus, well known appointed Catholic translator, defended Luther's choice. I don't even see how taking out "alone" changes the meaning in any significant way.

2. He questioned other books too. The NT was never officially canonized by the RCC until the counter-reformation (years later). They also canonized saints at this time in response to Luther's criticizing the practice of veneration.

3. Not sure, but it wouldn't matter. He said far worse things about the pope than that. And the Westminster Confessions, still used by some denominations, claim the pope is the anti-Christ.

4. You should familiarize yourself with hyperbole as a rhetorical device. He also advocated farting into the devils face.

5. I have no idea. Citation would be great (since you are "clearing up myths"). Again, see no.4

Answer 3

I like to take the middle ground aproach when viewing Martin Luther. Most people are too critical for or against him. What you have to remember is these guys were so indoctrinated in the Roman Catholicism dogma that a sudden and radical change from that was very difficult. What you see with Martin Luther is a very slow change. He actually kept to much of the Catholic tradition, well because that was all he knew. I do have some quotes to post:

"Luther was 'quite sure' that the Church would never be reformed 'unless we get rid of cannon law"...

"I do not deny that there are many metaphors in the holy Scriptures, but you must prove that 'This is my body' is a metaphor"....Luther stuck with the literal view of communinon that Jesus was in the bread and wine.

Answer 4

Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of scholarly debate. His statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated, and liberty curtailed were revived and given widespread publicity by the Nazis in Germany in 1933–45.As a result of this and his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversial. (wikipedia)

Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine.
Martin Luther in his 1528 Confession Concerning Christ's Supper:

Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, "This is my body," even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word "this" indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a "sacramental union," because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union
(wikipedia)

In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision , removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15).
Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it "unintelligible" and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it "unbiblical". The first edition of the King James Version of the Bible included the "Apocryphal"Deuterocanonical) Books.
(fisheaters.com)

Answer 5

No protestant ever claimed that Luther was infallible, so it doesn't bother us to admit that he was human and make mistakes.

Since the Roman Catholic church claims that the Pope is infallible, then that raises some interesting problems for the Catholics, such as there being several "anti-popes" (called so by later popes), and such as there being as many as three "popes" claiming to be the only infallible pope at the same time while denouncing the other two infallible popes as heretics.

====edit===
An antipope is a person who makes a widely accepted claim to be the lawful Pope, in opposition to the Pope recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. Antipopes are typically those supported by a fairly significant faction of cardinals. Persons who claim to be the Pope but have few followers, such as the modern Sedevacantist antipopes, are not generally counted as antipopes, and therefore are ignored for regnal numbering.

In several cases it is hard to tell which was, in fact, the lawful Pope and which was the antipope....

====edit2===
...In its list of the Popes, the Holy See's annual directory, Annuario Pontificio, attaches to the name of Pope Leo VIII (963-965) the following note: "At this point, as again in the mid-eleventh century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonizing historical criteria and those of theology and canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the Successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the Popes." In all cases it is clear that whichever was the Pope, the other was an antipope, since the claim of each was widely accepted.....

[So, This is what infallibility looks like? And what was Vatican II all about, if the earlier Popes never made any mistakes?]

====edit3===
And don’t get me started about the mistake the Catholic Popes made, such as the Spanish inquisition, torture & burning of alleged heretics, the persecution Of Galileo, the abuses & excesses of the Crusades, etc.

Ah, one always resorts to ad hominem attacks when one knows that he cannot debate the issues any more, because he would lose.

Answer 6

Ignoring the fact that you have taken these facts and quotes out of their context I would like to point out that even if all of this is true, it cuts both ways. Remember, Luther was trained in a Catholic seminary, and monastery. Quite a lot of what gets said about Luther however, is either exaggerated or made up. One example of this on your part is that you did not mention the fact that Luther later changed his mind on James. Why didn't you bring that up? Lastly, even if Luther was the world's biggest Jack ***, it doesn't prove that the Roman church was correct, and the reformers wrong. Luther, after all, never claimed infallibility for himself.

http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20Jews%20(Web).htm

Answer 7

I am not an "expert" on Dr. Luther in any sense of the word, however I've studied him at some length, and as a Missouri-Synod Lutheran, I owe my religious heritage to the reformations he brought about in the Christian church.

1. One of the tenets of the Lutheran Church is "Soli Gratia, Soli Fide, Soli Scriptura" (by Grace alone, by Faith alone, by Scripture alone). I don't believe that adding the word "alone" in any way changes the meaning of the Scripture.

2. James was, indeed, a very troubling book for Luther. He *wished* it were not part of the New Testament, but unlike other religious leaders, he didn't get rid of it merely because it was troublesome. Luther acknowledged James as part of the NT anyway, which, in my estimation, scores MORE points for him.

3. I don't really understand what the issue is that you're raising with this one.

4. I completely agree with this statement. There is absolutely nothing you can do to make God love you more than he does at this particular moment. His point is that no matter what you've done, Jesus died and rose again to save you from it. There is nothing you've done that's so great that you cannot receive God's grace and mercy. Yes, that is taking "Faith alone" to the extreme, but our God is an extreme God...he says, "I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." (Exodus 20:5) He IS an extreme God. Fortunately, his love, mercy and grace are equally as extreme.

5. This is a mere myth that Luther wrote this. No doubt you are quoting some of the online sources that claim it's from "Table Talk" by Martin Luther and reference "2397b". However, there is no such writing by Martin Luther, and the reference is false.

Luther was, in fact, a sinful human being. We Lutherans do not hold him up as a god. We simply view him as a person whom God used to help the church focus once again on the totality of the sufficiency of God's grace and forgiveness for our salvation.

Answer 8

Luther also wasn't very merciful to Peasants who rebelled in frustration against oppression in the great Peasant War of 1524-25 ,especially in his booklet "Against the Theiving and Murderous Horde of Peasants' in which he urged the lords to"smite,stab and slay them".

The irony is that the Catholic authorities had pretty much the same attitude towards him as a rebel in their eyes.

Answer 9

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't conservatives call MLK a communist back when he protested the Vietnam War and campaigned for civil rights? Also, MLK was a social liberal by definition. MLK did not support the current laws that were being enforced by white conservatives, so he went out of his ways to campaign for progressive laws. There was nothing MLK was trying to conserve.

Answer 10

The man who supposedly understood Scripture better than the Catholic Church had this to say:

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture"

"Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”

In his commentary on Galatians he wrote: "I will not have Moses with his Law, for he is the enemy of the Lord Christ"

Hmmmm, does it sound like the Holy Ghost was leading the Protestant "reformation?"

TO SKALITE - Yes, Luther claimed to be a doctor of theology. "Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word "sola" than simply Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors."