| Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A |
| Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A |
I am very near to converting to Lutheranism. I have been studying it for quite a while now, and I have found in it nothing that is objectionable to the Word of God. Indeed, every aspect of Lutheran doctrine which I have studied seems to me to be in perfect harmony with the Scriptures. Now, I know that Lutherans do not believe everything Martin Luther ever said simply because he said it. Indeed, it is acknowledged that Martin Luther, at times, said some rather harsh things, at least by today's standards, especially in regard to the Jews. However, recently, I came across a very long article by Peter Wiener. It is an amazingly long attack on Martin Luther, based primarily on quoting Luther himself (out of context, I hope!).
I found one reference to this man, Wiener, in the WELS Seminary Library essays section. It was a very brief reference to him in an article about Luther's views on the Jews. The passing comment did not even begin to cover the array of charges made against Luther, but it did seem to indicate that someone with the WELS had read this article (actually, a book, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor), and possibly may have a rebuttal of it. I do not have a collection of Luther's works, nor do I have access to one. Therefore, I have no way of knowing the context of the the quotations given by Mr. Wiener, neither do I have any way of even knowing if they were truly said or written by Luther. I know that the portrait Mr. Wiener tried to paint with his book is not accurate in the least bit, as he seems to make an almost direct connection between Luther and Hitler, which I believe is unreasonable, even if Luther were the devil which Mr. Wiener claims.
But, was Luther really the man that Mr. Wiener claims? I know that Luther did often say certain things, then change his mind, or at the very least, gradually come to different conclusions later in his life. Such would certainly be the case in honoring the Pope and the like. However, Mr. Wiener quotes Luther as saying things which are simply irreconcilable with any form of Christianity. I do not currently have the time or patience to survey the entire article for exact quotes, however, I can tell you in summary only some of the claims, as Mr. Wiener devoted large sections with many quotations (again, from uncertain context) in his defense to come to these conclusions:
I am well aware of statements made by Luther in regard to the Jews, anabaptists, etc. I was not surprised at the mention of these things by Mr. Wiener, and I understand Luther's reasoning behind why he felt the way he did. However, that Luther was an adulterer and blasphemer, that I cannot fathom or condone. I do not and never will believe that Luther was "Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor", but if Luther really was an adulterer and really thought Jesus committed adultery himself, I would not want to bear Luther's name as my own, calling myself a Lutheran. Whatever the case is, I glory in the cross of Jesus Christ, and I bear His name, a Christian.
- Luther was a complete drunk, an alcoholic.
- Luther was an admitted adulterer and fornicator, and married Katharina von Bora simply to spite the Pope, Satan, and Papists.
- Luther had no true respect for Christ, even accusing Him of committing adultery with the woman at the well.
BTW, could you send me an email letting me know when my question has been answered? Thanks. I am supposed to be confirmed this Sunday at a WELS church which I've attended for almost a year now, so a quick response would be immensely appreciated. And of course, I am going to discuss this matter with my pastor also. Thanks and God bless.
I have not found the book or article by Peter Wiener and so can not check out his use of quotations from Luther.Martin Luther was frank about his love for good food and good beer. That does not mean he was a "complete drunk" or an alcoholic. In more than a few references he speaks of drunkenness as a sin. He was not afraid to preach against drunkenness in the Elector's court. His literary production, almost to the very end of his life, belies the notion that he was alcoholic.
One of the earliest things that Luther had to say about his own marriage (in his 42nd year) was in a letter to a friend: "I am not 'in love,' but I do love my wife.". His letters and his remarks at table are evidence that he loved her more and more. On the other hand, he did say he married to spite the devil and the pope. He also said that he married to please his father. None of these reasons exclude one another, and he certainly did not marry "simply" to spite the devil.
I have never seen or heard of a statement from Luther in which he admits to adultery and fornication, except in the sense of Matthew 5:27-28, lusting and thus committing adultery in one's heart. He may also have spoken of spiritual "adultery" in the sense of idolatry, committed during his years of offering the Roman Mass.
A person who is determined to put Martin Luther in the worst possible light (as Peter Wiener evidently is) can use a quotation recorded in "Table Talk". In the Spring of 1532, Luther said: "Christ was an adulterer for the first time with the woman at the well, for it was said, 'Nobody knows what he's doing with her' [John 4:27]. Again, [he was an adulterer] with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8 [:2-11], whom he let off so easily. So the good Christ had to become an adulterer before he died" ("Luther's Works," American Edition, Volume 54, p 154). The editor's footnote on the same page reads: "What Luther meant might have been made clearer if John Schlaginhaufen had indicated the context of the Reformer's remarks. The probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536, ...in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer".
Clearly, the man who staked his life for time and eternity on Jesus Christ and magnified him in his preaching. teaching, and writing is not to be taken literally when he says, "Christ was an adulterer...".
Did any of Luther's writings say that he hated Jews and that they were of the devil and should die for that. A friend of mine said his dad is a professor of history and has knowledge of Luther hating the Jews. What validity does this hold?
The short answer to your question is "no". There is nothing in Luther that calls for the killing of Jews.It is a fact that late in life (1542), after earlier writings in which he sympathized with the Jews and scolded Europe for its treatment of the Jews, Luther wrote, "About the Jews and Their Lies". In Part IV of that treatise, he did prescribe harsh treatment of the Jews.
His opposition was not racial or ethnic, but religious. He was bitterly disappointed that they had refused to believe in Jesus as the Messiah.
During the three decades of his career, Martin Luther had less negative to say about the Jews than did such contemporaries as Thomas More and Erasmus of Rotterdam.
Lutherans and Christians who admire Luther do not endorse or condone the negative things he did write in 1542.
For more complete information on Luther and the Jews use the search capacity of the Q&A on the WELS Web site.
What is Luther's case against reason? I don't understand what he's trying to say.
Martin Luther's many statements regarding reason typically placed reason in juxtaposition or antithesis to faith, the Scriptures, or the Gospel.One helpful summary of Luther's attitude toward reason is found in Volume I, page 40 of Our Great Heritage (Lyle W. Lange, General Editor, Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1991):
"(Luther) believed reason is a good gift of God, given to us to examine our environment, to interpret our experiences, and to talk about them. In this role it is to be valued highly.
"Reason, however, has been corrupted by sin. It cannot serve as the source of any truths revealed in the gospel. It is, however, the instrument by which the truths of the Bible are apprehended and understood. Though reason can determine what the words of Scripture say, it cannot accept them by itself. Belief in the message of Scripture can be worked only by the Holy Spirit. The Christian's reason is given a new direction through conversion. Thus, the Christian does not use reason to judge Scripture but to serve Scripture."
Hi, I'm from Australia. I was wondering if you could answer this question for me, as I'm currently doing an assignment and can't seem to find the answer. What radical changes to the church did Martin Luther propose?
Many Thanks and may God bless.
Martin Luther was very cautious and conservative when it came to changing worship forms and churchly traditions that were not contrary to the Word of God. He would not be considered "radical" when it came to his views on government.Present-day historians do not count him among the "radical reformers".
He was radical in insisting that our salvation comes about only on the basis of the saving work of God's Son Jesus Christ: CHRIST ALONE.
He was radical in insisting that our salvation is not based on any merit of ours, but only on God's unmerited favor: GRACE ALONE.
He was radical in insisting that the benefits of Christ's work and God's grace are not ours because of any works on our part, but through FAITH ALONE.
He was radical in insisting that the real and reliable authority for the doctrine and life of the church is not the pope, or councils of the church, or churchly traditions, but SCRIPTURE ALONE.
I read a book which said that in the early days of the Lutheran Church that Lutherans prayed to Mary and still retained many Catholic beliefs. I also heard that when Luther died, he was buried with rosary beads in his hands. Any truth to all this?
The Lutheran Church did not come into existence fully developed. The more that Martin Luther and other reformers studied Scripture, the more clearly they understood what God had commanded. Therefore, it is not surprising that some would say that "early" Lutherans retained many of their old practices. The question to ask is "when" is "early"? One might also ask, how long did they retain the practice after they discovered it was contrary to God's Word?Lutherans grew out of many practices as they discovered they were not in keeping with God's Word. For example, in 1517 Luther prepared his "95 Theses". This document was written to deal with the abuses connected with the sale of indulgences. There are many other issues mentioned in these theses, prayer to saints and purgatory, for example, that Luther does not dispute at this time. As Luther continued his study of God's Word, it became clear to him that these practices were not scriptural. By 1520, Luther was already rejecting many of these teachings, including the sacramental system which the Catholic Church had developed over the centuries.
The situation in the "early" Lutheran Church demonstrates the need we all have for continuing to study the Word. We are confident that the Holy Spirit works through that Word and strengthens us in our faith and in our understanding of God's will.
As far as the matter of Luther being buried with a rosary, I have never heard that nor have I read that in any biography of Luther.
I checked Luther's writings and found that references to rosaries are not uncommon. However, the references are usually negative. In a sermon at Weimar in 1522, Luther was talking about how one is saved through faith in Christ. In connection with a monk and his vows, he states, "And even if he brought with him to Christ a whole cloakful of rosaries, it would not save him" (Luther's Works, American Edition, volume 51, page 116). In his 1519 "An Exposition of the Lord's Prayer for Simple Laymen," he writes, "Meanwhile, another person stands in the church, turns the pages of his prayerbook, counts his beads, almost rattling them, while his mind wanders from the confession on his lips. This is not praying" (LW, 42, 23). Luther in his writings also directs criticism at those who carry holy pictures, prayer books, rosaries, etc., as amulets to ward off harm and danger.
Given Luther's negative references to rosaries, I would be skeptical of any notion that Luther requested to be buried with a rosary. I would also seriously doubt that any of his friends would have placed one in his coffin.
Since it appears that we have some disagreements with some of the sayings and writings of Martin Luther (i.e. writings about Mary, the significance of James, etc), it is also clear that we are to have complete doctrinal agreement for there to be fellowship. Would we in the WELS be in fellowship with Martin Luther if he were with us today? I would also appreciate clarification on why or why we would not be in fellowship.
If Luther were here today holding the beliefs that he held in 1515, we would not be in fellowship with him, but neither would the Luther of 1525. Luther did not come to clarity of doctrine instantly, but gradually. Those who ultimately joined him in the Lutheran church did not come to agreement with him with identical speed. If we had been around in the 1520s, the likely question would have been, how quickly would we have caught up with Luther in recognizing the errors of Rome, not whether he could keep up with us. We stand on his shoulders, and a lot of church history has flowed by since his day, so in some respects we may see issues that he never had to deal with. We cannot expect him to have wrestled with questions that were not being asked in his day.There are, however, no doctrinal differences between us and the mature Luther so there would be no barrier to fellowship. For example, you mentioned Luther's negative comments about James. But Luther came to see that there was really no contradiction between Paul and James, and he never removed James from his Bible. On some other occasions he expressed views that we cannot agree with, such as his advice to Phillip of Hesse concerning polygamy, but these are not doctrinal positions of the Lutheran church, and they were not such even in Luther's lifetime.
The fact the someone holds a doctrinal view that disagrees with Scripture does not instantly dissolve fellowship. It is persisting in such a position contrary to Scripture in spite of admonition which destroys fellowship.. It is not at all unusual to find that a member of a congregation in our church fellowship holds a view that does not agree with the Bible. This becomes divisive if they reject admonition, but if they accept instruction and correction, it does not.
My question is based upon some of the writings I have read concerning Luther's view of Old Testament law. As a Reformed Christian, I believe like Calvin, that Christ came to fullfill the law not abolish it. Yet, Luther made bold statements like, "To the extent that I take hold of Christ by faith, therefore to that extend the Law has been abrogated for me." Furthermore, Luther wrote, "I dismiss the commandments given to the people of Israel." Based upon this, does this not make Luther an antinomian Christian? Please help me with this puzzle.
Since you did not include the sources of the two quotations, I will conjecture that in those quotations Luther was interpreting and applying Scripture passages such as:To understand what Luther was getting at with quotations such as those you cite, you might read his explanations to the First and Third Commandments (your First, Second, and Fourth) in his Small Catechism and Large Catechism.
- 1 Timothy 1:9 - "We also know that the law is made not for the righteous..."
- Colossians 2:16,17 - "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration, or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ"
- Galatians 3:24,25 - "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law."
Assuming that you have access to the American edition of Luther's works in your school library or a public library, I suggest that you also peruse Volume 28, pp 233-237, where he comments on 1 Timothy 1:9.
Other readings that will help you understand what Luther thought of the purpose and the function of the law, and which will convince you that he was not an antinomian, are:
Vol. 44, p 15 ff. - "Treatise on Good Works, 1520"
Vol. 35, p 155 ff. - "How Christians Should Regard Moses, 1525"
Vol. 34, p 105 ff. - "Theses Concerning Faith and Law, 1535"
Vol. 47, p 99 ff. - "Against the Antinomians, 1539."
Was Martin Luther a Roman Catholic when it comes to the issue of the Virgin Mary. How else does a Protestant understand the following statments by Luther (see below)?
Why doesn't the Lutheran Church follow its founder's beliefs about the Virgin Mary? The Roman Catholic and to an extent the Orthodox faith are the only two denominations who would agree with what Luther wrote.
"... she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. ... God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. ... God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her" (Luther's Works, American edition, Vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968).
"... she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. ... it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God" ("Sermon on John 14:16": Luther's Works [St. Louis], ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia. Vol. 24. p. 107).
"Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb. ... This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that" ("On the Gospel of St. John": Luther's Works, Vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957). (Emphasis added).
"Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees" (From the Commentary on the Magnificat).
On the issue of eucharist, it sounds like Luther was still a Roman Catholic. How does one interpret the following quotation:
"If Christ is truly present in the Bread, why should He not be treated with the utmost respect and even be adored?" Joachim, a friend, added: "We saw how Luther bowed low at the Elevation with great devotion and reverently worshiped Christ." (Mathesius, Table Talk, Leipzig, 1903, 341)Let us begin by saying that Lutherans are not bound to believe or teach everything that Martin Luther said or wrote. When his words agree with Scripture we agree with him. When he says things that are not supported by Scripture we may or may not agree with him.For example, if Luther means exactly what he says in the first passage you cite, that Mary is "entirely without sin" (LW, AE, Vol. 43, p 40), Lutherans will say, that is not what "full of grace" means and that is not what the Bible teaches about Mary or any other human being.
Since Luther was talking about praying the "Hail, Mary" in the passage you cite, it might be good to add that we do agree with what he says about prayers to the saints in "The Smalcald Articles" (1537/1538): "Although the angels in heaven pray for us (as Christ himself also does), and in the same way also the saints on earth and perhaps those in heaven pray for us, it does not follow from this that we ought to invoke angels and saints..." ("The Book of Concord - The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church" - Edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000, p. 305).
Lutherans believe on the basis of Scripture, as Luther did, that Mary is the Mother of God.
Lutherans believe in the Virgin Birth. As to the question of Mary's perpetual virginity, Lutherans have never been entirely agreed. We know that the Bible does not teach her perpetual virginity. Nor does it definitely teach that she had children. We are therefore in the realm of opinion, not doctrine. Remember that Luther is a teacher in the church, but the Bible is the ultimate authority.
Again, Mary is the Mother of God. That is a great honor for her, given by God. But the greatest thing that can be said about the Incarnation is that God became Man to save a world of sinners.
As to the Lord's Supper, Luther always believed and Lutherans believe that it is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink. A concise history of Luther's position on elevating the elements appears in AE, LW 54, p 461, fn.:
"In 1521 Luther wrote that 'it would make no difference if there were no elevation, for that is something that men have invented' (LW 36,183). Two years later he suggested that elevation could be continued 'for the benefit of the weak in faith who might be offended if such an obvious change in this rite of the mass were suddenly made' (LW 53,28). The argument against elevation was that it presupposed transubstantiation and implied the sacrifice of the mass. The argument for it was that it defied Zwingli and other radicals (LW 40, 127-132). John Bugenhagen omitted elevation in the church orders he prepared, and in 1542 Luther approved of its abolition in the parish church in Wittenberg."NB: Lutherans believe in the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, but we do not believe in transubstantiation. The bread and wine are still there as we receive the Savior's Body and Blood. We also do not believe that the Supper is something we do for God (a sacrifice) but something God does for us: Give us himself for the forgiveness of sins.You seem to equate "Lutherans" with "Protestants." Most Protestants are not and do not want to be "Lutherans." I have tried to understand and answer your questions as a Lutheran.
I was told that, before his death, Luther apologized to the Catholic Church and gained entrance back into the religion. I cannot find evidence of this theory, but I find it to be an intriquing idea. Is this at all true?
No. Luther did not recant nor did he seek readmittance to the Roman Catholic Church. Initially Luther had not sought to break with the church. It was not his original intention to start a "new" church (Luther always considered the "Lutheran" church to be a return to the apostolic church and not a "new" church). The rejection of the Scriptures as the only source of doctrine and the resulting doctrinal errors forced Luther to leave Roman Catholicism.Occasionally Luther recognized that he had directed words which were too harsh at individuals. In that sense, you might say that he apologized to people for saying things he should not have said. Luther, however, never apologized to the church for saying what needed to be said. The Smalcald Articles were written by Luther as a last will and testament, a confession of what he believed. At the time, he thought that he would die soon, so his words are a strong confession of his faith. The Smalcald Articles make it clear that Luther is not seeking readmittance into his former church. There he clearly points out the errors of which it was guilty.
As Luther lay dying in Eisleben in 1546, his good friend Justus Jonas asked him if he would stick with the confession that he had held. To that Luther responded with a clear "Yes".
As intriguing as it may sound, Luther did not change his views. He did not seek to return to a church which was no longer witnessing to the truth.
My question involves Martin Luther. Again, this comes from a professor who mentioned a legend about Martin Luther bringing a Christmas tree into church. I've never heard or read about this and I was wondering if there is such a legend (or truth) about Luther. The professor then went on to say how Christmas trees in church are an example of Christianity incorporating paganism, as a green tree in the 'dead' months of winter was a pagan symbol. What would be the best response to this issue?
The story of Luther introducing the Christmas tree into a church seems to be a legend and not history. More often it is told that he introduced it into his own home. That is probably not history, either. Regardless of what an evergreen tree once meant to pagans (and it probably meant various things to various pagan religions), Christians can use it as a reminder that Christ came to a "desert" world, dead in sin, and won eternal life for all.Consider that the LORD uses the picture of evergreen trees to describe himself (or his Messiah) in Hosea 14:5,6,8:
"Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots.... His splendor will be like an olive tree, is fragrance like a cedar of Lebanon.... I am like a green pine tree...."
I have to write a paper on the influence that Martin Luther had on education. I can't find any information that is very informative for a six page paper. Please respond.
InLuther's Works, American Edition, Volume 45, see "To the Councilmen of All the Cities of Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools" (1524)In LW, AE, Vol 46, see "A Sermon on the Duty of Sending Children to School" (1530).
In whatever library you have access to, find Luther on Education, by F.V.N. Painter, Concordia Publishing House 1929.
Look in the stacks around that book for other volumes on the subject.
Check bibliographies in such books for articles/essays that might be available in/through the library you are visiting.
How do I know my question hasn't already been answered?
SEARCH our Q&A archives using the subject you have in question as your keyword.
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod ©
2929 N Mayfair Road
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53222
www.wels.net content is copyrighted unless otherwise stated.
Request written permission to copy.
Bravo! Bravo!