[Wondergirl]

At the very least, it was a very careless and irresponsible way to express the idea that we should not sin. Because that idea is lost in the shocking manner it is expressed if it is there expressed at all.

That's not what Luther was saying at all!

[JoeT777]

I don't understand. So what is wrong with what Luther wrote to his friend? Please tell me in simple language. I totally agree with the bold print in De Maria's post.

I'll try to explain later, I've got to do a few things. But, in the meantime here is another translation. Don't forget that Denifile is German and probably translated this quote himself.

Denifile's Luther and Lutherdom, translation:

"Be a sinner and sin stoutly, but trust in Christ much more firmly, and rejoice in Him who is a conqueror of sin, of death, and of the world. Do not by any means imagine that this life is an abode of justice; sin must and will be. Let it suffice thee that thou acknowledgest the Lamb which bears the sins of the world; then can sin not tear thee from Him, even shouldst thou practice whoredom a thousand times a day or deal just as many death blows.” Heinrich Denifile,

"Be a sinner and sin stoutly, but trust in Christ much more firmly, and rejoice in Him who is a conqueror of sin, of death, and of the world. Do not by any means imagine that this life is an abode of justice; sin must and will be. Let it suffice thee that thou acknowledgest the Lamb which bears the sins of the world; then can sin not tear thee from Him, even shouldst thou practice whoredom a thousand times a day or deal just as many death blows.” Heinrich Denifile, Luther and Lutherdom, Vol 1., Part 1, Pg. 19, fn 56 Enders, III, 208.

Vol 1. Part 1, Pg. 19, fn 56 Enders, III, 208.

JoeT

[arcura]

JoeT,
I must agree with you.
Luther DOES need to be criticized.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Wondergirl]

I'll try to explain later, I've got to do a few things.

I waited and waited for you, but you never came back. *sob*

Here's another and better translation:

"If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign."

Being the great writer that he was, Luther was using a rhetorical device (hyperbole) and was not speaking with definite and black-or-white meanings. A blog (olivesifeandletters.blogspot.com) explains further --

"Luther appears to encourage licentiousness, but his intentions lay elsewhere. The great reformer meant to highlight the greatness of Christ's atonement. However, it is easy to see why others misunderstood his meaning."

[arcura]

Wondergirl,
Yes, IF what you say is true I misunderstand him.
If fact If that is the case I misunderstand anyone who tells people to be a sinner of any type for it does NOT make sense to me.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Wondergirl]

Wondergirl,
Yes, IF what you say is true I misunderstand him.
If fact If that is the case I misunderstand anyone who tells people to be a sinner of any type for it does NOT make sense to me.

First of all, Luther was writing a private and personal letter to his dear friend and didn't expect his words to end up on the Internet. Philipp knew immediately what Luther meant and that he was exaggerating. (I hope some of my private letters to certain people don't end up on the Internet after I die.)

Second, no one has ever exaggerated something to you, and you didn't understand? How about: "Her brain is the size of a pea" or "He's older than the hills" or "I will die if she asks me to dance" or "She's as big as an elephant!" or "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse" or "I'm so full I'm going to burst!"

[JoeT777]

I waited and waited for you, but you never came back. *sob*

Here's another and better translation:

"If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign."

Being the great writer that he was, Luther was using a rhetorical device (hyperbole) and was not speaking with definite and black-or-white meanings. A blog (olivesifeandletters.blogspot.com) explains further --

"Luther appears to encourage licentiousness, but his intentions lay elsewhere. The great reformer meant to highlight the greatness of Christ's atonement. However, it is easy to see why others misunderstood his meaning."

Sorry for the delay – had to see a man about a load of sugar – a literal trainload of sugar. NOW, that's a lot of coffee!

So, when he writes to Philipp Melachthon 1521, a colleague, co-conspirator, and follow schismatic, it's hyperbolic? Wouldn't your communications with 'trusted friends' be less guarded than with others; expressing yourself more truthfully? But Luther's other friends said he was just a straight-out liar. Are we to understand that Luther tended toward extreme hyperbolic expressions? When is he being extreme-hyperbolic and when is he being plain-simple-hyperbolic?

George the Duke of Saxony: was known as the protector of Luther.

It is no wonder, then, that Duke George, on the occasion of the Pack affair, described Luther, December 19, 1528, as "the most coldblooded liar that ever got among us." "We must say and write of him that the recreant monk lies to our face like a despairing, dishonorable, perjured scoundrel." "We have hitherto not found in the Scriptures that Christ used so open and deliberate a liar in the apostolic office allowing him to preach the gospel.'” Others who knew Luther spoke to the same effect.'' I also shall venture to say the same of him without reserve. To that I am determined by my exhaustive and wholly unbiased studies of Luther. Heinrich Denifile “Luther and Lutherdom” Pp. 138-139

Thomas Müntzer:was a schismatic and a leader of the Peasant' war.

Munzer, in his “Schutzrede,” was not slow to answer Luther's “boasting” concerning his three appearances in public. It must be touched upon here for the sake of completeness, although it must be borne in mind that it is the utterance of an opponent. Munzer calls Luther repeatedly, and not merely on account of this boasting, “Dr. Liar” and “Lying Luther” Grisar, Luther, V II. Pg. 367 (Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur 1913)

Johann Campanus: was a schismatic and a Flemish Anabaptist religious reformer of the sixteenth century

In 1530, Campanus circulated a manuscript work, “Contra Lutheranos et totum post Apostolos mundum” which he then reedited for the people as “ Gottlicher und heiliger Schrift Restitution,” 1532. One of his propositions was : “So sure as God is God, so surely is Luther a devilish liar.” (Kostlin-Kawerau, 7, p. 323). Grisar, Luther, V II. Pg. 367 (Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur 1913)

What Luther's theology and doctrines do is to turn Christendom away from the one true Church of Jesus Christ – his contention is that the Church is wrong (to say it mildly). Having this stellar reputation as being the preeminent in hyperbole, are we to abandon Christ's Church on his word?

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

So, when he writes to Philipp Melachthon 1521, a colleague, co-conspirator, and follow schismatic, it's hyperbolic? Wouldn't your communications with 'trusted friends' be less guarded than with others; expressing yourself more truthfully?

Exactly! Because Philipp was a dear friend, he could let down his hair and be as expressive as he wished. Are you always rigid and letter-perfect, even with your good friends? Plus, had he known Catholics in 2010 would be quoting from (and misinterpreting) his letters to discredit him, Luther would have been more careful when he wrote them.

George the Duke of Saxony: was known as the protector of Luther.

Protector was a title, like king. He was Catholic and hated Luther. At first he had agreed with Luther that the Church needed cleaning up here and there, but once he realized things had become bigger than that and after being influenced by Church higher-ups, he threw Luther under the bus.

Thomas Müntzer

He disagreed with Luther and supported the Anabaptists. Why on earth would you expect him to say anything nice about Luther?

Johann Campanus

Ditto. Another Anabaptist.

[JoeT777]

Exactly! Because Philipp was a dear friend, he could let down his hair and be as expressive as he wished. Are you always rigid and letter-perfect, even with your good friends? Plus, had he known Catholics in 2010 would be quoting from (and misinterpreting) his letters to discredit him, Luther would have been more careful when he wrote them.

Protector was a title, like king. He was Catholic and hated Luther. At first he had agreed with Luther that the Church needed cleaning up here and there, but once he realized things had become bigger than that and after being influenced by Church higher-ups, he threw Luther under the bus.

He disagreed with Luther and supported the Anabaptists. Why on earth would you expect him to say anything nice about Luther?

Ditto. Another Anabaptist.

‘Protector’ was the name I gave him. The Emperor and the Pope wanted him jailed and had put out orders for his arrest. Duke George hid Luther for several years in one of his castles. Phillip was Duke George’s son-in-law and was Protestant – the two were in cahoots for some sort of political gain – I’ll look into the history tonight – I’m working from memory.


I guess we have two different versions of the same history.

All of these men were Protestant at first, and then they split even more and had come to know Luther for what he was.

You do see how when you are free to interpreted Scripture as you please faith becomes subjective as does morality.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

You do see how when you are free to interpreted Scripture as you please faith becomes subjective as does morality.

So I'll allow the Church (men I don't know) to interpret Scripture for me?

And it's not "interpreting scripture as [ I ] please." Talk about interpreting! -- you're doing it right there!

[JoeT777]

So I'll allow the Church (men I don't know) to interpret Scripture for me?

I wouldn’t allow ‘men’ to interpret Scripture for me either. You see we don’t claim to be a Church of Luther, or Calvin, or Wycliff or Zwigli, etc. On the other hand the Roman Catholic Church was constituted by Christ. Therefore, I would allow the Church of Jesus Christ to teach according to the Traditions of the Apostles that were eventually put into writing.

JoeT

[dwashbur]

As far as the question of Luther's original intention, how many here have actually read his 95 theses?

[JoeT777]

As far as the question of Luther's original intention, how many here have actually read his 95 theses?

And?

[Wondergirl]

Therefore, I would allow the Church of Jesus Christ to teach

i.e. men (whom you don't know)

[Wondergirl]

As far as the question of Luther's original intention, how many here have actually read his 95 theses?

Me! Me! *jumping up and down*

[arcura]

JoeT,
Thanks much for the additional information.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[dwashbur]

Me! Me! *jumping up and down*

Hey, that's one in a row!

Then you at least know they dealt specifically with the whole "sale of indulgences" thing which he knew was wrong and was trying to correct.

[paraclete]

As far as the question of Luther's original intention, how many here have actually read his 95 theses?

Yes and they are a reaction to the top down structure of the RCC and the excesses that permitted. Luther could just as easily have said have any of you actually read the Bible and he would have gotten blank expressions.

[dwashbur]

Yes and they are a reaction to the top down structure of the RCC and the excesses that permitted. Luther could just as easily have said have any of you actually read the Bible and he would have gotten blank expressions.

Actually, they focus almost exclusively on the question of selling indulgences. He was addressing a specific action by specific people, not challenging the church's authority overall. That didn't happen until much latter. As one of my personal heroes, Erasmus, put it, his sins were two: he attacked the crown of the pope and the bellies of the monks. But he only started doing the latter. It wasn't until he realized that Rome had actually sanctioned the indulgence thing, and that purely for financial gain, that he started to question the entire institution.

[paraclete]

Actually, they focus almost exclusively on the question of selling indulgences. He was addressing a specific action by specific people, not challenging the church's authority overall. That didn't happen until much latter. As one of my personal heroes, Erasmus, put it, his sins were two: he attacked the crown of the pope and the bellies of the monks. But he only started out doing the latter. It wasn't until he realized that Rome had actually sanctioned the indulgence thing, and that purely for financial gain, that he started to question the entire institution.

He specifically challenged the pope's authority to grant indulgences and remit sins. If he had merely challenged the trade in indulgences the issue would not have grown as it did. Luther doing what he did ultimately forced the RCC to declare the infalliability of the pope. What started as a debate on church policy rapidly became a rebellion. It is said that when you have three dutchmen you have a schism but in Luther's case you required only one German