![\"JPG](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2014\/10\/JPG-Cover-555-x-832-266K.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n[see information for this book<\/a> and its purchase]***\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
(10-10-14)<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I\u2019ve studied Martin Luther (1483-1546), the founder of Protestantism and specifically Lutheranism, a great deal from the time of my conversion to Catholicism (1990) and even before (I remember reading Roland Bainton\u2019s famous biography, <\/span><\/span>Here I Stand<\/span><\/i>, around the time I got married in 1984). I\u2019ve devoted a book to him, and a large website with scores and scores of articles (almost certainly the largest Catholic web page about Luther online today)<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
I have been very critical of Luther\u2019s theology, where one would except a Catholic apologist to be, but I\u2019ve also always sought to give him credit where it is due, to defend him against bum raps, and to note as much agreement between Luther and Catholics as it is possible to do.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
The first thing is (Catholic) apologetics, the second is ecumenism. I am committed to both, as an observant Catholic, since the Church encourages both things. Even the last third of my (primarily critical) book about Luther was much like this book will be: a collection of Luther\u2019s statements that Catholics can heartily agree with.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
My concern and goal in the present volume is to give \u201cbalance\u201d and greater overall accuracy to the Catholic treatment of Luther: or at least how it is perceived (which is often a very different thing from the reality). Heaven knows he wrote a lot of things that are offensive to us and that we can vigorously disagree with. But that is not all<\/i> the record regarding this complex and extraordinary man (love him or not).<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
If we are to fully understand him, we also need to learn and understand about the orthodox and traditional aspects of his teaching, alongside those which depart from orthodoxy (from the Catholic point of view). This was actually the topic of my very first \u201cofficially published\u201d article as a Catholic, in January 1993: entitled, \u201cThe Real Martin Luther.\u201d I wrote in it:<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
[T]he real Luther is far more fascinating and complex than his detractors or hagiographers have generally realized. There exists in \u201cthe Father of the Reformation\u201d a curious mix of orthodoxy and heterodoxy . . . <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
This sort of \u201cdual analysis\u201d has basically guided my approach to Luther ever since. When he agrees with Catholic positions, I find his arguments to be very good, solid, and (I think) convincing to one on the fence. Notable examples of this would be his defense of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist over against Zwingli and other \u201csacramentarians\u201d (as they were called), his belief in baptismal regeneration, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the grave sinfulness of contraception. There are many more, as we shall see.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
From any\u00a0<\/i>point of view, we owe it to Luther or to anyone, to present his views in their fullness and broadness; in their totality. I\u2019m interested in the facts of the matter: whether he agrees or disagrees. We all understand that we hold to positions on all the issues, according to our Christian affiliation. But that doesn\u2019t change the nature of the facts, and how we can best arrive at them, even despite natural bias on all sides.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
I can already foresee one of the criticisms that will inevitably be made against this book: \u201cyou have quoted him out of context! If you read the next paragraph<\/i>, you\u2019ll see something very different . . .\u201d, etc., etc.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
In one sense, I can agree that I will be \u201cguilty as charged,\u201d but not as a critic who would say such a thing would imagine. Luther does\u00a0<\/i>indeed often say something different in the larger context. One of his standard literary techniques (conscious or not) is to highlight one aspect of a question, and then strongly contrast it with another (to him, more important) aspect, as he sees it. I observed him doing this in the very first writing that I consulted in order to compile this book (<\/span><\/span>Preface to the First Part of the German Works<\/span><\/i>, edition of 1539<\/span><\/span>)<\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I cited him as favorably viewing the Church fathers, councils, and apostolic tradition. This was not inaccurate. He did\u00a0<\/i>write those things. But he qualifies them over against Scripture, as he always does, and according to his position of sola Scriptura<\/i> (Scripture as the final and only infallible source of authority, and the rule of faith). Here is almost all of this short piece, with the portion that I cited for this book italicized (not including one Latin italicized phrase in the original):<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/a>I would gladly have seen all my books forgotten and destroyed; if only for the reason that I am afraid of the example. For I see what benefit it has brought to the churches, that men have begun to collect many books and great libraries, outside and alongside of the Holy Scriptures; and have begun especially to scramble together, without any distinction, all sorts of \u201cFathers,\u201d \u201cCouncils,\u201d and \u201cDoctors.\u201d Not only has good time been wasted, and the study of the Scriptures neglected; but the pure understanding of the divine Word is lost, until at last the Bible has come to lie forgotten in the dust under the bench.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/a> Although it is both useful and necessary that the writings of some of the Fathers and the decrees of some of the Councils should be preserved as witnesses and records<\/i>, nevertheless, I think, est modus in rebus<\/i>, [\u201cThere is moderation in all things\u201d] and it is no pity that the books of many of the Fathers and Councils have, by God\u2019s grace, been lost. If they had all remained, one could scarce go in or out for books, and we should still have nothing better than we find in the Holy Scriptures.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/a> Then, too, it was our intention and our hope, when we began to put the Bible into German, that there would be less writing, and more studying and reading of the Scriptures. For all other writings should point to the Scriptures, as John pointed to Christ; when he said, \u201cHe must increase, but I must decrease.\u201d [John 3:30] In this way every one may drink for himself from the fresh spring, as all the Fathers have had to do when they wished to produce anything worth while. Neither Fathers nor Councils nor we ourselves will do so well, even when our very best is done, as the Holy Scriptures have done; that is to say, we shall never do so well as God Himself. Even though for our salvation we need to have the Holy Spirit and faith and divine language and divine works, nevertheless we must let the Prophets and Apostles sit at the desk, while we sit at their feet and listen to what they say<\/i>. It is not for us to say what they must hear.<\/span><\/div>\n