I read this essay from Art Sippo last year. He takes a much more condemning stand than it appears you do, Dave. If you are interested in reading his piece you can find it here:
http://art-of-attack.blogspot.co...nd-
germany.html
Combox for:
Was Luther Primarily Responsible For Hitler?
[21 April 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...nsible-
for.html
He does, but it is not the mainstream view of historians, as can be easily seen by scrolling the Wikipedia article I referenced.
Also, I discovered that McGrath, in the book cited above (p. 271, footnote 6), wrote:
See the famous letter of Karl Barth (1939), in which he asserted that 'The German people suffer . . . from the mistake of Martin Luther regarding the relation of Law and Gospel, of temporal and spiritual order and power': quoted by Helmut Thielicke, Theological Ethics (3 vols; Grand Rapids, Mich., 1979), vol. 1, p. 368.
This goes far beyond what I would ever assert. Barth seems (though it doesn't necessarily follow, logically) to assert Luther as the direct and/or primary cause of the Nazi tragedy. McGrath possibly tacitly assents to the same sentiment by citing it.
In defense of Barth (and McGrath for citing Barth), I don't think he is saying that Luther is "the direct or primary cause of the Nazi tragedy." Rather, Barth is saying that fundamental to both Luther and National Socialism is an erroneous understanding of Law and Gospel (a common Reformed charge) which results in an inadequate grounding of the temporal (state) order in the redemptive purview of the gospel (also a common Reformed charge). Barth is saying that this is part of the reason why the Germans were unable to adequately critique Nazi ideology, but he is not saying that the one led to the other. This is an important distinction, since Barth would likely say that Luther's theology (and subsequent Lutheranism) provides controls for not taking his Law-Gospel dialectic to such further erroneous ends.
On second thought, I suppose you could say that Luther is the "direct or primary cause of the Nazi tragedy" insofar as the Lutheran Law-Gospel dialectic gave allowance for the Nazi ideology. So, in that sense, I would agree that Barth can be taken in that way.
Hi Kevin,
You wrote recently on your blog:
"and now I am convinced to stay away from all internet apologetics with their hyper-evidentialist claims and lack of theological sophistication"
Are you referring to Catholic apologists or Protestant or both? If the former, why are you here? Do you characterize my own work in this fashion? Or am I an exception to your rule? If I am, I'm very curious: who are the "Internet apologists" you have in mind, when writing these words?
The very show you refer to, The Journey Home, is a lay Catholic outreach to potential coverts (very much apologetically-oriented). I work for this organization myself, as Facilitator of Online Apologetics and Network Apologist (my official job titles).
I think Chesterton would have thought so. He described Protestantism as a 'relapse into barbarism'. Hitler was the flowering fruit? And Luther's destructive personality pervades all that hard militaristic Prussianism of the 17th and 18th centuries. I really find him brutish.There's no Christian gentless at all in him. The little I have read of him I better say. Maybe I should read more.
Dave,
I certainly have both Protestants and Catholics in mind when referring to "hyper-evidentialist" apologetics, but my post was in regard to the Catholic side. The Catholic Legate (Art Sippo and company) would be a clear example, or Saint Michael's Media (http://www.youtube.com/user/SaintMichaelsMedia). It gets more complex when dealing with others. Tim Staples and Steve Ray, for example, are a mixed bag, but often enough they make totalizing statements about the early fathers or questionable exegesis of certain scriptural "proof" passages. In most cases, I would just appreciate a recognition of alternate readings of the evidence before us and then explicate why the Catholic reading is held. A better (and less selective) engagement with secondary sources would be helpful too. In these regards, I think you do a better job than the aforementioned, and I think you genuinely care to give a fair account and will countenance alternative readings put forward. So, that's why I'm here.
A note on Evidentialism:
Evidentialism is a term for those Christian apologists who arose in the 17th, 18th centuries in order to argue against Enlightenment critiques of orthodox Christianity. These apologists basically felt they had to stay on Enlightenment territory and offer rational "proofs" for Christian faith, so, e.g., the miracles in the NT or the fulfillment of OT prophecies were taken as proofs that had to be accepted on logical conviction. People like Pascal, Newman, Kierkegaard, Gilson, and now most everybody recognize this as fundamentally problematic. In contemporary Catholic apologetics, I see a lot of similar sort of Evidentialism, e.g. finding dubious examples of papal universal jurisdiction in the early church or using Mt. 16 as a proof text. The problem is when Catholics approach the issues with an understanding that "if only the Protestants would recognize the evidence, then they'd have to be Catholic." In such an understanding, the vast complex of presuppositions are ignored, and, more importantly, the necessity of the Holy Spirit's bestowal of faith is ignored. There simply is no proof for the claims of Rome (or Christianity in general), but there is an aggregate of evidences that can compel assent if seen by faith. The sooner Catholics (and Protestants) understand this, the more congenial (and the more convincing) will be our apologetics. This is what theologians like de Lubac, Ratzinger, and von Balthasar understand, which is why you don't see strong Evidentialist claims in their works but, rather, a faith-informed vision of the total dogmatic enterprise of the Catholic Church. They argue from the inner-coherence of this structure, not syllogistic proofs.
Kevin,
Apologists admit there is no irrefutable proof of Christianity or Catholicism. They just point out the evidence is there and can be rationally interpreted as a good reason to believe. It does not eliminate the need for faith. Faith and reason work together. You seem to be putting them in conflict. Often apologists point out the rational problems with the alternative. Either secularism, Protestantism, or whatever. Ratzinger certainly has done that with moral relativism and atheism.
Many American apologists focus on Protestantism because that is strong in the US. Pointing out the problems with that system and showing how those problems are avoided with the Catholic worldview. That does not mean they lack a "a faith-informed vision of the total dogmatic enterprise of the Catholic Church." There are guys like Scott Hahn that do both apologetics and more positive reflections on the Catholic faith without referring to other schools of thought. Others focus on apologetics in their published works but might have a much more well rounded faith that they don't write about as much. Unless you know them personally you should not assume their whole relationship with God is centered on proving they are right and somebody else is wrong. That can happen and it is unhealthy. I just think it is possible for apologists to avoid this trap.
Hi Kevin,
Fair enough. My own apologetic viewpoint involves a host of different influences and cannot really be classified under any one school. See, e.g., my papers:
Catholic Apologetic Method, Epistemology, and Open-Mindedness
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...istemology.html
Blaise Pascal, Peter Kreeft, and Soren Kierkegaard on Persuasion and Apologetic Method
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...eeft-
soren.html
Questions & Answers on Cardinal Newman's Philosophical & Epistemological Commitments
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...al-
newmans.html
The Philosophical Premises of Newman's Views on Doctrinal Development and Religious Belief
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...of-
newmans.html
In a lengthy discussion with a presuppositionalist, we discovered that we had a great deal in common (the person went away pleased that there was so much we agreed on):
Dialogue With a Reformed Baptist Presuppositionalist (vs. John Knight)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ed-
baptist.html
Round Two
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...baptist_15.html
Round Three
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...baptist_28.html
OTOH I do critique presuppositionalism and excessive, fallacious analyses of evidentialism:
Critique of Presuppositionalist Christian Apologetics (Specifically the Van Tillian Version)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...itionalist.html
Reply to Greg Bahnsen's Defense of Presuppositional Method and Critique of Evidentialism: "Evangelism and Apologetics"
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...defense-
of.html
But I absolutely love Plantinga's work; e.g.:
Alvin Plantinga's Decisive Refutation of the Atheist Use of the Problem of Evil as a Disproof of God's Existence, Goodness, or Omnipotence
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...refutation.html
I am also quite fond of the work of a guy like Michael Polanyi: whose thought has been compared to Newman's:
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=006...lanyi&
sa=Search
So it is quite difficult to classify my own school of apologetics because I admire and draw from virtually all of the different methodologies, because I think they all offer insights and that the overall truth is a mixture of them, not located in one approach only.
This is one of the glories of Catholicism: that we aren't tied down to one philosophical method.
Randy,
Yeah, I have to be careful when giving quick accounts of the faith-reason issue. I certainly don't put faith and reason against each other, which would make me a Fideist. There isn't a simple formula that can be applied across the board, but I think if we keep Evidentialism (Rationalism) on one end and Fideism on the other end and steer our course between these two extremes, we'll be safe. Newman is a good guide here, as is Ratzinger and everyone else in the Communio school of Catholic theology.
Unless you know them personally you should not assume their whole relationship with God is centered on proving they are right and somebody else is wrong.
I certainly don't assume that this is the case with Catholic apologists (perhaps not even with Sippo!); I just think that they err in much of how they present their arguments; and for those Protestants who know a thing or two about early church history or exegesis, it is not convincing and actually hurts the Catholic case. My point is that there is a Catholic case that needs to be taken seriously, but when RC apologists are making claims in the form of strict proofs (Catholic Answers Live is notorious for this), then it is just giving easy material for people like James Swan or James White (regardless of how much you may dislike these guys).
Dave,
It looks like we agree quite a bit on this broader issue of faith and reason. I especially think that Newman's emphasis on keeping with "brute facts" is key (the advantage of his English empiricist heritage) for not slipping into Kierkegaardian Fideism or van Tillian Presup-ism. It is not that the facts of the world (evidences) are untrustworthy or that our reason is incapable of attaining certitude of such, it is simply a matter of whether Christian faith is something that is given by God or by our own isolated intellect -- if faith is a virtue then it must be the former.
My point is that there is a Catholic case that needs to be taken seriously, but when RC apologists are making claims in the form of strict proofs (Catholic Answers Live is notorious for this), then it is just giving easy material for people like James Swan or James White (regardless of how much you may dislike these guys).
To me that just shows how live call in shows are a bad idea. I don't like them when James White does them and I don't like them when Catholic Answers does them either. You can't do justice to these issues in that kind of forum. You are going to end up oversimplifying. Our culture loves simple things. The problem is the God of the universe is not simple. The history of the church is not simple. So those shows tell us how we can be effective in places where we only have a minute or two to make our case.
The real answer is if you care about the truth you will want to spend some time and money and buy a book or two. The reality is that 99% of the time people just are not willing to do that. So what is the alternative? You simply and give risk an uncharitable opponent riculing your answer? Or do you refuse to give a simple answer and risk people seeing it as a cop out? It is no win.
Most do a reasonable job of trying to stretch people to deal more complexity on the one hand and also trying to simplify things on the other. Some Catholic apologists may have erred in the simplifying. I would be interested in seeing some examples. This issue is also one that cannot be dealt with in a minute or two.
You write""those Protestants who know a thing or two about early church history or exegesis""
Question. How do you know that those Protestants who know a thing or two about early church history or exegesis is correct in there knowledge and understanding of the fathers and exegesis?
I also think that the Catholic Faith has the most theological sophistication of any Church in the world.
Randy,
Yes, live call-in shows are probably a bad idea. I think the preferable solution would be having shows solely dedicated to different topics, culling from the saints and theologians of the Church, from St. Paul to Pope Benedict XVI -- and have no calls except for clarification on specific points made by the presenter. In other words, it is not a good idea to just have listeners call an apologist and ask, e.g., "Why do you believe in purgatory? Purgatory is not in the Bible." What happens is that the apologist has 4 minutes to talk about the need to grow in grace and how this passage from St. Paul "proves" that a post-mortem purgation is in the Bible. Tim Staples has done this, and there are innumerable examples in the Catholic Answers Live archives. Please note: I'm not criticizing the character or motivations of these apologists; I'm sure they are good people with good, admirable motivations. However, to keep with the example, purgatory is the product of a sophisticated soteriological development that simply can't be thrown back onto St. Paul, but it can be argued to be a necessary correlate of Pauline soteriology. In other words, you cannot abstract the doctrine from both its development and its location in Catholic dogmatics, but this invariably happens when explicated in a reductionist sort of proof-texting from the Bible and the fathers.
Jerry,
How do you know that those Protestants who know a thing or two about early church history or exegesis is correct in there knowledge and understanding of the fathers and exegesis?
Well, nobody is perfect in their historical or exegetical knowledge, but I am thinking of Protestants who know that the early fathers were far from unanimous on things like Mary's sinlessness or how Peter's confession in Mt. 16 was interpreted in relation to the See of Rome.
I also think that the Catholic Faith has the most theological sophistication of any Church in the world.
Along with the Reformed wing of Protestantism, I would say yes. In just the 20th century, we have the greatest rival to St. Thomas' systematic theology with Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics, which gained the life-long attention and admiration of the greatest of 20th century Catholic theologians, Hans Urs von Balthasar. Along with Barth, we could name Bavinck, Brunner, and Berkouwer in the 20th century, or the past masters like Calvin, Turretin, Owen, and Edwards. The most compelling and sophisticated alternative to Catholicism is Reformed Protestantism, and, once again, Barth is its greatest representative.
I dont think I would hold the "tulip" in a such a high reguard as you do. And not just because I am Catholilc.
It's been a good discussion, but please move ongoing chat about the relative merits of Catholicism and Reformed Prot'ism to the Open Forum. I got the topic off-point myself (mea culpa), but in any event, for anyone else to sensibly read this discussion, it should be under a post other than one which is devoted to the question of Luther's influence on the Nazis (where it would hardly ever have a chance of being found).
Yes I do agree that the Reformed wing of Protestantism is the most sophisticated of all Protestants churches. What you here from Tim Staples, Steve Ray, Catholic Answers ect, is the unsophisticated way explaning the Faith on a very basic level for common folks.
When I read the Fathers I don't see Reformed faith in it or Protestantism. To me it is more reasonable to believe they were more Catholic then anything else. They have a sacramental view of Grace that infused. I dont see the Protestantant understanding of justification as I read from R.C Sproul. The authority structure is more Catholic .
God bless
Jerry
Sorry Dave just saw your note.
Have a great day
Jerry
I’ve read much of Luther’s Table Talk and – courtesy of Amazon’s “search inside” function - what I could of Hitler’s TT.
From what I’ve been able to glean so far, Hitler sounds almost rational in comparison with some of Luther’s wilder statements (gasp & gasp again!). Soon as I get a little extra dough, I’m going to fetch a copy of “der Führer’s” TT and do a little further comparison of the two works.
It’ll be interesting to see what, if any, commonality of thought appears! And no, I’m not looking to demonize Luther or make him into a Hitler. Heaven forbid! I’m just curious as to how those two table conversations might stack up when compared.
I know sometimes I’m a pretty sever critic of Luther (and the other reformers). But even I recognize that Luther, despite his vicious ravings against the Jews, and his equally vicious ravings against the authority of the Pope and the Holy See, was not totally bad. As a matter of fact, I very much agree with one writer who said, “Luther, with all his faults, had a big heart and could be at times generous and sympathetic….”
http://books.google.com/books?hl...g%20heart%20%
22
In any event, far be it from me to suggest that Luther, despite his failings, could even begin to approximate the abject evil that was Hitler and the Third Reich. I must say however, that I think his at times extreme Antisemitism played right into the hands of the Nazis.
Anyway, should anyone else be interested in doing a little research along these same lines, here are the two works in question.
Hitler’s Table Talk or “Tischreden.” ISBN 1929631057
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Ta...r/dp/
1929631057 (interestingly, the Amazon reviewer says Hitler was an environmentalist: “he was an ecologist before most knew the term”).
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit...%
27s_Table_Talk
Luther’s Works, 55 vols. on CD. http://www.logos.com/products/de...ts/details/
1663
Luther’s Table Talk, American Edition, vol. 54, ISBN 0800603540 Tisch = table. A “Tischler” btw, in German = a carpenter or cabinetmaker. Reden = talk )
Concordia Publishing House (CPH) http://www.cph.org/cphstore/
prod...find_part_desc=
I dont think I would hold the "tulip" in a such a high reguard as you do. And not just because I am Catholilc.
If you reduce Reformed theology to TULIP (especially as popularly presented by American Reformed Evangelicals, e.g., Sproul), then you have not truly grappled with Reformed theology. I'd recommend getting Barth's The Epistle to the Romans as a fine intro to the wider field of Reformed dogmatics.
Reformed dogmatics
Isn't that a bit of any oxymoron? Does not dogma require authority? Does not being reformed imply the rejection of authority outside of scripture? So Reformed dogmatics would be things you must believe to be truly reformed? But who defines that?
Randy,
"Dogmatics" is just a term for an ordered presentation of Christian articles of belief, i.e., Christian doctrine. It is usually used synonymously with "systematic theology," since systematic theology is the ordered presentation of Christian doctrine centered around different loci (e.g., creation, christology, soteriology, eschatology). It is common within both Protestantism and Catholicism to call a work of systematic theology, a "dogmatics," e.g., Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics (4 volumes), Emil Brunner's Dogmatics (3 volumes), and Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics. On the Catholic side, the greatest dogmatics since St. Thomas' Summa Theologica is Matthias Scheeben's Katholischen Dogmatik (assuming that we categorize von Balthasar's trilogy as philosophical theology instead of dogmatics proper). In none of these instances is every statement considered infallible in the way defined dogmas of the Catholic Church are. We are just dealing with two different uses of the word.
I do have to express some concerns about this particular discussion comparing some of the things that Fr. Luther wrote to Hitler's genocidal mindset. As has been pointed out, Luther was writing from a theological perspective; Hitler from a purported racial/anthropological one. The problem here is that we are looking at this issue only through a theological lens.
As someone who has a degree in political science, I believe I have a little knowledge on this subject. One needs to focus on the social philosophy and pseudo-science of Eugenics. Despite how its advocates wrap it in pretty paper, the insidious nature of Eugenics is that it denies the very principle upon which our nation, and for that matter Western civilization, was founded-that all men were created equal (a philosophical notion going back to Aristotle as well as suggested by Genesis). Eugenics holds instead that genetically, there are some people and races which share superior traits and attributes to others and that social policy should be directed to eliminating from the populus those who bear traits and attributes deemed to be undesireable or unhealthy. From this standpoint, people like Margaret Sanger, the mother of Planned Parenthood; W.K. Kellog, cereal mogul; H.G. Wells, the sci-fi writer; George Bernard Shaw, the playwright; and, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin, who first took the notion of natural selection out of Darwinism and replaced it with a forced or directed socially based selection, are all far more culpable for the Nazi final solution than Fr. Luther. It seems to me that Luther's writings were used more as convenient justification or proof texts after the fact to deal with arguments made by those in opposition rather than being used as the foundational texts upon which the Nazi eugenics program was based. Remember that the concentration camps were used to also eliminate others who bore undesireable traits-the physical and mentally handicapped, gypsies, and the mentally disordered such as schizophrenics and homosexuals.
Based on this, let us just say that I will read one of Fr. Luther's books long before I would pick up one written by G.B. Shaw or H.G. Wells.
Paul Hoffer --
Thanks for that -- very fair and true --
Luther's writings were not meant as racial, but theological -- granted he was cruel and sinned in writing what he wrote and I believe it was one of the last things that he wrote before he died.
He was mostly talking about salvation and their theology, not about their racial ethnicity.
Others used his writings later to manipulate the Germans and the whole culture that fed into Hitler's Holocaust.
Margaret Sanger and Eugenics was terrible; thanks for bringing all that out. Modern people don't realize the connections between Darwin, The Descent of Man, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Abortion, Hitler, the Holocaust, and racism, and Euthanasia and genetic manipulation and experimentations. (cloning, etc.)
Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled: No intelligence Allowed" is very good.
Also, Jerry Newcome's book on "The Legacy of Planned Parenthood" ( I will have to get the exact title later)
My mistake on the author of that book:
It is
Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood", by George Grant ( not Jerry Newcome)
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Illu...d/dp/
1581820577
A dissenting voice I'm afraid. It is very laudable to show so much charity to Martin Luther. But what about all the damage he has done? Physically (the beautiful monastries and churches) and spitiritually. In Ben M's beautiful phrase (or he uses it a lot) he destroyed the 'catholic peace' of Christendom. All his writings tends to destruction. Of course we should 'look for truth wherever it is found' but IT IS HERESY isn't it?
I hold to the new ecumenism being the right approach.
But say in earlier times, would/should we have looked for truth when the Abilgensian heresy was flaing? Would we have 'looked for truth wherever it is found' when Arianism was going full strength?
I better put my cards on the table; Although I reject the seda-vacantist nonsense and all the conspiracy theorists I do feel the practise of the faith has been watered down. And wasn't that as the conspiracy theorists would have it, because we got too close to protestantism? There, I've said it.
Have I uttered the ultimate heresy that we must FIGHT heresy?
I saw a catholic bishop the other month on TV, he looked like a (he was dressed) like a Lutheran Pastor.
I wish I could be more charitble...something lacking in me.
And Ken's latest contribution-using Gerry matatics as a sleight-of-hand to ATTACK the Church. Anything to attack the church.That's where the reams and reams of 'debate' in the last combox about 'penal Substitution' has got us, I wonder it doesn't seem pointless sometimes...?j I ask the question sincerley.
Thanks
Hi James! I hope all is well with you! Please understand, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the damage Fr. Luther's heresy has done to Christendom. We see the fruits of what the Reformation sowed in Europe and the coming harvest in this country.
However, I was merely pointing out here that there were far greater factors which contributed to the inception of the Nazi eugenics program than Fr. Luther's anti-Jewish diatribes. Since the writings of theologians are primarily focused on the religious aspects of issues, they tend to overlook or minimize non-religious factors that should be taken into account and I think that Dave was even suggesting that when he said that this issue is not cut and dry and far more nuanced than the view of theologians who accuse Luther of being the progenitor of the Holocaust. I agree with Dave and was providing some factors I believe should be considered on this topic.
As far as the PSA debate which I participated in over on the open forum, I try to approach such matters as raised in the framework of honest inquiry. Thus, for me such discussions are never pointless. Frankly, I was fascinated about the whole topic of PSA as it appears to be a genuine issue of contention. While I am sure that some of the Protestant readers will disagree here, I perceive PSA to be a penultimate tradition of man of the sort that Jesus condemned at Mk. 7:1-13. It is a manmade addition to the almost unanimous teaching of the Church up to the Reformation that Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross was a substitutionary atonement without a whiff that such was penal in nature. To suggest that God the Father punished/tortured God the Son as a satisfaction for our sins is a form of anthromorphic idolatry that makes me grimace just thinking about it. Don't you also find it a bit ironic though that some of those who hold to such a belief seem to be the loudest in voicing their displeasure with Catholics using crucifixes to remind us of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross?
As far as sedavacantism goes, I find it humorous that Protestants attempt to embrace and to find common cause with those who believe that there is no legitimate Pope at this time, especially since a purported big beef of sedavacantists is that the Catholic Church is wrong in recognizing Protestants as our brothers in Christ. My question is if they truly believe that the Seat of St. Peter is vacant, why don't they elect a Pope and fill the position to set things right in the Church? After all, isn't that how St. Hippolytus got elected as the first "anti-pope?" To me, it is nothing more than adopting the unbiblical premise that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" which runs contra to Christ's teaching that "an enemy is my brother."
Hello paul,
All well here, hope you are.
'Don't you also find it a bit ironic though that some of those who hold to such a belief seem to be the loudest in voicing their displeasure with Catholics using crucifixes to remind us of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross?'
Somewhat. Really excellent point. You could put it to Ken but then the whole thing would start up again.
The PSA debate showed how wild a conception some Protestants have about the nature of the Trinity.
If they have such a crazy notion about the relationships between the Divine Persons how Christian can they be?
Really I'm not the kind of person who should be contributing to religious debate because I dislike speculation about points of faith. it comes from a terror of error.
You are of course right anout Luther and Nazism. It's just I don't like Martin Luther because he hurt something I love; the catholic church.
Commenting by HaloScan
