Even allowing for a little rhetorical excess, there's no denying that Luther had an altogether excessive opinion of himself and his place in salvation history. He speaks like all heresiarchs, in self-exalting boasts. You can read Herbert Armstrong or Moon and find the EXACT kind of "rhetorical excess."
If possible, please post the link to the other volumes. I'm still missing 5 & 6 in my own collection.
Thanks.
Links to all six volumes can be found here:
http://www.archive.org/search.ph...%201845-1932%
22
thanks.
I'm forced to question the sanity of anyone who makes statements of this sort. Is it possible that ML was not stable?
The evidence certainly is strong towards mood swings; possibly bipolar. It's an emotional instability, not a mental one, in my opinion. I wrote a bit about this in my paper:
Luther's Frequent Depression, Spiritual Crises, and Erroneous Projection Onto St. Paul of His "Evangelical Experience"
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
spiritual.html
Documented, as I recall, mostly or totally from Protestant historians (as is my usual custom), so we don't hear the tired refrain of Catholic bias and "anti-Luther" bigotry.
You cannot deny the possible fact that perhaps, more than likely, Luther was just full of himself and quite possibly possessed such self-importance that manifested in messianic complex.
A distinct possibility, for sure. Whatever the interior reasons for such ridiculous self-utterances, the statements themselves are objectively ludicrous. That much is certain.
I think Luther's was a notable and extreme case of what we often see in Christian circles today: someone thinks they have an extraordinary, direct link to God, far above mere mortals.
Luther (agree with him or not) had undeniably great historical importance. But he makes out that he is on a higher ground than great Fathers of the Church. That is what is manifestly absurd. Luther was no prophet at all, on biblical grounds, because he taught falsehood and brought discord upon the Body of Christ.
I don't deny that the man was sincere, but he was sure wrong - dead wrong - on a lot of things, and that is no small matter. Pride dictates that a man won't admit he is wrong. Had Luther done so AT ALL, I think much division and even bloodshed could have been avoided.
[originally in response to a comment by "Ben" in another thread:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...0856114/
#130966 ]
My mentor, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., used to say that there were a lot of Luther's writings still untranslated from the German.
I had to chuckle when I put up my latest paper, from Grisar. It consisted of entirely quotes from Luther, except for one paragraph at the end from Grisar, and even that was a qualifying remark, saying that Luther often spoke rhetorically and not literally.
Yet James Swan, who does a lot of research on Luther, from an anti-Catholic perspective, made this comment on his blog:
"I understand the emotional bond that Armstrong has to Hartmann Grisar. . . . But simply because we have an emotional attachment to an author does not mean we should neglect to evaluate their work. I posit that when Armstrong read Grisar, he didn’t read anything that would evaluate Grisar and the worth that his books have in popular academia. I continue to hold that Armstrong has an emotional attachment to an outdated approach to Luther. His recent posting of Grisar’s work tells me he still hasn't done a critical evaluation of Grisar."
(2-7-07)
http://beggarsallreformation.blo...-grisar-
on.html
Is that not hilarious? What does the bias of an author have to do with strictly a bunch of quotations from the biographical subject that the author is presenting?
One could, of course, accuse the author of bias or cynical selectivity. But in this instance the section had to do with Luther's opinion of himself. So (big surprise!) Grisar let Luther speak for himself! It seems to me that the only rational reply to something like that is to question the sources or claim that things were taken out of context. I did exactly that in my critique of a Lutheran's treatment of St. Gregory of Nyssa, with regard to his view on Bible and Tradition.
Swan himself admits (in the same paper): "I will say though, in my own use of Grisar, I have found him to be mostly reliable with his citations."
Where's the beef, then? If my paper was 99% simply quotes from Luther, and Swan admits that Grisar cites accurately, for the most part, how does Grisar's Catholic or "anti-Luther" bias (however great) enter into the equation at all?
Yet this is what Swan chooses to major on. He completely ignores the actual data of what was cited, and what this suggests about the man who said these things. No; he's much more interested in making his polemical blast against Grisar and myself, and to tout his supposed supreme objectivity (yeah, right: a guy who can't even figure out that Catholics are Christians is gonna give them a fair shake every time . . .).
I will continue to quote Grisar, especially now that his works are online (saves me a ton of typing). And the reason I do that is for the sake of open-ended, fair inquiry about Luther; to counteract the tendency
(cont.)
. . . of Protestant research, noted by Theodore G. Tappert:
“What is presented in this volume is only a selection from the six volumes of Table Talk reproduced in the Weimar edition. This selection represents about one-tenth of the total bulk of what is known today as the Table Talk. It is therefore of some importance to explain on what basis the selection was made."
“A special effort has been made to INCLUDE pieces that have played a role in later polemical literature, pieces that have often been cited with triumph by unsympathetic writers or that have been HIDDEN WITH EMBARRASSMENT by friendly writers.”
(Luther’s Works, American Edition, vol. 54 (Table Talk), Introduction, pp. xxiii-xxiv.)
I will cite Grisar even though I have stated many times that I do not take as negative a view of Luther as he does. I don't get into moral evaluations and so forth. I don't question the man's sincerity. I don't say he was a bad man. I say he had some serious errors, was a heretic and a revolutionary by Catholic standards, and that the end result of his "reformation" was a tragedy and ongoing division in Christianity, which is the devil's victory, and a shame.
Yet I have often defended Luther, in particulars. In fact, I have this disclaimer at the top of my Luther Page:
----------
[For those who falsely think I am some sort of "Luther-hater" or "Luther-basher", beyond disagreeing with his theology, and can never praise or agree with him: in many of the papers below, I defend Luther against myths and bum raps, cite him in agreement, or take a fairly neutral stance towards his opinion. These will be indicated by an asterisk [***].
[present note: it adds up to 15 papers]
I wrote in a paper dated March 2000: "I (like many Catholics) do admire him in certain ways. I like his passion and boldness and apparent sincerity and good intentions (though thoroughly deluded and wrongheaded). He had a great devotion to the Virgin Mary and to the Eucharist." And in February 2001, I posted on the Catholic Convert Message Board:
"I have never maintained that Luther was "evil" or essentially a "bad" man, nor have I ever denied his good intentions . . . No one can find those sentiments on my website."
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...index-
page.html
-----------------
So let James Swan ramble on about my supposed profound bias, and exaggerate and give a jaded, cynical, slanted view of what happened in our past debates. I'd like to see him be one-tenth as fair to some Catholic figure that he detests as an ignorant idolater, compared to my treatment of Luther (whom I consider a brother in Christ). In fact, anyone can see the quality of Swan's "fairness" to Catholics. I documented one extreme example of his severe bias:
"The Lost Liguori": The Nefarious Protestant Conspiracy to Conceal St. Alphonsus' Christocentric Mariology
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004
(cont.)
[ . . . ]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...protestant.html
A guy who "argued" as atrociously as Swan did here (and often in our own "debates" -- ha ha -- about Luther's Mariology) has no business puffing his scholarly abilities up, pretending that he is profoundly fair and objective, when in fact he -- like all anti-Catholics -- has an ongoing glaring double standard).
Good going Dave. Looks like there's a cat out there which will no longer fit into its bag!
BTW, if I seem to be a strong critic of Luther, know that it's NOT borne of hatred. On the contrary, I find that, for some strange reason (gasp!), I actually have a kind of affection for the man. It's just that I think all aspects of his life need to be known, the good, the bad, and the loony.
As for my feelings toward protestants in general, I think the words of Edmund Campion best sum them up :
"I have no more to say but to recommend your case and mine to Almighty God, the Searcher of Hearts, who send us his grace, and see us at accord before the day of payment, to the end we may at last BE FRIENDS IN HEAVEN , WHEN ALL INJURIES SHALL BE FORGOTTEN." -- from "Campions Brag"
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock...k/1994/
9409clas
I actually have a kind of affection for the man.
Yeah, me too. I appreciate anyone who has passion for the things of God, even if I disagree with him on some things. And Luther was nothing if not passionate and zealous.
But no matter what I say, some on the Internet who want to have a knee-jerk reaction to everything, will continue to claim that I "hate" Luther, no matter how many times I tell them that I don't.
Dave, anyone who logs on to the internet knows you better than you know yourself.
That's a scary thought. Maybe if I read all my writings again, I'll know myself better than I know myself? 
James Swan's description of Catholic apologists applies to no one better than he himself:
================
I won't be converting to Rome any time soon. To me, it's all smoke and mirrors, and the methods they use in argumentation only sound appealing on initial investigation.
[Oh man! How autobiographical!]
As Proverbs stated long ago, “The first person to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him” (Pr. 18:17)
(1-29-07: "On Double Standards in Catholic Apologetics")
http://beggarsallreformation.blo...n-
catholic.html
=========
Commenting by HaloScan
