I’m curious if Luther had scrupulosity. Some of the Catholic saints had scrupulosity. However, those Catholics seemed to be influenced by the disorder in a different way. If Luther had the aforementioned type of disorder, could it have influenced his theology. It seems that one could create a theology that comforts oneself. Scrupulosity would seem to be associated with the “faith alone” perspective (I might be wrong). I suppose other disorders, for example, depression could have some influence. I would have to study the topic some more.
I think it is fairly certain that he had this trait, yes.
J.P. Moreland writes, “Some thinkers, Karl Marx, Ludwig Feurerbach, Sigmund Freud and Bertrand Russell among them, have argued that belief in God is not rational, for God is merely an objectification of purely human ideals, wishes, and needs…Psychologist Paul Vitz has argued that atheism is a result of a desire to kill the father figure (in Freudian language) because one wishes to be autonomous. Thus atheism is itself a form of projective denial…it does not really matter how a belief is generated (whether by projection or denial) if the question at issue is the truth of the belief.” Your post seems to be a version of what Moreland wrote above in Scaling the Secular City, but applied to Luther’s psychology. Since you understand the genetic fallacy would apply, you don’t claim that Luther’s psychology made his theology false. However, you understand that it is important to educate people in the same type of way that Vitz and Moreland have done. Although it’s important to show that the truth of the issue is absolutely crucial, it is important to show why (psychological reasons) people have become convinced. In addition, it is clear that you are not making fun of his disorder or disorders.
Yes, I think it is important to understand as many background factors and presuppositional aspects as possible to best understand any historical figure with as huge an amount of importance and influence, as Martin Luther.
This actually is in line with presuppositional thought, as seen in my recent exchanges on this blog, with John Knight. The presups say that presuppositions affect every opinion and viewpoint, and must do so: they are inescapable.
I'm saying that it is foolish to deny that Luther's psychological difficulties in this regard had NO effect on his theology. They are in the mix of all that influenced his thought and actions. In my opinion (itself based on the opinion of Luther historians that he suffered from these things in the first place), they clearly did.
It's also important to show that those who go to the extreme of denying that Luther had these serious psychological disturbances, do so in the face of well-established historical fact.
You have Catholics going too far and arguing that Luther was a nut or insane or utterly immoral. Though I've been highly critical of the man in many ways, I've never argued any of those things.
Then you have some Protestants denying that Luther had any problems whatsoever, or that those he had were simply because of evil, wicked Catholicism, the rigors of monastic life, etc. (Luther himself bandied about the latter explanation, but not without serious inconsistencies and polemical exaggerations).
In any event, of course I wouldn't be foolish enough to actually argue that Luther's theology was false because he had recurring clinical depression. It's false -- wherever it is -- because it clashes with the Bible and received apostolic tradition, or because it is otherwise internally incoherent. Period.
The usual obsessive, puerile inanities are occurring at James Swan's blog.
First (if you have the patience for it) see his ridiculous post, in "reply" to mine:
http://beggarsallreformation.blo...sed-
luther.html
He starts out by agreeing with my simple, innocent claim:
"It's no secret that Luther had many bouts with depression."
That is sufficient to completely nullify his entire ensuing post (since we have no disagreement on this!). But nevertheless, he insists on proceeding to play the petty, obnoxious fool, by desperately looking for something in my post that he can mock (primarily some of my phrases that he repeats over and over as if they are self-evidently absurd and laughable).
This guy needs to get a life (and a serious "writing life"). If all he can do is lie about my work and make fun of a portrait of mine where we liked the bare branches in the background (mainly my wife's idea, so now he is mocking and ridiculing her, too: "HA HA HA: DA up a tree: how hilarious! ha ha ha ha he he he he hee haw"), then something is seriously wrong.
But anyway, commenter "Kepha" wrote the following in comments:
[What is disappointing about Mr. Armstrong's assessment of Dr. Luther is that modern sociologists make the same assessment of Catholic saints! I watched a three hour series at my parents' last year (I believe it was on the Discovery Channel), and a sociologists kept making the assertion that the saints were suffering from serious psychological problems. These mental conditions were caused by their isolation, severe fastings, self-inflicted punishments, etc., etc. ]
Swan followed up:
[I have not searched the bottomless pit of DA's website, but I do wonder if he's spent anytime doing the same type of research on Catholic saints. I tend to doubt it, but we'll see what DA can come up with.]
And I replied:
Sure; plenty of Catholic saints suffered the dark night of the soul. St. Therese is a classic example. St. John of the Cross experienced and wrote about the phenomenon.
That's not necessarily clinical depression, though. There may be significant overlap (I think in Luther's case there was; one might actually help bring on the other).
What's the point of even bringing it up? Of course saints suffered these things, since they are human beings, and human beings have a wide range of temperaments and personality types. God uses all of them for the Kingdom because He gives everyone gifts and talents.
Like I said, it is merely an interesting question to ponder. Some Protestants want to pretend, however, that such wide-ranging and sometimes extreme and eccentric emotions would not affect Luther's theology. I think it is clear that it did: particularly Luther's peculiar slant on the doctrine of assurance of salvation.
But I am talking too rationally. I forgot that this blog is only a place for endless joking and mocking.
Sorry for spoiling all the fun. 
---------------------
The comments then descend into sheer ludicrosity, straying far from my original argument, as always on this forum.
It's almost an insult to any Catholic's intelligence to try to interact with these clowns on that blog. Not that this surprises me, as it has always been my experience with anti-Catholics, but because I am an optimistic, idealistic type, I always hold out hope that folks can become rational and fair-minded.
Looks like that ain't gonna occur anytime soon over on Swan's blog, so I must discipline myself (pray for me) to not go there and waste my time any further.
I heard Fr. Groeschel talking about his namesake, St. Benedict, though not the Benedict that founded the order. This St. Benedict, Groeschel opted, was schizophrenic. He was kicked out of every monestary there was because of his disorderly behavior. My favorite was the time he woke at 2 AM and decided that God called him to carry a large cross though the monestary. Bang, Bang, Bang down the stairs he drags it. Crash, grind through the halls of the sleeping monks.
He was out on the street that morning.
Fr. Groeschel's point was that just as we suffer physical illness that are our crosses even the Saints (some of them) suffered mental illnesses that they bore.
Truely you need to be a little mad to throw yourself at God the way that many of these people did. The careful balance in life promoted by many of the self-help gurus can get in the way of enthusiastic devotion.
Do some anti-Catholics think that Paul Vitz shouldn’t have written The Psychology of Atheism http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1tr...h/
1truth12.html Do they hold that Vitz is being inconsistent? What good reasons are there to bring up Luther’s psychology? You brought up a number of good reasons, Dave. First, you brought up Luther’s “amount of importance and influence”. Second, you wrote, “It's also important to show that those who go to the extreme of denying that Luther had these serious psychological disturbances do so in the face of well-established historical fact.” Third, you wrote, “Some Protestants want to pretend, however, that such wide-ranging and sometimes extreme and eccentric emotions would not affect Luther's theology. I think it is clear that it did: particularly Luther's peculiar slant on the doctrine of assurance of salvation.” Fourth, you wrote, “…of course I wouldn't be foolish enough to actually argue that Luther's theology was false because he had recurring clinical depression.” What if a person said something like “Since Alphonsus de Liguori had psychological difficulties, people shouldn’t bring up Luther’s psychological difficulties. In fact, you are being inconsistent if you bring up Luther’s psychology. In addition, bringing up Luther’s disturbances won’t be beneficial for anybody.” What good reasons are there to bring up some of the saints in the above context? There doesn’t seem to be any good reasons. What is a primary point? If an anti-Catholic brings up the saints, he or she should have convincing reasons for doing that. Didn’t Vitz have good reasons for writing his Psychology of Atheism? I pray that Catholic Christians and other Christians come together in a way that pleases God.
It's primarily a matter of historical inquiry; secondly, an interesting, multi-faceted question as to the relationship of one's temperament and psyche to their theology. Both things are perfectly acceptable and valid.
I couldn't care less about all the polemical and propagandistic impulses that occur on both sides. That's not my motivation at all. It doesn't drive me. But I am interested in shooting down historical revisionism and a head-in-the-sand mentality.
In a word, whatever the TRUTH is (whether it is "controversial" or not), that is what I seek. Period. That's why I have some 17 papers where I agree with Luther or defend him, or assume a neutral stance as to any value judgment.
(cont)
This might be a better way for me to describe it: What if a person said something like “Since St. Alphonsus de Liguori had psychological difficulties, you are being inconsistent if you bring up Luther’s psychological difficulties.” How does the above quote show that it is somehow wrong, imprudent, unproductive, etc., to bring up Luther’s psychology? The above quote doesn’t show that it would be wrong or imprudent, etc. If one wanted to show that it was wrong, etc., he or she would have to give good reasons that explain why Luther’s difficulties shouldn’t have been discussed. It clearly isn’t enough for a critic to merely point out that some of the saints had similar challenges.
Dave wrote: I wouldn't be foolish enough to actually argue that Luther's theology was false because he had recurring clinical depression. It's false -- wherever it is -- because it clashes with the Bible and received apostolic tradition, or because it is otherwise internally incoherent. Period.
In addition, it isn’t enough for the (e.g., anti-Catholic) critic to merely point out that it is incorrect to claim that Luther’s theology is false because he had recurring mental illness. That would be like saying “Since it is incorrect to claim that Luther’s theology is false because he had recurring mental illness, it is wrong, imprudent, unproductive, etc., to bring up Luther’s illness.” It doesn’t work for the (e.g., anti-Catholic) critic.
Commenting by HaloScan
