Martin accuses Jesus of sexual sins

Tertiumquid

Active member
Luther's nasty anti-Semitism is not really a pleasant topic for me.


"To depict his vitriol as “theological” anti-Judaism is reductionistic and does not suit all of the evidence."
Probst, Christopher. “Martin Luther and ‘The Jews’: A Reappraisal.” http://www.theologian.org.uk/churchhistory/lutherandthejews.html
Ah, now you're getting somewhere, this is where a Luther-detractor should begin these days on this topic. I haven't read the link (time constraints), but I'm very familiar with the point being made. In fact, earlier I stated to you:

There is a technical discussion on this that I'm doubtful you're aware of (based on your comments) in regard to the definition of anti-Semitism and its application to Luther. Sources available upon request.
So, keep researching along this path and you may actually come up with something serious to charge Luther with. The stuff you're currently posting about inherited sin and Luther viewing Jews as sub-human (or whatever) is... well... it's really a very poor argument (as demonstrated above). Stay away from college papers that don't actually do any meaningful research.

Look into the history of defining the word "anti-Semitism" and then you'll understand the point Probst is probably making (I will read the link at some point).
 

rakovsky

Active member
Ah, now you're getting somewhere, this is where a Luther-detractor should begin these days on this topic. I haven't read the link (time constraints), but I'm very familiar with the point being made. In fact, earlier I stated to you:


So, keep researching along this path and you may actually come up with something serious to charge Luther with. The stuff you're currently posting about inherited sin and Luther viewing Jews as sub-human (or whatever) is... well... it's really a very poor argument (as demonstrated above). Stay away from college papers that don't actually do any meaningful research.

Look into the history of defining the word "anti-Semitism" and then you'll understand the point Probst is probably making (I will read the link at some point).
I actually didn't think Probst's article itself was very helpful in that way, and don't think it's worth your time reading beyond what I cited. It would be more helpful for this topic to have more quotes where Luther complains about Jews as an ethnic group, or makes comments like his hypothesis about Judas' remains being ingested and passed down corporally. But it's not a fun topic and Luther is not a Church Father. As far as Lutheranism is a system, this is one of the implications of guilt of original sin being passed down biologically - the idea that unless someone descended from a criminal repents and is cleansed of their forefather's sin is guilty of it. So within the Lutheran system, once someone became Christian, they would no longer have their forefathers' guilts, and this applies to all Christians, including of course Jewish Christians.

One way to deal with this negative Anti-Semitic doctrinal tangent if we were going to work within the Lutheran system would be to say that
  • (A) multiple people (eg. Roman government and soldiers), not just Judas and the Sanhedrin, were responsible for Jesus' death, and
  • (B) there is a manner of speaking or common idea about the whole world collectively or humanity collectively being somehow (directly or indirectly) responsible for Jesus' death. I think this might come up in the Episcopalians' Good Friday service, and maybe other churches'. After all, any Augustinian-style inherited guilt for the Jewish people in the deicide issue would have to be either indirect or apply only to the Sanhedrin's biological offspring.
But I don't accept the Augustinian/Lutheran/Catholic theory of physically inherited sin guilt anyway.

Peace.
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
It would be more helpful for this topic to have more quotes where Luther complains about Jews as an ethnic group, or makes comments like his hypothesis about Judas' remains being ingested and passed down corporally.

That's your burden. Luther's writings are free online in their original presentation (German and Latin). The English edition is available for digital purchase via Logos or Concordia and the later sells hardback book versions.

But it's not a fun topic and Luther is not a Church Father.

No, it's not 'fun" but you brought it up in a discussion in which the subject hadn't even been mentioned.

In my world, the church consists of more than Church Fathers. If you think the deposit of faith was either dumped in the extant writings of the church fathers or only they can properly determine what scripture means, then perhaps your god is the church fathers.

As far as Lutheranism is a system, this is one of the implications of guilt of original sin being passed down biologically - the idea that unless someone descended from a criminal repents and is cleansed of their forefather's sin is guilty of it. So within the Lutheran system, once someone became Christian, they would no longer have their forefathers' guilts, and this applies to all Christians, including of course Jewish Christians.

I suspect this really the topic you want to discuss and perhaps Luther's view of the Jews you considered to be an open door. Start a new thread and throw some chum bait in CARM Lake Lutheran, I suspect you'll get a few bites.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
I suspect this really the topic you want to discuss and perhaps Luther's view of the Jews you considered to be an open door. Start a new thread and throw some chum bait in CARM Lake Lutheran, I suspect you'll get a few bites.
I think you are right because this topic already came up recently in this thread or another one on this board. Oddly, although the idea was was demonstrated to be false through a generous quote from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession the poster lumped Roman Catholics and Evangelicals or Lutherans together again in a post today in this regard as if it wasn't an area of dispute during the Reformation.

It remains a truism that facts are irrelevant when propaganda takes the stage.
 

rakovsky

Active member
I think you are right because this topic already came up recently in this thread or another one on this board. Oddly, although the idea was was demonstrated to be false through a generous quote from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession the poster lumped Roman Catholics and Evangelicals or Lutherans together again in a post today in this regard as if it wasn't an area of dispute during the Reformation.
FWIW, this is the only username I've ever used on CARM. I tried to help you by giving two serious ways to deal with the Augustinian inherited sin guilt issue with regard to the issue of Luther and Anti-semitism.

Take care, friends.

q928ee4o_peace-generic_625x300_20_September_21.jpg
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
@rakovsky

From a reply to you on Monday in this thread regarding the error of grouping together of Lutherans and Ronan Catholics.

Since original sin was part of the dispute with the Papacy it isn't accurate to include them with that group. For example, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, written in response to Confutatio Pontificia, there is a lengthy article on original sin which says in part, "5]For some contend that original sin is not a depravity or corruption in the nature of man, but only servitude, or a condition of mortality [not an innate evil nature, but only a blemish or imposed load, or burden], which those propagated from Adam bear because of the guilt of another [namely, Adam’s sin], and without any depravity of their own. Besides, they add that no one is condemned to eternal death on account of original sin, just as those who are born of a bond-woman are slaves, and bear this condition without any natural blemish, but because of the calamity of their mother [while, of themselves, they are born without fault, like other men: thus original sin is not an innate evil, but a defect and burden which we bear since Adam, but we are not on that account personally in sin and inherited disgrace]."
Tangentially, the Orthodox distinction cited in the Joint Lutheran/Orthodox Statement doesn't accurately reflect Scripture. For example, follow the pronouns in 1 Corinthians 3:9. “For we are coworkers with God; you are God's field, you are God's building.” (1Cor 3:9, EMTV)

The "we" at a minimum refers to Paul and Sosthenes. The "you" refers to the intended recipients of the letter. The synergy, coworkers, written of then refers to those working the field rather than the field, the intended recipients.

FWIW, this is the only username I've ever used on CARM. I tried to help you by giving two serious ways to deal with the Augustinian inherited sin guilt issue with regard to the issue of Luther and Anti-semitism.

Take care, friends.
The two ways you offered propagate a false narrative.

Peace.
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
rakovsky
From a reply to you on Monday in this thread regarding the error of grouping together of Lutherans and Ronan Catholics.
One thing I didn't exactly understand was that earlier Rakovsky said,

"In contrast, the Orthodox-Lutheran Joint Commission noted: 'The Orthodox Church does not hold that humanity inherited the guilt of the sin of Adam and Eve and is therefore worthy of eternal damnation...'"

I admit to not being familiar with this commission document, but it appears to me the document was simply stating the view of the Orthodox Church without saying that the Lutherans involved in creating the document agreed with this formulated point. If my understanding is correct, I'm not exactly sure what the point was of referring to the document at all in this CARM thread.

I mention this because when I first read this being cited in the post, it appeared to me that Lutherans and Orthodox were being grouped together on a point that they do not agree on.
 

rakovsky

Active member
If my understanding is correct, I'm not exactly sure what the point was of referring to the document at all in this CARM thread.
It was just to cite a serious source to support that I was correctly depicting the Orthodox Church's position.

By the way, the main reason that I have been posting on the forum for the last two years has been for basic Christian Apologetics. Maybe you have noticed some of my threads in the Apologetics section.

Nice writing with you.
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
By the way, the main reason that I have been posting on the forum for the last two years has been for basic Christian Apologetics. Maybe you have noticed some of my threads in the Apologetics section.

Nice writing with you.
I don't visit too many boards, so I don't recall your posts. These forums are easier to interact on than such platforms like Facebook.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
One thing I didn't exactly understand was that earlier Rakovsky said,

"In contrast, the Orthodox-Lutheran Joint Commission noted: 'The Orthodox Church does not hold that humanity inherited the guilt of the sin of Adam and Eve and is therefore worthy of eternal damnation...'"

I admit to not being familiar with this commission document, but it appears to me the document was simply stating the view of the Orthodox Church without saying that the Lutherans involved in creating the document agreed with this formulated point.
This a right understanding of the Statement.
If my understanding is correct, I'm not exactly sure what the point was of referring to the document at all in this CARM thread.
It appears to me that it was part of an attempt to explain the poster's previous posts and a way that in his view Luther's remarks could be explained.

I took exception because the L/RC/A grouping isn't accurate and because the former one Roman church doesn't really have much of a substantive disagreement in this regard. They are both, East and West, trying to apply the distributed justification of the philosophers to justification before God and salvation. At the end of the day one says original sin is not sin and the other says original sin per RC/A doesn't happen, therefore, no sin.
I mention this because when I first read this being cited in the post, it appeared to me that Lutherans and Orthodox were being grouped together on a point that they do not agree on.
Yes, they agree that salvation is in Christ but also agree that some of the details merit further discussion.
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
Yes, they agree that salvation is in Christ but also agree that some of the details merit further discussion.
The statement Mr. Rakovsky is linking says,

"For the Orthodox Church, salvation is a gratuitous gift of God offered in Jesus Christ to all human beings (1 Tim. 2:4; Jn. 3:17), which they must both freely choose (Rev. 3:20) and work for (1 Cor. 3:13, 15:58; Phil. 2:12)."

Methinks Dr. Luther would not agree!
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
It was just to cite a serious source to support that I was correctly depicting the Orthodox Church's position.
I never questioned your presentation of Orthodoxy, rather, it was your interpretation of Luther that did not match the historical documents.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
The statement Mr. Rakovsky is linking says,

"For the Orthodox Church, salvation is a gratuitous gift of God offered in Jesus Christ to all human beings (1 Tim. 2:4; Jn. 3:17), which they must both freely choose (Rev. 3:20) and work for (1 Cor. 3:13, 15:58; Phil. 2:12)."

Methinks Dr. Luther would not agree!
Indeed. That is what merits further discussion.

A lot of old discussions have come to mind through this thread. One in particular is regarding another Table Talk in which Luther is reported to have said in effect that since understanding Paul he doesn't think well of the doctors, comparatively speaking to how high he formerly held them.

The huge advantage Luther had over most of the doctors of the church is that he translated the Bible from the source languages. Having done so it was easy for him to see where the doctors let philosophy over run the Scriptural witness or tried to justify Scripture through philosophical means.

The point you highlighted is one of those instances where Luther went with the Scriptural witness rather than the pagan philosophers through the church doctors of the one church of Rome.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
As I said earlier, The element of difference Of Rakovsky's comments is, that in my 20+ years of looking at this issue, I think he (she?) was the first (at least that I can recall) charging Luther with blatant biological anti-Semitism... which amounted to arguing Luther believed Jews were inferior in some sense due to biology or "blood" or whatever... even with converting to Christianity. It's obvious that whoever is making such a charge is cherry-picking from Luther's written corpus rather actually being familiar with Luther's written corpus. When one cherry picks, rhetorical comments can turn into dastardly literal comments (as was demonstrated above with the Vom Schem Hamphoras quote).
Didn't Luther write that converted Jews should be treated with all kindness and treated as full members of the church? In the last sermon he ever preached?
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
Didn't Luther write that converted Jews should be treated with all kindness and treated as full members of the church? In the last sermon he ever preached?
There's confusion over Luther's "last" comments about the Jews. For instance, the LCMS makes this statement:

"Resolved, That, in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther's final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195)."

There's an ambiguity here. These words are not from Luther’s last sermon, but rather from his An Admonition Against The Jews (1546) which was added to his last sermon. The Admonition can be found in English in LW 58. The sentence the LCMS is mentioning is probably that stated on page 459 (I have not cross-referenced it to WA 51:195 to check, but this probably it)- "Yet we want to exercise Christian love towards them and pray for them to convert and receive the Lord..." The sentence goes on to say "...whom they should properly honor more than we do. If anyone refuses to do this, let there be no doubt that he is an incorrigible Jew who will not cease to blaspheme Christ, to suck you dry, and (if he can) to kill you."

The Admonition was Luther's last blast of vitriol against the Jews. Luther still is quite harsh against the Jews, requesting that if the Jews don't convert, it wouldn't be a bad idea for the Lords to "drive them away." It's an odd document. It's obvious he wasn't calling for the Jews to be killed, but he certainly would only tolerate them in society if they converted. Otherwise, they were to be banished. Here again, Luther was not against Jews as "people" but rather he was quite intolerant of their religion. Whether or not being intolerant of their religion is best classified as antisemitism in the modern sense is where the debate lies today.
 

rakovsky

Active member
Otherwise, they were to be banished. Here again, Luther was not against Jews as "people" but rather he was quite intolerant of their religion.
You are making a good point that the conversion issue shows a difference from racism. But what if in Luther's scheme a Jewish person and his/her children became nonreligious or agnostic? It seems that Luther's response would unfortunately remain the same.
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
You are making a good point that the conversion issue shows a difference from racism. But what if in Luther's scheme a Jewish person and his/her children became nonreligious or agnostic? It seems that Luther's response would unfortunately remain the same.
Actually, I ended, "Whether or not being intolerant of their religion is best classified as antisemitism in the modern sense is where the debate lies today," so I didn't actually define the parameter of Luther's "racism."

In regards to your later point, I'm not exactly sure what argument you're put forth.
 
Top