Luther Quote


#1

Trying to search for an obscure Martin Luther quote is driving me batty. Can someone please help?

When Luther was asked by what authority he added the word “alone” to scripture, he responded with something like “I don’t need anyone’s permission, I say it belongs there and so I added it.” Does anyone know the real quote and source?

Thanks in advance.


#2

OK - I found the quote, but I’m having trouble finding an on-line source for the whole text. It comes from something called “Amic. Discussion, 1, 127”, but I don’t know what that is. Does anyone know if this document goes by another name or where I can find it on the web? Thanks.


#3

Hello, forthright,

I made the assumption that Amic. = amicable, as
in Amicable Discussions. Then I tried Google,
Project Wittenberg etc. and can’t find a reference,
so perhaps Amic. is not the abbreviation of
"amicable."

I’ll look further.


I put in Google: Martin Luther alone permission

OK. Try here, full paragraph # 9…it even gives the
Latin. [Paragraph begins with the words: *Returning to… ]

tentmaker.org/tracts/LutherLetter.html

I have no idea whether this is the Amic.Discussions,
but it does contain the reference, I think.

Best,

reen12


#4

Peace be with you!

Here is the full text of the letter: iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt

I have read it on another site as well, but I can’t find that one now.

In Christ,
Rand


#5

This is quite good concerning what Luther did to Scripture. Bear in mind though that it is a Church of God site, so you’re not going to agree with everything. Looking at the site, they have some very unorthodox views. However, all the Luther quotations are referenced which is useful.

cogwriter.com/luther.htm

Here’s referenced Luther quotations on a Catholic site:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/matluther.htm

Quotes without accompanying blurb or comments:

angelfire.com/blues/karafa/martin_luther_quotes_page.htm

Two questions:

Why didn’t we learn any of this stuff in my theology degree at a Presbyterian college?

Has anyone read the book on Luther by Patrick O’Hare that is referenced on these sites? It looks to be excellent and I am now tempted to order it.


#6

Why would any self-respecting college teach Pentecostal propaganda?

Why can’t you read real scholars who care about history instead of simply making an ideological point?

I’ve been over and over this nonsense about Luther “adding” to Romans. If you read the entire letter “On Translating” he explicitly gives his rationale for translating as he did. If you know both NT Greek and sixteenth-century German, you are in a position to criticize him. I know both, but not well enough to know if he did right or wrong. I’m strongly inclined to think that he was wrong. But he wouldn’t be the first person to allow his translation to be influenced by his ideology. Certainly Catholic translations do this as well. The whole thing is a dishonest smear job based on an out-of-context reading of one bit of silly rhetoric by Luther.

The man says that he doesn’t have to give a reason, and then he gives a reason. To only read the first part of that and not the second is patently unjust.

Edwin


#7

[quote=Contarini]Why would any self-respecting college teach Pentecostal propaganda?

Why can’t you read real scholars who care about history instead of simply making an ideological point?

I’ve been over and over this nonsense about Luther “adding” to Romans. If you read the entire letter “On Translating” he explicitly gives his rationale for translating as he did. If you know both NT Greek and sixteenth-century German, you are in a position to criticize him. I know both, but not well enough to know if he did right or wrong. I’m strongly inclined to think that he was wrong. But he wouldn’t be the first person to allow his translation to be influenced by his ideology. Certainly Catholic translations do this as well. The whole thing is a dishonest smear job based on an out-of-context reading of one bit of silly rhetoric by Luther.

The man says that he doesn’t have to give a reason, and then he gives a reason. To only read the first part of that and not the second is patently unjust.

Edwin
[/quote]

Edwin - this seems to be a touchy subject for you. I’m not sure why your response is so hostile. I appreciate the help from those contributors above who allowed me to read the entire letter. I must say that reading the entire context gave me much more appreciation for Luther’s motives. The subtleties of different languages make for difficult interpretation, for certain. His addition of the word “alone” is a small thing to me - especially after having read the full letter and understanding his efforts to make the text understandable by those who spoke only the common German.

[font=Arial]However, reading Luther’s entire letter also displayed his ego - which was at the heart of my original question. He spits venom with every sentence and makes me think, “thou dost protest too much.” From reading other writings of Luther, this is not an isolated incident. He seethes with anger at any insinuation that he may be in error. Which brings me back to this reply - why is there so much venom in your post?[/font]


#8

[quote=Contarini]Why would any self-respecting college teach Pentecostal propaganda?

Why can’t you read real scholars who care about history instead of simply making an ideological point?

I’ve been over and over this nonsense about Luther “adding” to Romans. If you read the entire letter “On Translating” he explicitly gives his rationale for translating as he did. If you know both NT Greek and sixteenth-century German, you are in a position to criticize him. I know both, but not well enough to know if he did right or wrong. I’m strongly inclined to think that he was wrong. But he wouldn’t be the first person to allow his translation to be influenced by his ideology. Certainly Catholic translations do this as well. The whole thing is a dishonest smear job based on an out-of-context reading of one bit of silly rhetoric by Luther.

The man says that he doesn’t have to give a reason, and then he gives a reason. To only read the first part of that and not the second is patently unjust.

Edwin
[/quote]

Peace be with you!

I have read that letter by Luther more than once. I don’t speak Greek or German, but I have seen enough translations of the Bible in other languages to know that the word “alone” is not only unnecessary to convey the meaning, but CHANGES the meaning to something completely different. This letter is worded to make Luther’s addition seem a small thing that doesn’t change the meaning of the passage, but the fact is that it does and that is proven by the fact that it was not interpreted as meaning “by faith alone”. I don’t have to speak Greek or German to know that the addition of the word “alone” to a sentence gives the sentence a fact of finality; that it can only mean that and nothing else. If Luther had said “by grace alone” that would be one thing, but saying “by faith alone” means something else entirely.

What about the part where he talks about changing the wording of the Annunciation? Once again, it changes the meaning entirely of the passage (and this part still leaves me very confused because Luther had a devotion to Our Lady)–“And I think that the angel Gabriel spoke with Mary just as he spoke with Daniel, when hecalled him ‘Chamudoth’ and ‘Ish chamudoth, vir desiriorum’, that is ‘Dear Daniel.’ That is the way Gabriel speaks, as we can see [size=2]in Daniel.[/size]” Emphasis added by me…so because Gabriel addressed someone else as “dear Daniel” that means that he must address everyone he speaks to as such? Now let’s think for a moment…why would Gabriel address Mary differently than everyone else? So Luther admits he changed the passage because HE THOUGHT that Gabriel said something other than what Scripture has recorded. Luther thought that Scripture was the final authority on ALL matters of faith, and yet he changed it because he thought Gabriel said something else. Interesting…

Luther also had an EXTREME ego problem (“I can translate and they can’t” “I can read Scripture and they can’t” “I can pray and they can’t”)…something VERY unbecoming of someone who is supposed to be living a religiously devout life and claiming to accurately understand the Gospel message. Luther also thought that Romans was more important than the Gospels themselves.

In Christ,
Rand


#9

Whether or no Luther had an “ego” problem has

no bearing on whether the man was correct,

in his reading of St. Paul.

The argument was - and remains - whether or

not Rome is preaching a gospel that conflicts

with both the gospel, as proclaimed in Scripture,

and with the teachings of Paul… and, whether or

not “infallibility” is a theological reality.

These are areas of disagreement that more

than transcend any personality characteristic

of Luther’s.

One might inquire why the following was heard

in the streets of Europe:

"When the gold in the coffer rings,

Another soul from purgatory springs."

[font=Verdana]prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_28.html

or

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#endnote_Brecht_182

That, to me, is of more pressing interest than

any speech…driven by exasperation, I think…

on Luther’s part.

reen12

[/font]


#10

Peace be with you!

[quote=reen12]Whether or no Luther had an “ego” problem has

no bearing on whether the man was correct,

in his reading of St. Paul.
[/quote]

I wasn’t trying to say that his ego was a factor in whether or not his reading of St. Paul was correct. Just pointing out that “good” Christians don’t brag to others about how good of Christians they are…that is contrary to the message of the Gospel that Luther claimed he understood so well.

[quote=reen12]These are areas of disagreement that more

than transcend any personality characteristic

of Luther’s.
[/quote]

[font=Arial]Again, I wasn’t using Luther’s personality to say that it was the reason he didn’t know what he was talking about. He also had mental problems, which was probably the cause of his personality, so those mental problems probably did affect his ability to accurately interpret Scripture.

[/font]

[quote=reen12] One might inquire why the following was heard

in the streets of Europe:

"When the gold in the coffer rings,

Another soul from purgatory springs."
[/quote]

[font=Arial]Well, that’s quite easy to answer: indulgences were (wrongly) being sold by some members of the clergy. No Catholic will deny that and it doesn’t prove a thing except that Luther was right to denounce the sale of indulgences…the Church did the same thing, but that wasn’t good enough for Luther. His issues weren’t really with the sale of indulgences; rather, they were with the authority of the Church.

[/font][

](“http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_28.html”)[font=Verdana]prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_28.html[/font]%between%[font=Verdana]
[font=Arial]That’s a biased Protestant source–it begins by referring to “[/font][/font]the evils of the church as she then existed”. It then calls the Reformation the “work of God”. Are you kidding me? You can’t seriously think that this helps the argument! The author defines indulgences as forgiving sins, which has NEVER been taught by the Church. Why would you cite this EXTREMELY biased source?

In Christ,
Rand


#11

quote: Rand Al’Thor

Again, I wasn’t using Luther’s personality to say that it was the reason he didn’t know what he was talking about. He also had mental problems, which was probably the cause of his personality, so those mental problems probably did affect his ability to accurately interpret Scripture.

There is some speculation that Luther suffered from

depression.

So did Lincoln and Winston Churchill

…and they did just dandy, in terms of logical and rational thought.

Do you have an assessment of the other link I provided?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin…note_Brecht_182

As to what the CC teaches on indulgences:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1471.htm

[cf. reference to ‘treasury of satisfactions’ in
this first link on indulgences]

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1479.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1498.htm

As I said, earlier, in this thread:

quote: reen12

The argument was - and remains - whether or
not Rome is preaching a gospel that conflicts
with both the gospel, as proclaimed in Scripture,
and with the teachings of Paul… and, whether or
not “infallibility” is a theological reality.

Indulgences and treasury of merits will have to
be considered - by each individual - as to how congruent
these concepts are with scripture
…and whether or no one can accept the doctrine - about
the nature of Tradition - when Tradition develops such concepts -
which are to be accepted by the faithful.

It may be additionally helpful to consider: do indulgences -
and treasury of merit - ring true, in terms of the gospel
and the letters of St. Paul.

Best,

reen12


#12

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.