Where did Luther talk about a dung hill?

I keep hearing this, but I cant find where Luther actually said this.

It means nothing unless it can be traced to something Luther really said.

If anyone knows where the link is to this comment by Luther then please post it.

[quote=Catholic Dude]I keep hearing this, but I cant find where Luther actually said this.It means nothing unless it can be traced to something Luther really said. If anyone knows where the link is to this comment by Luther then please post it.
[/quote]

Hi Catholic Dude-

I’ve never seen a citation for the quote you’re looking for, though It does seem to me like something Luther could’ve said:

“Into the world that we might live through Him. This is an emphatic statement, since the kingdoms of the devil, by which the elect are oppressed, are in the world. Consider the inestimable love of God, and show me a religion that could proclaim a similar mystery. Therefore let us embrace Christ, who was delivered for us, and His righteousness; but let us regard our righteousnesses as dung, so that we, having died to sins, may live to God alone." (LW 30:294)

“Explanation of Martin Luther: It is customary to ask whether it is permissible for a man to glory in the righteousness of the law and the performance of his duty, as Paul glories, although our righteousness is imperfect, yes, dung and uncleanness before God. I say that it is so.” (LW 34:178)

“Explanation of Martin Luther: I said before that our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so. It does not hurt the sun, because it sends its rays into the sewer.” (LW 34: 184)

Note that the emphasis for Luther is the comparison between our righteousness and Christ’s. This is key with Luther. He reveled in contrast and comparison. It would be something Luther would’ve probably said, but probably only to point out the comparison between our righteousness and Christ’s.

Regards,
James Swan

So there doesnt appear to have been such a quote as snow covering the dung.

Actually, it’s a quite famous quote, but darned if I can find it cited properly on google in 15 minutes.

Luther basically compared the saved to snow-covered dung heaps. While the saved may appear to be pure and perfect, they are merely COVERED by the saving grace of Jesus. Deep inside, they are still the heap of vile sin they always were. But through the cross, Christ’s righteousnes is IMPUTED to them.

In contrast, catholic teaching has always said that sanctification is a REAL transformation of the soul, not just a change in legal status. That when that glorious day comes when we enter heaven, we will do so as wholly good, sanctified beings. This process cannot occur except through the grace of God, but it does in fact change us, not just cover us.

Luther seems to have had a problem with understanding how an actual change could occur within the believer when his understanding of justification gutted human actions and deeds of any possible efficacy.

Revelation 21:27
Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

How is a dung-filled snowball going to enter heaven? Every dog owner will tell you that if you walk about in the back yard after a snow storm you will still get “impurities” on your shoe.

I’ve seen this question aasked and debated a lot … nobody has ever come up with a reference … but I wonder if all of Luther’s writings have been translated to English yet. He wrote more than Isaac Asimov :eek:

[quote=manualman]Actually, it’s a quite famous quote, but darned if I can find it cited properly on google in 15 minutes.
[/quote]

You would earn my sincere respect. You may find a “reference” but I doubt you’ll find an accurate reference.

[quote=manualman]Luther seems to have had a problem with understanding how an actual change could occur within the believer when his understanding of justification gutted human actions and deeds of any possible efficacy.
[/quote]

Umm- no. It would be a good idea to actually read Luther before making a comment like this.

Cordially,
James Swan

[quote=Catholic Dude]So there doesnt appear to have been such a quote as snow covering the dung.
[/quote]

Not neccesarily. There may be such a quote- It wouldn’t surprise me.However, till it surfaces with a context, i will probably never use it in my own writings.

Noting your interest in Luther, If I were you, I would channel my research energies towards Luther’s famous writings that went through multiple printings. I can make suggestions if you’d like.

Regards,
James Swan

Here’s an interesting essay on the topic…

God Bless,
RyanL

[quote=Catholic Dude]I keep hearing this, but I cant find where Luther actually said this.

It means nothing unless it can be traced to something Luther really said.

If anyone knows where the link is to this comment by Luther then please post it.
[/quote]

There was an article in last month’s This Rock discussing the protestant salvation doctrine and I think it quotes Luther’s statement. You might want to look there for the source of the statement.

Best of luck.

[quote=TertiumQuid]You would earn my sincere respect. You may find a “reference” but I doubt you’ll find an accurate reference. Umm- no. It would be a good idea to actually read Luther before making a comment like this.
Cordially,
James Swan
[/quote]

I agree. I read the writing you’re referring to, although I recall thinking how out of context it was referred to, and I believe it can be found on this site, if not it’s a great reference for his writings.
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html#sw-misc-refink

We often attack the man, I’ve heard many assaults on him personally, which I think is sad. I’d rather attack his theology, which is very flawed. He had a view of the Catholic Church and it’s hierarchy which muddied his logic. He often ranted and raved about the “papists” with no real point except they must be wrong. Similar to what we hear from many today… LOL

Do a web search for “On the Jews and their lies” written by ML. let’s talk about his writings, not about him.

Does this answer the question:

Martin Luther is the father of Protestantism. He made a statement one time that: “Christians are like dung-hills, covered with snow.” Luther believed that Christians could never be inwardly spiritually pure, but are only externally coated with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, which would make them passable before the Father on Judgment Day.

[quote=Magicsilence]Does this answer the question:
[/quote]

No, because we’re looking for attribution and citation.

Do a web search for “On the Jews and their lies” written by ML. let’s talk about his writings, not about him.

Actually, my favorite title of Luther’s works is “Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants,” just because it’s a name I wish I could make up. (Not that I want to get into Luther bashing or anything, it’s simply a funny name.)

This is a quote used by both Protesants and Catholics alike in attributing it to Martin Luther.

We shouldn’t focus on the faults of Martin Luther, but on the truths of Catholicism. Too often we get caught up into mudslinging, someone says something bad about the Catholic Church and we just respond in a negative way, which usually isn’t going to get anyone to listen to us.

Here is a link to someone’s opinion on this quote, hopefully someone might find something more, but again we shouldn’t focus on negatives.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/has-martin-luthers-snow-covered.html

God Bless
Scylla

[quote=Tom]Do a web search for “On the Jews and their lies” written by ML. let’s talk about his writings, not about him.
[/quote]

Hi Tom,

Why would you want to talk about this particular Luther treatise? It doesn’t have very much to do with Catholicism.

I’m very familiar with this work, and I reviewed Luther’s attitudes toward the Jews here:

ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20Jews%20(Web).htm

If you have anything to say that I may have missed in my treatment of the subject, let me know.

Regards,
James Swan

[quote=TertiumQuid]Not neccesarily. There may be such a quote- It wouldn’t surprise me.However, till it surfaces with a context, i will probably never use it in my own writings.

Noting your interest in Luther, If I were you, I would channel my research energies towards Luther’s famous writings that went through multiple printings. I can make suggestions if you’d like.

Regards,
James Swan
[/quote]

sure i would be interested in them.

[quote=TertiumQuid] Why would you want to talk about this particular Luther treatise? It doesn’t have very much to do with Catholicism.
I’m very familiar with this work, and I reviewed Luther’s attitudes toward the Jews here:ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20Jews%20(Web).htm
If you have anything to say that I may have missed in my treatment of the subject, let me know.

Regards,
James Swan
[/quote]

Hi James, I just want people to read his works and address the theology not the man. For example rather than calling him names let’s look at his invention of sola scriptura or sola fides.
Where did the “solas” come from? Well, when Martin Luther wrote his new testament, he wrote it with own theology in mind. He did not translate the New Testament, he wrote his own, based on what he thought it should have said. The sad thing is he had many erroneous ideas (sola, works, etc.). He readily admits the new testament he wrote was his and his alone. He also admits that he added the “alone” in several places, because it sounded good to him. He tries to explain that in German it is necessary to include “alone”. Anyone who speaks German knows this is not true, adding “alone” changes the meaning. He did in fact change Scripture to his own liking. Anyone interested in learning how the sola mistake occurred should read the words of Luther himself. iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt

[quote=] Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word “sola” than simply “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors.” Let it remain at that.
[/quote]

Good reason, because “I say so”

[quote=] For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word “sola” - even though in Romans 3 it wasn’t “sola” I used but “solum” or “tantum”. That is how closely those asses have looked at my text! However, I have used “sola fides” in other places, and I want to use both “solum” and "sola
[/quote]

He “wants to use them, but they really weren’t there to begin with

[quote=] “I also know that in Rom. 3, the word “solum” is not present in either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text - if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there.”
[/quote]

And here is where he reveals himself. Adding “alone” changes the text into what he wants it to say. He very much wants there to be no authority except the Bible. Why? Well think about it, where is the authority in the Church our Lord Jesus the Christ established? You got it, the pope!!! And Luther hates the pope.

[quote=] I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word “not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). For example, we say “the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money”; or “No, I really have no money, but only (allein) grain”; I have only eaten and not yet drunk"; “Did you write it only and not read it over?” There are a vast number of such everyday cases.”
[/quote]

Only it isn’t true.
Problem with his logic, Scripture no where denies authority in His Church, in fact it tells us that the pillar of truth IS the Church, not the Bible. Adding “alone” completely changes the meaning and negates the Church Luther hates.
What if the farmer brought grain, wood, water and no money? Simply because we say he brought no money does not say he brought “only” grain. No one argues that Scripture is good for teaching, as Scripture itself says, the error is that Scripture “alone” is sufficient was added by Luther. It isn’t in Scripture, wasn’t meant to be. Read his own words.
I enjoy reading his works, he was certainly not a stupid man, but he did make a lot of errors.

I STILL can’t find a properly cited reference. One gold star of James Swan.

Whether it descends from Luther or Calvin or somebody later, I can tell you FIRST hand that major evangelical protestant groups teach this today. Watch and listen to how many times such christian singers and authors use the word “cover” in describing what happens to our sins.

If not straight from Luther, I want to know where this got started! It sure ain’t scriptural.

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.