Revision as of 08:55, 20 April 2006

Archives and related pages

• Talk:Martin Luther/Copyright of Luther's Works
• Talk:Martin_Luther/archive1
• Talk:Martin_Luther/archive2
• Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews
• Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther)
• Talk:Martin Luther/Copyright of Luther's Works

Luther's Economic Views

Does anyone have documentation for this section? I've not heard much of it before and doubt it to be true. --CTSWyneken 18:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of objection, I will delete it. --CTSWyneken 20:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the anonymous addition of Luther's inserting anything into Paul's Letters

I couldn't let this pass without comment. Luther did not insert the word "sola" into the text of Scripture. That was a marginal note that he made in his own notes. He was confessing his faith in the Scriptural doctrine that a human being is saved by God's gift of grace without works. I have seen those with the alternative view deliberately add things into the bible in order to support their view. This is my POV, but it is NPOV to remove the last edit. drboisclair 13:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther's Economic Views

I have edited this paragraph as needed, but I feel that in order to retain it in the article there needs to be some support from primary sources. I wouldn't be opposed to its deletion. drboisclair 13:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Any objections to removing the section? --CTSWyneken 17:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Luther and witches

I have done some work on this paragraph, which needed some work. I wonder if this paragraph is needed here. Luther did not advocate any new action against witches. He shared the common superstitions of his time. His opposition to witches was connected to his view that witchcraft was satanic. Luther did not have the more detailed information that we have in the 20th Century. drboisclair 02:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Luther never had an encounter with people accused of witchcraft. In this case, it is simply Luther repeating his opinion of the meaning of a scripture verse. Not that it is a sterling moment in his career, but just a continuation of previous policies. I also do not know of it referenced in any biography of Luther. Does anyone know of such a passage? --CTSWyneken 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually this came up last year if you remember. The discussion was here Sumergocognito 03:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The following sentences seem rather wide of the mark, could they be omitted?

"The persecution of witches and warlocks took place in Protestant as well as in Roman Catholic countries in Middle Europe during and after the Reformation. Not only Luther but John Calvin supported this persecution as well. They felt it to be in accordance with Exodus 22:18."

Sumergocognito 00:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The topic came up, but only in reference to whether or not Luther commented on witches at all. YOu have found a statement by him. But it doesn't get to the point: I have yet to see one Luther scholar who has thought the matter significant enough to mention, much less an encyclopedia article. I deal with Luther's work almost daily in my job and until the WA reference was mentioned I was unaware that he commented at all. To me, that still argues against inclusion in a short essay like ours. BTW, can you cite the source of the above quote? --CTSWyneken 02:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The lines I quoted are from the article itself. The are a prolouge to the actual Luther quotes but I think they create a misleading context and don't really have anything to do with Luther's opinion of witchcraft, that's why I think we should delete them from the article. Sumergocognito 05:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Luther and the Lord's Supper

This paragraph needed work as well. What is problematic is that F.L. Cross in his ODCC says that Luther's doctrine could be called "Consubstantiation." This is surprizing in a work that is considered an authority in Historical Theology. drboisclair 14:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You've done nice work here, David, keep it up! You could always do the two opinion kind of text: "some non-Lutherans theologians say..." (reference) Lutheran theologians point out... (reference) --CTSWyneken 14:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Luther Bible

Because of the new "main article" Luther Bible, this paragraph here can be abridged to a greater degree. As it stands now it is simply a copy of what is in the Luther Bible article. All that needs to be said, in my humble opinion (IMHO), is the dates for the translations (1522 and 1534) along with the Brecht quotation that translation of the Bible was a lifelong discipline of Luther's. The standardizing of modern German by Luther's German Bible could also be mentioned. I will also be adding to the bibliography the book Luther's German Bible, which can aid further reference if it is accessible. As we know it is OOP after having been printed in the Concordia Historical Series. drboisclair 18:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have abridged the paragraph in this article since it will be covered in the new main article Luther Bible in more depth. This is in line with the laudable plan to streamline this article. drboisclair 16:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Emendations made to initial and Theology of grace paragraph

The following emendations were made to this article within past days:

Martin Luther (November 10, 1483–February 18, 1546) was a German theologian, an Augustinian monk, and an ecclesiastical reformer whose teachings inspired the Protestant Reformation and deeply influenced the doctrines and culture of the Lutheran and wider Protestant traditions. Luther's call to the Church for ecclesial, sacramental, and theological reform, particularly around questions of the source and means of Christian salvation, led to the formation of new traditions within Christianity and to the Counter-Reformation, the Catholic reaction to these movements. His contributions to Western civilization went beyond the life of the Christian church. His translations of the Bible helped to develop a standard version of the German language and added several principles to the art of translation. His hymns inspired a renewed empahsis on congregational singing in Christianity. His marriage on June 13, 1525, to Katharina von Bora helped give validity to the burgeoning practice of clerical marriage which is now common within many Christian traditions.

Soon terms like penance and righteousness took on new meaning for Luther, and he became convinced that the Church had lost sight of several of the central truths of Christianity taught in Scripture—the most important of them being the doctrine of justification by grace through faith. Luther began to teach that salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received through faith.

The reason for the change on the history page was that the initial paragraph was historically overstated. The initial paragraph is not overstated. The emendation implies that Luther had a programme of reform, and that he set out to accomplish an agenda. This is inaccurate historically. Luther's intention was to deal with what he saw as error through comparing church teaching and practice with the Bible. This idea was already conveyed by the introduction. As to congregational singing: through the Middle Ages that was largely done by a "choir": the congregation merely stood by and watched.

As to the emendations of the Theology of Grace paragraph: Luther emphasized by grace alone, through faith alone. The paragraph should have been left as is. drboisclair 22:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed emendation to initial paragraph

In order perhaps to satisfy someone's concern about POV here we could emend the initial paragraph to read:

Luther's call to the Church to return to what he believed to be the teachings of the Bible led to the formation of new traditions within Christianity and to the Counter-Reformation, the Catholic reaction to these movements.

drboisclair 23:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually Luther did call for a return to the teachings of the Bible. We do not need the additional phrase, though I do not object to it. --CTSWyneken 12:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Luther's strict upbringing

This paragraph was cut from the article for work here:

It is worth noting, anecdotally, that Luther was subject to a very strict and sometimes harsh upbringing by his father, and the Augustinian monestary he entered was as well very strict and conservative. It is this environment which may have contributed to Luther's rumination and obsessive worrying.

Brecht (Luther, vol. 1, p. 6-7): "Little is known about the relationship of the young Luther with his father and even less about that with his mother. Yet repeated attempts have been made, principally from the side of the psychological disciplines, to explain Luther's personality and its development on the basis of these relationships. At that time, the rearing of children in home and school was strict. Parents expected strict obedience from their children. ... Besides these two references, there is nothing known about Luther's strict upbringing. This is hardly enough evidence to make a diagnosis of childhood emotional damage. Yet Luther has repeatedly been interpreted in this fashion, and these attempts at explaining him have also been favorable received. ... But where sufficient data is lacking, not only the historian but also the psychologist must recognize his limitations. It is improper to draw too far-reaching conclusions on this basis. Interestingly, there is never a mention of a failure to live up to anything expected by his parents or, correspondingly, of any exceptional demands placed upon the child."

It is my view that this paragraph should not be added to the article. drboisclair 16:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm rather new here so I don't know the procedure for this. Anyhow, one of you guys with more authority might want to take a look at/block user 63.227.172.108 (spam statements, also his first edit was a deliberate mispelling). John Sheu 19:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, John! We typically put in a warning on their talk pages, escalate and then, finally, ask an admin to intervene. --CTSWyneken 19:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could do that then. I'll watch and learn. 66.68.65.182 06:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes by Anonymous User

I've reverted the massive rewrite to the Luther Struggles to Find Peace with God, Luther's Theology of Grace and Indulgence Controversy sections because the text here is carefully negotiated, the changes unnecessarily lengthen the article and they destroy discussion of at least one signature teaching of Luther's -- Law and Gospel. I am certainly open to changing the text if the editor will register as a user, come here to talk first and work with us to refine what he/she finds deficient. --CTSWyneken 19:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope that I'm not anonymous any longer. (I thought that I was logged in previously, but it appears that I was not.)

I must confess that I'm a bit mystified as to what is going on here. I thought that it was open to anyone to ammend text, and similarly, open to anyone to alter that in turn. But I was not aware that everything has to be "agreed" before one is allowed to put anything in the entry. You say that the text is "carefully negotiated". By whom? Is this some kind of official wikipedia policy or not?

Dear Barry: Welcome! Yes, anyone can edit these articles ... and revert them. While no one is required to check the talk page before editing, it is wise to do so when you are intending to make a lot of changes. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative venture. In the case of the Luther article portions (this is one of them) have been crafted through much negotiation and comprimise. If you stumble into them, you will often encounter a summary revert. It is best to at least put a note on the talk page of an article you want to change, asking if anyone minds and then wait a day for people to catch up.

It is also true that you will more often be reverted if you do not log in and explain each change in your edit summaries. Since you are here, I'll let the editors most interested in this article know you want to work on this.

In general, I didn't see a lot of problems with what you wrote, except that you eliminated the discussion on Law and Gospel and added to an article already over long, when there are areas of Luther's life yet to be discussed here and when some paring down still needs to be done.

I must get ready to go to work at the moment, but will be back later.

What I think we will want to know is (you may have covered it below):

1. What do you consider weak in the current text of the article and why?
2. If you want to add a quote, please source it. We have a plague of undocumented Luther quotes,
3. Most importantly, if you want to delete established text, more than window dressing, why? This is especially important because editors don't often receive it well to have their text removed.

One more thing that is not necessary, but that I and others find helpful is to have you put on your userpage something about you and your background. Knowing your level of expertise with the subject is very helpful.

Again, welcome! --CTSWyneken 11:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Now to what I wrote.

The quotation about "monkery" is well known and exists in several versions in a variety of biographies. Most people think that Luther was going through a spiritual/psychological crisis at this point, and the quotation is particularly apt.

I will add the following and source it.

"I was indeed a pious monk and kept the rules of my order so strictly that I can say: If ever a monk gained heaven through monkery, it should have been I."

The Reformation, Hans J. Hildebrand; Harper & Row, 1964; p.24

This is a good start and good enough to insert it into our text and cite it. Could you check Hildebrand and see where in Luther's writings this quote appears? I'd much prefer to avoid "as cited in" statements. Let's see what others have to say if the chime in.--CTSWyneken 14:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As to the passage about his constipation, surely, in a biography, anything that has a possible impact upon his life and work is admissable. Many scholars and writers allude to this; it is reflected in at least one media representation of his life; and it has been given wide currency recently by the archaeological discovery of the lavatory that he would have used.

Admissible, yes. But since most scholars dismiss these arguments, do we really want to include it? If the answer is "yes," then we will need to craft text that reflects this to be a minority viewpoint, state the majority viewpoint and cite both.

On the tower, see: Talk:Martin Luther/archive1#Luther and the cloaca. --CTSWyneken 14:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it important to stress that Luther's approach to the scriptures was in tht humanist traditition, and how that differed from the previous approach. Otherwise, he would never have speculated in the way he did.

I also think it odd that there is no exposition of 'justification by faith', his key doctrine. I wanted to show:- (i) How it was very personal to him, in that it comforted his predicament. (ii) How it diminished the spiritual role of the Church through the notion of a 'priesthood of all believers', and laid the church open to criticism. (iii) How it was the starting point for other elements of his thinking, including his attitude to the Gospels.

Yes, we need such a treatment, but I think it should be its own section, and located among the 1520 events, which is where it taught in its final form for the first time, or with the 1535 Galatians Commentary, where it reached its full maturity. --CTSWyneken 14:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As to indulgencies, their are certain points that need to be made. I wanted to make the doctrine behind them a little clearer. And I wanted, like most historians, to suggest that the protest (if indeed it can be seen as a protest, was totally within an academic context. There is no evidence to suggest that he anticipated the spread of his ideas in the vernacular, by printing press.

I cannot see that much length was added to the article through these additions.

Barry Worthington

You've added three paragraphs in an article that is over long by usual standards. Not to say we can't do that, but we should be careful that everything we add has a point. Alternately, we can take some sections to their own articles and summarize them here. --CTSWyneken 14:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that most of your questions are covered in the response.

I have added and sourced the quote.

Thank you! --CTSWyneken 14:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of deleting anything. I tried to be careful in that.

Looking at your changes below, on second glance, you didn't delete the material exactly. I didn't notice the original text, since it comes a few paragraphs down in your new version. You did change it somewhat, however, and I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with the result. I'll comment more when time permits, and below. --CTSWyneken 14:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As to my qualifications, I've never been asked that before, but I don't mind stating that I have Degree in History and have an interest in this historical period.

Barry Worthington

Barry Worthington's Proposals

Thanks for being understanding and patient with me, here, Barry. It's good to know we have another historian on board. May I suggest a capsule bio on your user page? Knowing something about you (you can check me out at: user:CTSWyneken and our other most active editor at the Luther article user:drboisclair to see examples. It really helps to know that the other editors have some idea of what they're talking about.

Another think that would be helpful is for you to sign your username at the end of each comment you make on the talk page. At the top of the edit window is a set of buttons. If you press the one that looks like a signature, your username, date and time will be inserted at the cursor in the text window. In edit mode, it looks like a bunch of dashes and tildes, but will be substituted for your username when you save it.

Below I'll put the paragraphs you edited and the changes you've suggested. That way, we can all comment, and, I suspect, go along with much of what you'd like to do. --CTSWyneken 14:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Luther's struggle to find peace with God

Current

Young Brother Martin Luther fully dedicated himself to monastic life, the effort to do good works to please God and to serve others through prayer for their souls. He devoted himself to fasts, flagellations, long hours in prayer and pilgrimage and constant confession. The more he tried to do for God, it seemed, the more aware he became of his sinfulness.--CTSWyneken 14:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Worthington's Proposal

Young Brother Martin Luther fully dedicated himself to monastic life, the effort to do good works to please God and to serve others through prayer for their souls. He devoted himself to fasts, flagellations, long hours in prayer and pilgrimage and constant confession. The more he tried to do for God, it seemed, the more aware he became of his sinfulness, the upper hopelessness of his spiritual condition. He later said that if ever a man could have got to heaven "by monkery", that man would be he.

It has been suggested that his mental crisis may have been partly due to physical problems associated with a bowel complaint. He appears to have suffered from long periods of constipation. This aspect of his psychology has been brought out in the play that John Osborne wrote about him. --CTSWyneken 14:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Osborne and other "popularizers" of Luther have noted that quotation. It would be helpful to locate that quotation in Luther's writings in order to put it into the article. I would suggest that it read like this:

Young Brother Martin Luther fully dedicated himself to monastic life, the effort to do good works to please God and to serve others through prayer for their souls. He devoted himself to fasts, flagellations, long hours in prayer and pilgrimage and constant confession. {Here we would put the "monkery" quotation, and then continue the text:} Rather than comforting him, these exercises increased his sense of hopelessness for himself and humankind saving themselves through obedience to God's law.

It is difficult to psychoanalyze a man almost 500 years after his death as Erickson has tried to do in his Young Man Luther. What is plain from Luther's own writings is that his depression came from his sense of the utter "lostness" of himself and all humankind in the light of God's law. Medieval theology soft-pedaled God's law, and devised bargains like: God agrees to accept what you can do to save yourself and will reward you with more grace. Luther thought that if he worked hard enough in his monastic spiritual exercises, God would reward him with "grace" to do better and have a clearer conscience. This did not happen, so Luther searched the Scriptures for the answer and came up with the answer that he believed God provided. This we have mentioned in the section: "Luther's theology of grace." drboisclair 12:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Luther's theology of grace

Current

The demanding discipline of earning academic degrees and preparing lectures drove Martin Luther to study the Scriptures in depth. Influenced by Humanism's call ad fontes ("to the sources"), he immersed himself in the study of the Bible and the early Church. Soon terms like penance and righteousness took on new meaning for Luther, and he became convinced that the Church had lost sight of several of the central truths of Christianity taught in Scripture—the most important of them being the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Luther began to teach that salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received by faith.

Later, Luther defined and reintroduced the principle of the proper distinction between Law and Gospel that undergirded his theology of grace. Overall, Luther believed that this principle of interpretation was an essential starting point in the study of the Scriptures. Luther saw failure to distinguish Law and Gospel properly as the cause of the obstruction of the Gospel of Jesus in the Church of his day, which, in turn, gave rise to many fundamental theological errors. --CTSWyneken 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Worthington's Proposal

The demanding discipline of earning academic degrees and preparing lectures drove Martin Luther to study the Scriptures in depth. Traditional methods of study had merely concerned themselves with the established expositions of the meaning of scripture and theology, dating back to the Middle Ages and the Church Fathers. These were more or less an established canon, almost set in stone. Students and Doctors usually contented themselves with interpreting them.

Influenced by Humanism's new approach and call ad fontes ("to the sources"), he immersed himself in the study of the Bible and the early Church, by attempting to place them within some kind of context, often influenced by new discoveries of ancient texts. Soon terms like penance and righteousness took on new meaning for Luther. he was asked to preach a series of sermons upon the Epistle to the Romans and he came across the statement that "the just shall live by faith alone". This was the origin of the doctrine of Justification by Faith.

Men obtained salvation through the grace of God, but this grace was mediated through the sacraments, the ceremonies of the Church. St. Peter, in the guise of the Pope did indeed hold the keys of heaven. But what if the believer, by their act of faith, obtained personal salvation, was 'justified', in the eyes of God? A christian man did not need a priest to obtain salvation, for, through personal justification, all men had that ability. In short, there was a priesthood of believers.

Luther found this a very comforting personal doctrine, as this possibility of salvation through an act of personal justification wiped out the past burden of a sinful nature. But what did it mean for the institutions and theology of the church? The power of the Church might not be so absolute, and he became quite critical.

Luther became convinced that the Church had lost sight of several of the central truths of Christianity taught in Scripture—the most important of them being the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Luther began to teach that salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received by faith.

Later, Luther defined and reintroduced the principle of the proper distinction between Law and Gospel that undergirded his theology of grace. The decision to make an individual act or leap of faith in order to obtain personal justification undoubtedly depended upon being moved by preaching and scriptural injunction. This required the ability of everyone to read and interpret the scriptures. Overall, Luther believed that this principle of interpretation was an essential starting point in the study of the Scriptures. Luther saw failure to distinguish Law and Gospel properly as the cause of the obstruction of the Gospel of Jesus in the Church of his day, which, in turn, gave rise to many fundamental theological errors. --CTSWyneken 14:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment on this proposed emendation drboisclair 13:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC):

I will place my response in brackets. --Train guard 19:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"The demanding discipline of earning academic degrees and preparing lectures drove Martin Luther to study the Scriptures in depth. Traditional methods of study had merely concerned themselves with the established expositions of the meaning of scripture and theology, dating back to the Middle Ages and the Church Fathers. These were more or less an established canon, almost set in stone. Students and Doctors usually contented themselves with interpreting them."

Putting it "dating it back to the Middle Ages" does not take into consideration that Luther's time was the time just after the Middle Ages. Historians have marked 1500 as the beginning of the Modern Age, some, 1600. If you take the latter, Luther would also have been a part of the Middle Ages.

(I was always taught that it was impossible to place exact dates upon historical periods or epochs. Having said that, I do not think that most historians would place Luther and his thinking in a medieval frame of mind, or perhaps the medieval era. Perhaps the phrase "that were medieval in their approach" would be acceptable? )

This statement is too much of a simplification: "Traditional methods of study had merely concerned themselves with the established expositions of the meaning of scripture and theology, dating back to the Middle Ages and the Church Fathers. These were more or less an established canon, almost set in stone. Students and Doctors usually contented themselves with interpreting them." The catena method was employed up to the twelfth century by which a catena, "chain," of quotations of the church fathers were printed along with scriptures passages. The manner of biblical interpretation was not "set in stone": there was the five fold method. Bible interpreters would find the literal meaning, the allegorical meaning, the tropological meaning, and the anagogical meaning of specific texts. I would recommend that the text stand as it does.

(But it was 'set in stone' as far as the approach and methodology was concerned. Surely, historians have contrasted the frame of mind and approach of the humanist scholars with traditional scholasticism? Isn't that the point? Luther approached scripture in the new way, in a new context, which obviously impacted upon his insight.)

Influenced by Humanism's new approach and call ad fontes ("to the sources"), he immersed himself in the study of the Bible and the early Church, by attempting to place them within some kind of context, often influenced by new discoveries of ancient texts. Soon terms like penance and righteousness took on new meaning for Luther. he was asked to preach a series of sermons upon the Epistle to the Romans and he came across the statement that "the just shall live by faith alone". This was the origin of the doctrine of Justification by Faith.

Luther was not asked to preach a series of sermons on Romans. Luther undertook to lecture as a professor on Romans. He could not have come across a statement: "the just shall live by faith alone" because "alone" is not in the text. Luther came to the conclusion on the basis of other passages of Scripture that "alone" could be understood here, since "faith alone" is the corollary of "not by works."

(Yes, I know that. It was his interpretation of what he read. That can be added.)

It is also not accurate to state: "This was the origin of the doctrine of 'Justification by Faith.'" The doctrine is very plainly stated in the New Testament as Paul's doctrine (cf. Rom. 3:28). Luther did not originate it.

(Exactly so. But it is the signal doctrine associated with him, and there was almost no real exposition of this in the original entry. That also could be added.)

Men obtained salvation through the grace of God, but this grace was mediated through the sacraments, the ceremonies of the Church. St. Peter, in the guise of the Pope did indeed hold the keys of heaven. But what if the believer, by their act of faith, obtained personal salvation, was 'justified', in the eyes of God? A christian man did not need a priest to obtain salvation, for, through personal justification, all men had that ability. In short, there was a priesthood of believers.

This may have been a line of thinking of other reformers. Luther never wanted to discard the sacraments as the means that God uses to confer His forgiveness to people.

(In the context of the doctrine of con-substantiation, yes. My understanding is that he taught that sacraments without faith were not efficacious.)

Luther never said there was a "priesthood of all believers." He DID say that all the baptized share the "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9). The implication of this statement is that people do not need a priesthood (office of the holy ministry) or the sacraments. Luther was diametically opposed to such thinking.

(I think that you are reading too much into the entry. I do make a reference to the 'future'at one point, and I do not suggest that he himself had thought all this out. I indicated where I thought this path was leading.)

Luther found this a very comforting personal doctrine, as this possibility of salvation through an act of personal justification wiped out the past burden of a sinful nature. But what did it mean for the institutions and theology of the church? The power of the Church might not be so absolute, and he became quite critical.

I do not think that this statement is needed here as this is worked out in the course of the article. Luther became increasingly critical of the pope and the hierarchy when they progressively sought to silence him. If they had not taken such a hard line against him over the question of the "Treasury of Merits", Luther may not have found himself so at odds with them. Luther did not want to overturn the church polity and theology of his day. He wanted it to accept the gospel. Luther was a conservative reformer.

(I never suggested anything otherwise. But I did want to relate his theology to his personal life. After all, it is meant to be a biographical article.)

Luther became convinced that the Church had lost sight of several of the central truths of Christianity taught in Scripture—the most important of them being the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Luther began to teach that salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received by faith.

This should stay. It was the originally worked out text.

Later, Luther defined and reintroduced the principle of the proper distinction between Law and Gospel that undergirded his theology of grace. The decision to make an individual act or leap of faith in order to obtain personal justification undoubtedly depended upon being moved by preaching and scriptural injunction. This required the ability of everyone to read and interpret the scriptures. Overall, Luther believed that this principle of interpretation was an essential starting point in the study of the Scriptures. Luther saw failure to distinguish Law and Gospel properly as the cause of the obstruction of the Gospel of Jesus in the Church of his day, which, in turn, gave rise to many fundamental theological errors.

The concept of "leap of faith" comes from Søren Kirkegaard of the nineteenth century.

(If this characterises a situation, does it matter?)

This characterization of Luther's concept is too subjectivistic. The need for Christians to read and study the Scriptures for themselves is brought out in a later section of this article. Luther saw the preached word as important here not the reading of the Bible in the vernacular: "faith comes by hearing" (Rom. 10:17). In my view the text should not be amended here. drboisclair 13:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(That may be, but I do not think that the article gave a clear picture to the average reader of the development of Luther's point of view. That's why I wanted to alter it. I thought that the original text had thrown out the baby with the bathwater.)

The indulgence controversy

Current

In addition to his duties as a professor, Martin Luther served as a preacher and confessor at the Castle Church, a "foundation" of Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony. This church was named "All Saints" because it was the repository of his collection of holy relics. This parish served both the Augustinian monastery and the university. It was in the performance of these duties that the young priest was confronted with the effects of obtaining indulgences on the lives of everyday people.--CTSWyneken 14:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Worthington's Proposal

Much of this lay in the future. Luther was an academic, wrote exclusively in Latin, and confined his cogitations largely to a community of scholars. But a turning point was at hand. In addition to his duties as a professor, Martin Luther served as a preacher and confessor at the Castle Church, a "foundation" of Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony. This church was named "All Saints" because it was the repository of his collection of holy relics. This parish served both the Augustinian monastery and the university. It was in the performance of these duties that the young priest first came across effects of obtaining indulgences on the lives of everyday people. --CTSWyneken 14:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Much of this lay in the future. Luther was an academic, wrote exclusively in Latin, and confined his cogitations largely to a community of scholars. But a turning point was at hand" may mislead in giving the impression that Luther had a large body of written material in 1517 that he was circulating in the academic community he lived and worked in. Luther was still evolving as a theologian at this time. He did not have it all down pat and written down in Latin in 1517. He developed in his theology through the indulgence controversy. It is true that Luther did not intend for his 95 theses to be widely published since they were written in Latin. This might be brought out later in the paragraph on the indulgence controversy. "Cogitations" should be emended to "ideas" for simplicity's sake. drboisclair 13:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Luther’s View of The Holy Ghost (God) as a Rhetorician in Bondage of the Will

I believe this article is way too narrow to stand on it's own. We should create a summary paragraph on On The Bondage of the Will here, hitting the highlights of this article and documenting it, along with a general description of the work. --CTSWyneken 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article is problematic in that it refers to the Holy Spirit as Holy Ghost. The title also makes no sense: is Luther the rhetorician or is God the Holy Spirit the rhetorician? Along with the summarizing paragraph we could have a special article on The Bondage of the Will. I notice that there already is an article on On the Bondage of the Will. Perhaps the material could be merged with that article and a summary paragraph put into the main article.drboisclair 21:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A matter of concern re: editing with "popups"

A helpful editor removed "Bondage" and "hard on" from the article using the popup software. These were replaced with multiple "#"s. I have dealt with the use of "hard on" in this article, but I'm afraid that "Bondage" remains. I would ask editors to allow some latitude with this term as it is unfortunately the traditional English rendering of Luther's "De servo arbitrio". "Bound choice" is better, but our hands are tied by Cole's 19th Century translation of this treatise. Just because the word "Bondage" has taken on what is perceived to be unsavory connotations is no reason to banish it from common use. drboisclair 17:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope

Though it wasn't written by Luther, I thought editors here might like to know that a stub for this work has been started Sumergocognito 07:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you know if it has been linked to the Book of Concord page yet? --CTSWyneken 01:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and Anti-Semitic People Catagories

In the light of the advice at Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Categories, I have reverted the addition fo Anti-Semitic People as redundant. --CTSWyneken 22:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Slim_Virgin, Here we go again, I think that it is unbecoming of an admin like yourself to be starting this all over again. It is immature, unscholarly, prejudiced, bigoted, anachronistic, and insulting. The whole section that brands people as antisemitic should be removed. I think that it is time to appeal for abritration here when we have a nonNPOV administrator! Why do you have to start this up again? Your bias is showing. This is unfair. This is being started up for political reasons. drboisclair 23:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

(copied from SV's talk page) Once again, you show that you are unfairly biased toward User:Doright in his religious quest to vilify Dr. Martin Luther. I advise you to show restraint and impartiality. Are you aware of the fact that we have hammered this out painstakingly for the last 5 months? I have also seen the ridiculous proposal of naming William Shakespeare as an anti-semite. Why are you starting this up again? Our concern here is not to overly bash someone as User:Doright has been censured in doing. This is totally beyond the pale of NPOV. It is POV that overly vilifies a great man. drboisclair 23:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think Doright is on a "religious" quest, or a quest of any kind. I'm not overly keen on these categories (this or that kind of person), but given that this one exists, it would be absurd not to add Luther, who is a classic of the genre. I'm not starting anything up again. All I did was revert CSTW's deletion of a category, based on his (as I see it) idiosynratic POV. As for your comments above, please review WP:NPA and WP:CIV. SlimVirgin 00:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ma'am, your statement: "...but given that this one exists, it would be absurd not to add Luther, who is a classic of the genre." This is POV, so please see WP:NPOV. drboisclair 00:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't see a need of this category, why don't you use your authority and delete it? I admit that it is appropriate for the likes of Hitler or Osama Bin Laden, but not for Shakespeare and Luther. Why must you cause this turmoil again? drboisclair 00:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your description of Luther as a "great man" indicates that you have a strong POV, much stronger than mine I can assure you. I have close to no POV on Luther whatsoever. SlimVirgin 00:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Having a POV is not wrong in itself, only expressing it in a way that excludes all other POVs is wrong. As you can see from your above posts, you too have a POV, though, admittedly not as strong as mine, but that is permissible as long as there is balance. I try to neutralize my writing in order to conform to WP:NPOV, but I am not perfect. I wish that we would not have to deal with this all over again. drboisclair 00:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As a person of authority here you should be impartial, a peacemaker, and a negotiator. Instead, you start this whole matter up again. This matter was settled, why do you have to pick a fight here? drboisclair 00:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim_Virgin, you should also refer to these pages along with the one WP:NPOV. drboisclair 00:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

We need the help of a NPOV administrator to negotiate a settlement here. drboisclair 00:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Given all the e-mails I've received on this, I thought I'd go ahead and add my two bits.

1) Two categories on the anti-Semite theme are OK so long as they are mutually exclusive. One is clearly for bios; so the other should be used for articles related to non-bio anti-Semitism.

2) The bio-related category should include the article-related category as a category so that someone surfing anti-Semitism will see that a category for anti-Semitic people also exists.

3) With No.s 1 & 2 in mind, it makes no sense to include both categories in this (or any) bio article. It's redundant.

4) Any category used in an article should be supported within the article – preferably by an independent section (or in this case, an entire article). The section should make a clear case for including the category. Unless the section "Martin Luther and the Jews" is grossly mistaken, the anti-Semitic person category clearly applies to Martin Luther.

Rklawton 00:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Rklawton, I fully agree with your observation that the text of the Martin Luther and the Jews section shows that “the anti-Semitic person category clearly applies to Martin Luther.” By the way, you may not know, until it was whitewashed that section and article was titled Martin Luther and anti-Semitism. Are you proposing that the Martin Luther article now have its assignment to the anti-Semitism category removed? I don’t understand what you mean when you say, “The bio-related category should include the article-related category as a category.” For example, what is the "article-related category?" Also, with regard to your suggested requirement that the categories be mutually exclusive, it may be worth noting that none of the dozen or so categories that this article is assigned to are mutally exlusive. Nice to meet you. Doright 08:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The action of putting Luther into this category is a matter of debate. It would be more NPOV to simply put him in the category of Anti-Semitism in order to explore this. Luther's writings against the Jews are offensive, but that does not put him in the category of Bin Laden and Hitler. I don't want to whitewash, though. Majority rules. drboisclair 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave since you have repeatedly said that Luther was antisemitic, I'm having some difficulty following your logic. Doright 08:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Would everyone please calm down. First of all, Dave, there is no call for using language about others likely to inflame, no matter how true you may think they are. We are far from needing any sort of intervention here. Second, Slim, I would appreciate it if you would not inflame issues. Surely you know that passions run high on this issue. It would be helpful if you would seek an agreement here before you go changing the status quo on such a topic. You may have missed it, as Doright has, that Dave actually has repeatedly said he believes Luther was antisemitic.

I'd like to think we can work together, seeing sometimes we have managed it. Now, can we please stick to this issue?

Now, Dave is right that we have been around this issue before and settled on the one category, Antisemitism. This was the best alternative, we thought, because it recognizes Luther's venom against the Jews and that the scholarly community is divided over whether or not his words were anti-semitic or anti-judaic. Please remember that it is the opinion of scholarship that we are required to represent, not the strong opinions of those who love Luther and those who hate Luther.

CTSWyneken, I think you falsely claim we "settled on the one category, Antisemitism," because we thought "this was the best alternative." Please provide the diffs that support your claim.Doright 08:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To me, it is redundant to put Luther in two separate categories, both of which say the same thing -- he either is anti-semitic or is involved with anti-semitism. So, for the moment, we're at an impasse. Dave and I do not agree with double categorizing Luther. You and Doright, want to do this. Until others who were party to the original comprimises on this at related pages weigh in, unless you can bring some sort of rational argument to justify it or both, I will simply revert the addition of a second anti-semitic category up to two times a day, if necessary. I suspect I will not be alone. Shall we summon the parties to the original comprimise? --CTSWyneken 01:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

CTS, I've not going to argue about this. The only person who is not calm here is drboi, so don't tell me to calm down. Your POV on this issue is extreme and unusual, as is drboi's. If Luther was not an anti-Semite, then no one is. Doright, Rklawton and I believe he should be in that cat, if anyone is. Please don't keep removing it. SlimVirgin 01:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, perhaps we should have a vote on it? You are stating your POV here, too. drboisclair 01:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A Two-Pronged vote: the first to remove Luther from the above-discussed list; the second to remove said list. It is amazing that such a list is even considered as an encyclopedia heading, for while it may very well be an accurate list of anti-semites, past and present, it does nothing to further knowledge, which is the point of this project in the first place. Indeed, such a category is POV by its very nature, as it sets this group of people apart for no apparent reason, especially when that is not the case for other sets of people. There are, so far as I have been able to tell, no set-limited list herein that contains the name of every baseball player, or of all past United States Senators (a list of current Senators does exist), or of Philo-Semites. Why this particular list, then, when categories that would make at least some sense --- such as categories for all past baseball players and senators --- do not exist? (If I have overlooked such lists, do not discount the argument. Any number of possible sets of people should have such a list if this particular list is allowed to stand.) The only explanation that makes sense is one that is political and/or personal. Any such reason is POV by definition; any such reason disqualifies such a list from the Misplaced Pages. --Rekleov 05:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Luther put into an anachronistic category

Once again we have to work this matter out. I oppose the inclusion of Martin Luther in the POV category of Category:Anti-Semitic people, because it glosses over the debate as to whether his anti-Judaic writings were anti-semitic or not. This matter has been settled, and there are those who wish to incite an edit war. drboisclair 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I have left a note on your talk page about 3RR. Please review it before reverting again. SlimVirgin 01:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear, Slim, Thank you for your kind advice. I will not revert anymore. I have only reverted twice which is permitted. I regret that this matter has once again been broached. Perhaps we could have a vote to end at a certain time since there is an impasse here. Cordially, drboisclair 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

the following is copied from talk pages; please don't post to my talk page again. SlimVirgin 01:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I would then ask the same courtesy. drboisclair 02:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you revert again at Martin Luther, you will violate 3RR and I will report it. Just because one of the reverts you made was of different material, that does not mean it will not count toward 3RR. Please review WP:3RR carefully. SlimVirgin 01:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear, Slim, Thank you for your kind advice. I will not revert anymore. I have only reverted twice which is permitted. I regret that this matter has once again been broached. Perhaps we could have a vote to end at a certain time since there is an impasse here. Cordially, drboisclair 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you have reverted three times. Look at the history. SlimVirgin 01:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Ma'am, I have not reverted three times. In fact, I have reverted two times in two days! My first reversion was on April 19th, and my second reversion was on April 20th. Please see history, Cordially, drboisclair 01:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This happens every single time I deal with you, CTSW, and StanZegel. Endless, pointless nattering back and forth. You have reverted three times: 15:09 April 19, 23:37 April 19, 01:11 April 20. Why else do you think I left a warning for you? SlimVirgin 01:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I would appreciate it if you would not escalate this to a war. Why not try discussing things calmly, rather than acting in ways likely to raise tempers. You should also note that you have now reverted the page three times. This is the last I will say on this matter other than observe that I keep a 2RR rule, which I have reached for today. If I must, I will reach that limit every day to keep the page in comprimise. Convince me and other interested editors with reason, and this can change. But I will simply not put up with strong arm tactics and attempts to anger people you know have short fuses. --CTSWyneken 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slim, where is the third revert? There are only two in two days. Is it on another article perhaps? drboisclair 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have given you the times and dates. Please continue any discussion here and not on my talk page. SlimVirgin 01:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but they were on two separate days. Doesn't that mean that they were not 3RRs on the same day? drboisclair 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

24 hours. Read the policy. SlimVirgin 01:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You have done the same thing and all on the same matter. (22:20, 19 April 2006, 01:20, 20 April 2006, 01:27, 20 April 2006drboisclair 01:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I know! But I don't need to warn myself because I understand the policy. You don't. After months of editing and reverting, reverting, reverting, you haven't even read the policy. After I post a note asking you to review it, you still don't read it. After I post the times of your reverts, you insist you're right and don't read it. After I ask you to stop posting about it, you keep on posting but still don't read it! Enough. SlimVirgin 02:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never been admonished about this. In this case it is a device to find fault with me. You too have reverted 3 times on the same matter. Imagine our frustration when this is brought up again.drboisclair 02:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, can you document that drboisclair has ever reverted the same page four times in one twenty-four hour period? If not, please cease personal attacks against him. --CTSWyneken 02:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks, just astonishment at the pair of you. And if you want to stand for adminship, try reading, and learn how to link to, our policy pages. SlimVirgin 02:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slim: The above is a Personal Attack. You have now accused me of not reading the rules, which I have. You have accused a user of having violating the three revert rule, which he has not yet done. You and he both have three reverts, neither have four. The rule is no more than three in a twenty-four hour period. I request you cease from such behavior. By the way, I do not appreciate your bringing the RfA into play here. It is completely out of line, since you know most people frown on campaigning. Enough! --CTSWyneken 02:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: you do not read carefully. I have not accused anyone of violating 3RR. I warned dboi when he was up to three, because I strongly suspected he hadn't read the policy, and I was right. Do you have nothing better to do than to post endless queries to me, rather than simply reading what I wrote or editing the encyclopedia? This is what you did the last time I tried to edit these articles, and it's what drove me away. Then, having driven me away, you proceeded to claim you had achieved consensus on the page, not realizing that people just get tired of your endless arguments. Or perhaps you do realize. Regardless, you cannot take ownership of the Luther pages. SlimVirgin 02:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. He has invited others to discuss changes. He has taken their concerns into consideration. I remember that I reproduced some of Luther's German text for your arbitration, and you ruled against the idea that Luther advocated killing. I think that the record speaks for itself about the manner things have been carried out here. We are aware of the fact that we do not have ownership of these pages. I have read the WP:3RR but not far enough and carefully enough. I am surprised by your behavior in all of this. I thought you were impartial. drboisclair 02:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I see it, and you said that the subject matter does not matter. However, the two reversions were on the 19th and the last one on the 20th, so I arguably would have two more reverts for the 20th! But I will not take that liberty. drboisclair 01:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What is it that you still don't understand? Do not revert on the same page more than three times in 24 hours, in whole or in part, whether the reverts are of the same material or different material. SlimVirgin 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Slim, if I have reverted three times, so have you on the two days in question. Does an administrator have the right to waive the 3RR rule for him or herself? drboisclair 01:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert again after the warning

I need to state here that I did not revert after the Administrator gave me warning. drboisclair 02:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)