I know that Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon tried to oppose the school system introduced by the Catholic Church (according to Luther, Oxford and Cambridge model was influenced by the Paris universities, which in their turn by the Catholic Church). This happened at the beginning of the 16th century, when they founded some of the so-called Reformed Schools (based on the Protestant beliefs) like the University of Wittenberg. As far as I know, a little later, some bigger universities like the University of Halle and University of Göttingen were created on the same model. The latter was indeed a very prestigious institution during the whole 18th and 19th century together with Univ. of Berlin and some other German schools. It looks that at a certain moment, the whole movement ceased to be active. Does anyone know more about this reforming of the schools' movement and what exactly happened with it? Which of the currently prestigious universities in North America have been founded according to the Luther and Melanchthon's ideas?

The volatility and Jew-hatred of Luther suggests to some folk that Luther might have been overly fond of the drink. What does history show about his vices? This is from PBS: ![Luther's Vices ][1]

I'm looking for an English translation of Martin Luther's notes in his German Bible translation. Or maybe it would be called his preface. My understanding is that he included personal notes before each book in the New Testament. Does anyone know what I am talking about or where I could find it? Thanks.

I've been looking specifically for a PDF version of the Martin Luther 1534 translation of the Bible with a Parallel English translation (preferably KJV, but any edition will do). I've been hitting a serious brick wall in finding any such composition. Does such a creature exist? I have a Crossway hard copy edition, but the Martin Luther translation is a revised edition and of course it's physical - I need a PDF for portability and markup purposes (using Liquid Text for markup and note taking): 

Luther seems to have been convinced of the then-novel historicist view of Revelation because it made sense to him the Antichrist figure was the then-installed Pope. At the same time, he did not recognize his/Paul's Jesus in the Revelation and said "I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it." He even put Revelation at the end of his "The Bible" to indicate that it was the text in which he had the least confidence. Does Luther ever explain his apparent inconsistency in his regard for the value of what was written in Revelation? My question is based on the history provided by Dr. Bruce Gore in this video . This question seems appropriate to ask since Luther's estimation of the Pope as THE Antichrist was the largely the impetus of Protestantism and the horrific Thirty Years War . Since this accusation, the once unquestioned Catholic Church became a pariah to a great deal of Protestantism. "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God," arguably Luther's most famous hymn was also arguably a battle hymn against the Papacy: >LYRICS: 1 A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing; our helper he, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing. For still our ancient foe does seek to work us woe; his craft and power are great, and armed with cruel hate, on earth is not his equal. >2 Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing, were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God's own choosing. You ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is he; Lord Sabaoth his name, from age to age the same; and he must win the battle. >3 And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us, we will not fear, for God has willed his truth to triumph through us. The prince of darkness grim, we tremble not for him; his rage we can endure, for lo! his doom is sure; one little word shall fell him. >4 That Word above all earthly powers no thanks to them abideth; the Spirit and the gifts are ours through him who with us sideth. Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also; the body they may kill: God's truth abideth still; his kingdom is forever! How does Luther explain this momentous accusation without contradicting himself about Revelation?

In Weimar's edition of Luther's work, Luther supposedly summarized Psalm 83 as follows: > "God must be recognized and honored by all creatures, whether by grace or, contrary to the will, in damnation." I'm trying to locate that quotation in the original German work.

Luther denied that marriage is a sacrament conferring grace.¹ He said marriage is a “worldly matter” (*weltlich geschefft*).² But 1 Cor. 7:14 says the husband and wife can mutually sanctify one another: >For the unbelieving husband **is sanctified** by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife **is sanctified** by the believing husband… In view of this verse, how did Luther not think this shows that matrimony confers grace? 1. Reynolds 2016 §17.3 (pp. 742-54)
2. *ibid.* p. 749n102: "*Von Ehesachen* WA 30.3: 205/12–14. *Traubüchlein*, WA 30.3:74/2."

From some of Luther's quotes shown by his critics (such as Peter Hermann Wehner's book, *Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor*), it seems Luther had an aversion to reasoning and free will. These famous quotes are said to be from the context of responding to the alleged heretics and "fanatics" on the topics like water baptism. What did he mean by such teachings, and how do the modern Lutheran followers respond to this *reasoning*, which appears to be self-refuting and irrational? >“Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom … Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.” [Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148] And again >But since the devil’s bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she’s wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil’s greatest whore. [Martin Luther’s Last Sermon in Wittenberg … Second Sunday in Epiphany, 17 January 1546. Dr. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. (Weimar: Herman Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1914), Band 51:126, Line 7ff] It is one thing for Luther to attack his enemies, but the constant, filthy abuses to reason itself seems to me to show he naively rejected all logical reasoning or what we call as the correspondence theory of truth and rationality itself, as he also abused Aristotle. I say "naively" because nobody can rationally condemn reason without employing reason itself, as Luther did throughout in his writings.

**Thesis 1:** **When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” [Matt. 4:17], he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.** This thesis is explained by Luther afterwards that by ‘entire’ he means all day and every day. Naturally that is what entire means. And that every believer should cry perpetually for new forgiveness his whole life: > We pray throughout our whole life and we must pray “forgive us our > debts” [Matt. 6:12]; therefore, we repent throughout our whole life > and are displeased with ourselves, unless anyone may be so foolish as > to think he must only pretend to pray for the forgiveness of debts. > For the debts for which we are commanded to pray are real and not to > be treated lightly; and even if they were venial, we could not be > saved unless they were remitted. > > Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 31: Career of the Reformer I > (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.; Vol. 31, pp. > 84–85). Fortress Press. Why did Luther feel the need to say Christians must see themselves as much much more sinful than the Roman Catholics would allow ourselves to view our spiritual state? Why is this his number one thesis?

The documentary series *This Changed Everything: 500 Years of the Reformation* includes a section in episode 1 about Martin Luther's marriage to Katharina von Bora. Dr. Frank James (President and Professor of Historical Theology at the Biblical Theological Seminary) includes his input as well, and says that it was due to their love for each other. > Narrator: Martin Luther turned the idea of marriage on its head when he married a runaway nun, Katharina von Bora. In a society that views marriage as a financial and social contract, Luther's marriage is revolutionary. > > Dr. James: Well, there was no social status to be gained for the two of them getting married, and there was no money. I mean, he didn't have any money, and she didn't have any money. So what did they have? They had love. […] Before it was based on social status and a dowry. Suddenly, this whole notion of marrying someone because you love them becomes a significant paradigm shift in the concept of marriage. This is in contrast to the Wikipedia page of Katharina von Bora , which states that Luther arranged marriages for runaway nuns like her so that they could be provided for > Luther at first asked the parents and relations of the refugee nuns to admit them again into their houses, but they declined to receive them, possibly as this was participating in a crime under canon law. Within two years, Luther was able to arrange homes, marriages, or employment for all of the escaped nuns—except for Katharina. […] > > Katharina had a number of suitors, including Wittenberg University alumnus Jerome (Hieronymus) Baumgärtner (1498–1565) of Nuremberg and a pastor, Kaspar Glatz of Orlamünde. None of the proposed matches resulted in marriage. She told Luther’s friend and fellow reformer, Nikolaus von Amsdorf, that she would be willing to marry only Luther or von Amsdorf himself. While it's clear that Katharina stated her desire to marry Luther, it's not clear to me that the two chose to marry out of mutual love for each other (in other words, it wasn't a love marriage ). Which account is correct? Was Martin Luther's marriage to Katharina von Bora due to their love for each other?

Do Lutherans believe in any type of intercession of the saints? Calvin believed that a general intercession of the saints was possible, but also that one could not ask for intercession from a specific saint. In this regard, do Lutherans believe in intercession like Catholics, or only in the intercession of living saints/general intercession? Preferably, I would like answers with sources from the words of Luther or from Lutheran books, **but only if possible.** Thank you!

I understand that term ‘the law’ is often meant by Luther to just mean the ‘covenant of works’ as opposed to ‘the promise’ or ‘covenant of grace’. This covenant of works was naturally most illuminated by the moral commandments of the Mosaic legislation. Therefore Luther and some of those after him (John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, etc) refer to ‘the law’ not always as a reference to the ‘Mosaic Law’, but the ‘law of nature’ or ‘conscience’. The question is not about that. I accept that the law of conscience and condemnation of original sin was always applicable to all mankind and still is. However, aside from the different uses of the terms. Strictly speaking, not with respect to the law of nature, or covenant of works, but specifically with respect to the Mosaic Legislation and encapsulated by the ten commandments, was this law of Moses ever an expectation by God on Gentiles, according to Luther? I asked specifically with reference to the ten commandments as the first commandment starts with ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.’, obviously not gentiles. And the commandment to ‘obey the Sabbath’, merges the moral commands with ceremonial and appears never to have been followed by any Gentile group as far as I know. The question is important because Gentiles who may have had faith by hearing about the Promised Messiah before Christ, yet not following the Mosaic Law, going to the temple and obeying the Sabbath, etc. may have been saved by their faith apart from the works of the Mosaic Law. In addition, the example of the Ninevites, having possibly believed in God, though a Gentile nation not following Moses, may have had several justified sinners by faith in their midst? What do the reformers, specifically Luther, say specifically about the Mosaic Legislation on mount Horeb, with respect to Gentile nations?

I'm trying to locate an online edition (*archive.org*, etc) of Martin Luther's Commentary on the book of Psalms, specifically the Weimar (WA) edition of Luther's works.

Wotcher! Luther is perhaps the most prolific German thinker. Kant, Hegel, Marx… their corpus pales in the face of Luther. Also, unlike Luther, they weren't concerned with the canon-texts of Western Christianity as received. Nehemiah seems a problematic and deeply engaging "half-book" to me. The crux of the first exile and the second temple. The crux of empire versus refoundation of the Temple. Nehemiah's complex relationship with the state, and his inability to enter the temple. The significance of the text emphasised by name lists. It seems like a link between Kings/Chronicles and second temple texts. As someone without faith, who has only the text, when I read Nehemiah I **know** that my reading is deficient from lack of study and context. But I also assume that major critics of the text have said something awesome. And Luther is just such an expansive critic who was deeply dedicated to the value of the text. What does Luther himself in his works expound in exegesis of Nehemiah, or, if he does not conduct an exegesis, where does Nehemiah fit in within Luther's side comments? Luther is a major reader whose impressions of a central text I find critically interesting. And sadly, given my lack of scholarly training, I can't conduct an adequate search myself.

I've heard it reported that Martin Luther told his parishioners to "sin boldly". I'm not sure if this is based in fact and his writings or something that is made up by Catholics to paint him badly. If he *did* say this, what's the original source/context, and how is it explained? Is he claiming that sin has no *ultimate* consequences? Is he claiming that sin has no consequences whatsoever? Is he claiming that it's "ok" to sin? Please help me to exegete Luther's statement.

What was Martin Luther's explanation of *Sola Scriptura* in his writings? And did he use *Sola Scripura* by name?

I saw this quote: “If you preach the gospel in all aspects with the exception of the issues which deal specifically with your time, you are not preaching the gospel at all.” — Martin Luther What was the original context? Was the original in Latin or German?

The German translation for the phrase “priesthood of all believers” is “Priestertum aller Gläubigen”. According to everything I have read, Martin Luther popularized the doctrine but did not use this exact German phrase anywhere in his writing. What is the earliest known time this phrase appeared in print, either in German or English? So far, this question has stumped Google and Microsoft Copilot. To start things off, Google gets me back as far as the early 19th century: - 1860: *The Priesthood of the Church* by Newman Hall - 1857: *The Religious Condition of Christendom* by the Rev. Dr. Mallet of Bremen (from papers read at a conference in Berlin by the German branch of the Evangelical Alliance) - 1839: *The Heresy of a Human Priesthood* by R.M. Beverley - 1812: *Seventh Day Baptist Yearbook*

In learning about indulgences, I started to wonder why a work was necessary for the giving of an indulgence. In looking at the Catechism of the Catholic Church , it appears to me that a work is necessary because the Church chooses to make it necessary (italics mine): > **Obtaining indulgence from God through the Church** > > **1478** An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. *Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.* I'm not really sure that I understand this view. Of course, these works of devotion, penance, and charity are good things, but it seems like it would be more compassionate to give out indulgences to everybody so that they do not suffer from punishment for their sins in purgatory, and find other ways to encourage people to do these works. Indeed, there seems to be a similar argument in Thesis 82 in Martin Luther's 95 Theses : > Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church? I realize that this thesis was addressing the idea that "when the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs" and and other abuses of indulgences. But the sentiment seems to match the question I am asking: wouldn't it be more merciful if the pope were to choose to grant indulgences to everybody, thus reducing the suffering of those in purgatory (or empty it entirely) regardless of their works?

In the *"Bondage of the Will"*, Luther mentions *St. Jerome*, no more or less than 27 times. Having some snarky comments to say about him like: *"Jerome is cast in my teeth; a man, (to say no worse of him) of neither judgment nor application"*, obviously not liking him. Why did Luther disliked St. Jerome? Consider *Tabel Talks* – Of the Books of the Fathers, DXXXIX, p 235. > Jerome should not be numbered among the teachers of the church, for he was a heretic; yet I believe that he is saved through faith in Christ. He speaks not of Christ, but merely carries his name in his mouth.