"Faith," wrote Luther, “is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith."

I get various questions of tedium throughout the week. Here's a recent one:

Hi James, Do you know where Luther said, "if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith"? It's quoted in Bainton's Here I Stand, but in the references section it just says, "VIII, 361." Do you have any idea what that refers to?

I also came across this same snippet from Bainton here:

According to Roland Bainton's biography of Luther, Here I Stand, Luther wrote at one time: Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith. Bainton's citation for this purported Luther quote is simply VIII, 361. I do not know what this refers to, so if anyone could comment below and let me know where it comes from, it would be much appreciated.

I actually went through Bainton's use of Luther on this some time back: Did Luther Believe in Saving Faith? I originally cited the quote from Bainton many years ago in my review of Luther's famous "sin boldly" statement. As I recall, only one defender of Rome ever challenged me for not quoting Luther directly (kudos to him for catching this).

Bainton cited WA 8:361. The comment from Luther is found translated into English in a 1521 sermon on Luke 17:11-19. In that context, Luther states the following:

See, this is what James means when he says, 2, 26: "Faith apart from works is dead." For as the body without the soul is dead, so is faith without works. Not that faith is in man and does not work, which is impossible. For faith is a living, active thing. But in order that men may not deceive themselves and think they have faith when they have not, they are to examine their works, whether they also love their neighbors and do good to them. If they do this, it is a sign that they have the true faith. If they do not do this, they only have the sound of faith, and it is with them as the one who sees himself in the glass and when he leaves it and sees himself no more, but sees other things, forgets the face in the glass, as James says in his first chapter, verses 23-24.

[This passage in James deceivers and blind masters have spun out so far, that they have demolished faith and established only works, as though righteousness and salvation did not rest on faith, but on our works. To this great darkness they afterwards added still more, and taught only good works which are no benefit to your neighbor, as fasting, repeating many prayers, observing festival days; not to eat meat, butter, eggs and milk; to build churches, cloisters, chapels, altars; to institute masses, vigils, hours; to wear gray, white and black clothes; to be spiritual; and innumerable things of the same kind, from which no man has any benefit or enjoyment; all which God condemns, and that justly. But St. James means that a Christian life is nothing but faith and love. Love is only being kind and useful to all men, to friends and enemies. And where faith is right, it also certainly loves, and does to another in love as Christ did to him in faith. Thus everyone should beware lest he has in his heart a dream and fancy instead of faith, and thus deceives himself. This he will not learn anywhere as well as in doing the works of love. As Christ also gives the same sign and says: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John 13, 35. Therefore St. James means to say: Beware, if your life is not in the service of others, and you live for yourself, and care nothing for your neighbor, then your faith is certainly nothing; for it does not do what Christ has done for him. Yea, he does not believe that Christ has done good to him, or he would not omit to do good to his neighbor. [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 3:1 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 71-72].

Elsewhere in The Sermons of Martin Luther, Luther states:

This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘"Faith without works is dead." That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith. Now we understand the word of Christ: "Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness." That is, prove your faith publically by your outward gifts, by which you win friends, that the poor may be witnesses of your public work, that your faith is genuine. For mere external giving in itself can never make friends, unless it proceed from faith, as Christ rejects the alms of the Pharisees in Mat. 6:2, that they thereby make no friends because their heart is false. Thus no heart can ever be right without faith, so that even nature forces the confession that no work makes one good, but that the heart must first be good and upright.  [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 2:2 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), p. 308].

Did Luther Believe in Saving Faith?

Visiting Catholic Apologetics International... or Maybe Not
I visit CAI's website (Robert Sungenis) occasionally. The website reminds me of the sci-fi  movie Dark City in which all the buildings of a city would move around. It might just be false memories, but it seems to me that every time I visit, the site has a new layout. In fact, it doesn't even appear to be called "CAI" (Catholic Apologetics International) anymore.  A few years ago I would visit just to read the "Q and A" section, and then it disappeared (this has happened before). Well, it's returned. But the other day when visiting CAI, I ended up on this Q and A blog site, but now I can't seem to find the link from CAI to get to it. I'm thinking at some point I'll visit CAI and I see a billboard for "Shell Beach" (If you don't know the reference, see the movie, Dark City).

Robert Sungenis on Luther and Saving Faith
Anyway: I came across this Q and A entry: How do we understand James 2:18 "I will show my faith by my works"? The entry isn't dated, but the hyperlink has August 2010 in it's address. Robert Sungenis says:

If faith were really “alone,” no works would be required at any level. We must insist of the Protestant that, if he is going to claim that faith is “alone” in justification, then no works can enter into the discussion, not even to qualify the faith. The minute he insists that works can be used qualify the faith, then faith is not alone, and thus he should cease using the “faith alone” phraseology. He cannot speak out of both sides of his mouth. Either faith is alone or it isn’t.

Luther believed in the pure “faith alone” doctrine, that is, a faith that was not dependent on works in any way, shape or form. The reason he wanted to eliminate works is that if one tries to qualify his faith by the kind of works he does, then he will always wonder whether his works were good enough to qualify his faith, and thus he is back to the very problem Luther was trying to escape, that is, having to judge his works as good enough to meet God’s standards of righteousness. This is precisely why Luther, before he had is “faith alone” revelation, used to whip himself with chains – so that his works would be good enough (so he thought).

Luther certainly would have rejected the idea that works should be used to qualify faith as “saving faith,” for he knew that such a position would be more Catholic than Lutheran. This is precisely why he wanted to jettison the book of James. He didn’t want to have James insisting that faith and works worked together in any way.

It was only the later Lutherans, under Philip Melanchthon, who rejected Luther’s pure “faith alone” doctrine and began to integrate James back into the picture. They thought they did so by claiming that James was merely speaking about qualifying faith by works, but once they did so they came right back to the Catholic position, yet they camouflaged it by using different phraseology than what was used in Catholic doctrine. But they were really only fooling themselves. As a Protestant, one cannot use works to qualify faith, since one can never know whether his works were sufficient to do the job of qualifying.

In effect, pure Lutheranism only survived in Luther’s generation. No Protestant since Luther has ever really believed in the original “faith alone” doctrine, but they keep using the phrase to make it appear as if they are distant from Catholic doctrine, and few have caught on to it.

I don't think Luther said exactly what this picture up top claims, "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." Luther though did believe it. On the other hand, Robert Sungenis states, "Luther certainly would have rejected the idea that works should be used to qualify faith as 'saving faith,' for he knew that such a position would be more Catholic than Lutheran." Did Luther believe in saving faith? That is, did he believe that what one did outwardly demonstrated true faith?

Roland Bainton, Luther, and Saving Faith
Luther clearly taught the concept of living vs. dead faith throughout his writings. My paper here goes into this in great depth.  In that paper, I cited Roland Bainton quoting Luther: "Faith," wrote Luther, “is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith." [Roland Bainton, Here I Stand (New York: Mentor Books), 259]. Bainton's quote sums up Luther's view nicely. Besides my use of this quote, it has been used a lot in cyberspace. As I recall, only one defender of Rome ever challenged me for not quoting Luther directly (kudos to him for catching this).

Bainton cited WA 8:361. The comment from Luther is found translated into English in a 1521 sermon on Luke 17:11-19. In that context, Luther states the following:

See, this is what James means when he says, 2, 26: "Faith apart from works is dead." For as the body without the soul is dead, so is faith without works. Not that faith is in man and does not work, which is impossible. For faith is a living, active thing. But in order that men may not deceive themselves and think they have faith when they have not, they are to examine their works, whether they also love their neighbors and do good to them. If they do this, it is a sign that they have the true faith. If they do not do this, they only have the sound of faith, and it is with them as the one who sees himself in the glass and when he leaves it and sees himself no more, but sees other things, forgets the face in the glass, as James says in his first chapter, verses 23-24.

[This passage in James deceivers and blind masters have spun out so far, that they have demolished faith and established only works, as though righteousness and salvation did not rest on faith, but on our works. To this great darkness they afterwards added still more, and taught only good works which are no benefit to your neighbor, as fasting, repeating many prayers, observing festival days; not to eat meat, butter, eggs and milk; to build churches, cloisters, chapels, altars; to institute masses, vigils, hours; to wear gray, white and black clothes; to be spiritual; and innumerable things of the same kind, from which no man has any benefit or enjoyment; all which God condemns, and that justly. But St. James means that a Christian life is nothing but faith and love. Love is only being kind and useful to all men, to friends and enemies. And where faith is right, it also certainly loves, and does to another in love as Christ did to him in faith. Thus everyone should beware lest he has in his heart a dream and fancy instead of faith, and thus deceives himself. This he will not learn anywhere as well as in doing the works of love. As Christ also gives the same sign and says: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John 13, 35. Therefore St. James means to say: Beware, if your life is not in the service of others, and you live for yourself, and care nothing for your neighbor, then your faith is certainly nothing; for it does not do what Christ has done for him. Yea, he does not believe that Christ has done good to him, or he would not omit to do good to his neighbor. [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 3:1 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 71-72].

Elsewhere in The Sermons of Martin Luther, Luther states:

This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘"Faith without works is dead." That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith. Now we understand the word of Christ: "Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness." That is, prove your faith publically by your outward gifts, by which you win friends, that the poor may be witnesses of your public work, that your faith is genuine. For mere external giving in itself can never make friends, unless it proceed from faith, as Christ rejects the alms of the Pharisees in Mat. 6:2, that they thereby make no friends because their heart is false. Thus no heart can ever be right without faith, so that even nature forces the confession that no work makes one good, but that the heart must first be good and upright.  [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 2:2 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), p. 308].

Conclusion 
In my old paper, I provided a number of quotes demonstrating Luther's understanding of faith. When Dr. Sungenis states, "Luther certainly would have rejected the idea that works should be used to qualify faith as 'saving faith,' for he knew that such a position would be more Catholic than Lutheran," he appears to not really have any understanding of a basic part of Luther's theology: the relationship of faith and works.

Luther understood good works to be those that flow out of faith, out of gratitude for the righteousness of Christ, and the forgiveness of Christ. Works aren’t done because we want salvation and fear damnation, rather, they are the result of a living faith.  Luther taught a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. Luther says,

We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us. Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope and patience.” [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 1:1 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), p. 34]. 

Luther: The Biblical Text Never Mattered?

Further musings from the Catholic Answers Forum:

Today, 10:56 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 743 Religion: Reformed

Re: Protestant Canon Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  “But the text never mattered much to him (Luther). If he did not have (when preaching), the Pauline words, “The just shall live by faith,” he could readily extract the same point from the example of the paralytic in the Gospels, whose sins were forgiven before his disease was cured.” Bainton, pg. 361 This is a startling admission from an unusually pro-Luther biographer. Luther was so intent on ‘discovering’ SBFA in as many places as he could ‘find’ it that he had to ‘find’ it where it didn’t exist. The comment “the text never mattered much to him” should be troubling to Protestants, especially with respect to Luther as a translator of Sacred Scripture, or as a judge of books of the Bible. I'm not troubled by Bainton's quote. Bainton's Here I Stand is arguably the most popular of all Luther biographies in English (perhaps though not the best), and is available free on-line if you snoop around for it. In context, Bainton was saying that Luther could find Paul's explicit theology that "The just shall live by faith" (Romans 3:28) implicitly in the Gospels. That's why Bainton gave the example of the paralytic. Both Protestants and Catholics have a systematic theology. It shouldn't be surprising when a preacher of either persuasion finds unifying themes implicitly where they're presented elsewhere explicitly. That's all Bainton was getting at. Bainton goes on to point out immediately that Luther also exegeted Scripture in his sermons beyond finding the heart of the gospel: Quote: Luther's sermons followed the course prescribed by the Christian year and the lessons assigned by long usage to each Sunday. In this area he did not innovate. Because he commonly spoke at the nine o'clock service, his sermons are mostly on the Gospels rather than upon his favorite Pauline epistles. But the text never mattered much to him. If he did not have before him the Pauline words, "The just shall live by faith," he could readily extract the same point from the example of the paralytic in the Gospels, whose sins were forgiven before his disease was cured. Year after year Luther preached on the same passages and on the same great events: Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, Pentecost. If one now reads through his sermons of thirty years on a single theme, one is amazed at the freshness with which each year he illumined some new aspect. When one has the feeling that there is nothing startling this time, then comes a flash. He is narrating the betrayal of Jesus. Judas returns the thirty pieces of silver with the words, "I have betrayed innocent blood," and the priest answers, "What is that to us?" Luther comments that there is no loneliness like the loneliness of a traitor since even his confederates give him no sympathy. The sermons cover every theme from the sublimity of God to the greed of a sow. Having read Luther's sermons for quite a few years now, I can testify to the truth of what Bainton is saying. Certainly Luther located the theme that "The just shall live by faith" often in his sermons, but he did far more.

Luther's Canon According to Roman Apologist, Mark Shea

There's a certain script that most Roman evaluations of the canon of Scripture follow. One scene will typically feature Luther. The scene has slight variations. Luther is portrayed as a radical who either removed books from the Bible, or wanted to remove books from the Bible. Sometimes Melanchthon is brought in in a supporting role restraining Luther from any moves against the canon. In the version below, Roman apologist Mark Shea gives his particular version:

At the Reformation, of course, the deuterocanon, both OT and NT, gets challenged. Luther wanted to chuck, not just the OT deuterocanon, but the NT deutercanon (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Revelation) as well. (He remarks of James that it is an “epistle of straw” and says of Revelation something that many modern readers can empathize with: “A Revelation ought to reveal.”)[A reader puzzles about the deuterocanon]

Mr. Shea should have had a historian check his script.

1. Luther was simply one of a number of theologians that questioned the canonicty of certain books during the 16th Century. His Roman Catholic contemporaries Cajetan and Erasmus did the same, as did some of the representatives at the Council of Trent. It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books, even the Apocrypha (or Deutercanon).

2. Mr. Shea is in error that Luther had significant issues with 2 Peter. Luther's Preface to St. Peter, both the 1522 and 1546 versions do not indicate in any way that Luther thought this writing non-canonical.

3. In regard to Hebrews, Luther's opinion as to canonicty is not certain.The editors of Luther’s Works note  Luther’s opinion fluctuated throughout his career: “… Luther was never consistent in either accepting or rejecting the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews but spoke of Paul as its author even when he had set forth the bold and brilliant suggestion that it was written by Apollos.”

4. Mr. Shea is correct that Luther held a negative view in regard to James, but has presented a caricature of the actual facts. Luther says James “is really an epistle of straw” compared to “St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle.” Luther wants his readers to see a comparison in regard to the presentation of the Gospel. That's why Luther would also praise James and considers it a “good book” “because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.” Luther clearly values the law of God, but the Gospel, as presented elsewhere in the New Testament, stands as the "true kernel and marrow of all the books."  An interesting fact  that Shea may not know is that "the epistle of straw" comment only appears in the original 1522 Preface To The New Testament. For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.

5. Mr. Shea states Luther "says of Revelation something that many modern readers can empathize with: 'A Revelation ought to reveal'." This negative assessment from Shea intrigued me because elsewhere Shea affirms what Luther's alleges to have said:

"Anybody who says that Revelation is 'perspicuous' is simply a fool. Calvin was smart enough to not attempt a commentary on it because he knew it would give the lie to the notion of the perspicuity of Scripture. Luther, with his characteristic bluntness, sized the book up by remarking “A Revelation ought to reveal.” He tried to solve the problem by just excising it from the New Testament."

Regardless of whether Shea agrees with what Luther is alleged to have said in regard to the perspicuity of Revelation, this quote is all over cyber-space typically without any sort of documentation. As far as I can tell it isn't in either of Luther's prefaces to the Book of Revelation.  A few books (found via Google) use this quote. This book uses it and documents it by referring to another book which gives a short (and helpful) overview on Luther's view of Revelation. Scott Hahn uses it here. He provides a helpful clue, documenting it by referring back to Bainton's Here I Stand.

Bainton states, "He mistrusted Revelation because of its obscurity. 'A revelation,' said he, 'should be revealing'" (Bainton, 261). Bainton documents it as "CF. Fullerton" which refers to Fullerton, Kemper. "Luther's Doctrine and Criticism of Scripture," Bibliotheca Sacra, LXIII (1906), 1-34, 284-99. I found it odd that Bainton doesn't give a page number reference. I found Fullerton's articles. Part one (pages 1-34) can be found here; part two (pages 284-99) can be found here. After quickly going through these pages, I didn't find anything resembling that which Bainton cites. The closest thing I found was a discussion on pages 21-22. Fullerton states, "His chief objection to the book is its obscurity... the apostles prophesy with clear words, as it is proper to the apostolic office to speak clearly and without figure, of Christ's person and work." Unless I've missed it in Fullerton's articles, Bainton appears to be the popular source for Mr. Shea's Luther quote, and Bainton has either mis-documented the quote, or summarized Fullerton in such a way as to create a Luther quote. [See the pertinent section from Fullerton's article below].

Luther actually shares his own view of Revelation in his 1530 /1546 preface revision. In other words, contrary to Mr. Shea, Luther's solution was not to "chuck" the book. Even in the earlier 1522 version, Luther explains that his opinion is not to be binding: “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment,” and also, “let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him.”  By 1530, Luther took the opportunity to interpret Revelation. He begins by stating:

There are many different kinds of prophecy in Christendom. One is prophecy which interprets the writings of the prophets. Paul speaks of this in I Corinthians 12 and 14, and in other places as well. This is the most necessary kind and we must have it every day, because it teaches the Word of God, lays the foundation of Christendom, and defends the faith. In a word, it rules, preserves, establishes, and performs the preaching ministry. Another kind foretells things to come which are not previously contained in Scripture, and this prophecy is of three types. The first expresses itself simply in words, without images and figures—as Moses, David, and others of the prophets prophesy about Christ, and as Christ and the apostles prophesy about Antichrist, false teachers, etc. The second type does this with images, but alongside them it supplies their interpretation in specific words—as Joseph interprets dreams, and Daniel both dreams and images. The third type does it without either words or interpretations, exclusively with images and figures, like this book of Revelation and like the dreams, visions, and images that many holy people have had from the Holy Spirit—as Peter in Acts 2[:17] preaches from Joel [2:28], “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” So long as this kind of prophecy remains without explanation and gets no sure interpretation, it is a concealed and mute prophecy and has not yet come to the profit and fruit which it is to give to Christendom. This is the way it has been with this book heretofore. Many have tried their hands at it, but until this very day they have attained no certainty. Some have even brewed it into many stupid things out of their own heads. Because its interpretation is uncertain and its meaning hidden, we have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John, the Apostle—as is stated in The Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapter 25. For our part, we still share this doubt. By that, however, no one should be prevented from regarding this as the work of St. John the Apostle, or of whomever else he chooses. Since we would nonetheless like to be sure of its meaning or interpretation, we will give other and higher minds something to think about by stating our own views. Since it is intended as a revelation of things that are to happen in the future, and especially of tribulations and disasters that were to come upon Christendom, we consider that the first and surest step toward finding its interpretation is to take from history the events and disasters that have come upon Christendom till now, and hold them up alongside of these images, and so compare them very carefully. If, then, the two perfectly coincided and squared with one another, we could build on that as a sure, or at least an unobjectionable, interpretation. [Luther, M. (1999, c1960). Vol. 35: Luther's works, vol. 35 : Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (35:399). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].

Addendum
Here is the only pertinent section from Fullerton on Luther's view of Revelation:

While the historical arguments are chiefly influential with Luther in the case of Jude and Hebrews, though the argument from contents is by no means ignored, the latter is the conclusive reason for his very unfavorable opinion of Revelation. He will not force others to adopt his opinions, but he proposes to say what he feels. His chief objection to the book is its obscurity (recall what has been said upon Luther's demand for a perspicuous Bible). The apostles prophesy without figure, of Christ's person and work. Not even in the Old Testament is there a prophet who deals so much in figures. The Apocalypse is more like Fourth Ezra [the same comparison is also made elsewhere], and Luther cannot discover that it is by the Holy Spirit. He finds fault with its threats and promises with regard to those who respectively add to or take from the book, or who keep its words when nobody knows what it means, and, as far as we are concerned, it need never have been written. In fine, his spirit cannot adjust itself to the book (Mein Geist kann sich in das Bitch nicht schicken), though he will let others think what they please about it. He notices also the doubts of the book in the early church, but this difficulty is entirely subordinate to the difficulties raised by the contents. It is enough reason for him to think little of the book because Christ is neither taught nor recognized in it, though that is the chief work of an apostle. In a sermon of the same year (1522) he actually classes the Apocalypse with the prophecies of Lichtenberger. 

When it is remembered how hostile Luther was to Fourth Ezra (he would not even translate it), and to Lichtenberger, these comparisons are all the more surprising. But, as in the case of Jude and Hebrews, we must recognize here also the assumption of a much more conservative attitude in Luther's later writings. In a subsequent edition of the sermon just mentioned, the reference to the Apocalypse as being on the same plane with Lichtenberger is left out, and in the edition of his works in 1545 a new and much more moderate preface was substituted for the old one. He still finds trouble with the obscurity of the book. On account of this he had formerly let it alone, and especially because of the doubt of it in the early church, as attested by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 25). Many have attempted to explain it, but up to the present time have bought out nothing certain from it, but have read into it much inappropriate stuff out of their own heads (a timely warning still). But Luther will now make an earnest effort to give it an interpretation. It is noticeable how the emphasis now falls on the testimony of Eusebius, an historical argument as contrasted with the earlier emphasis upon the content.

After going through Fullerton's article a second time, I'm of the opinion that the exact quote used by Bainton, "He mistrusted Revelation because of its obscurity. 'A revelation,' said he, 'should be revealing'" is a summary statement created by Bainton rather than a direct quote from Luther. This is how the quote came about:

Luther (1522) :"First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions." .

Fullerton: "His chief objection to the book is its obscurity (recall what has been said upon Luther's demand for a perspicuous Bible). The apostles prophesy without figure, of Christ's person and work."

Bainton: "He mistrusted Revelation because of its obscurity. 'A revelation,' said he, 'should be revealing.'"

John Warwick Montgomery on Luther's Harsh Language

From his own day to the present, Luther has often been pictured as a coarse and brutal man — as (to employ the phrase of a former colleague) a "wild bull of the theological pampas." On confronting his Ninety-Five Theses Leo X is supposed to have said, "These have been written by a drunken German." And the humanists of Luther's time, when they broke with him, frequently treated him as an uncultured, violent controversialist. Similarly, the contemporary humanist philosopher-historian Will Durant flatly asserts that Luther "was guilty of the most vituperative writing in the history of literature." It is true that Luther was of peasant stock and always retained the earthiness characteristic of his Saxon origin; but he was at the same time a scholar who earned the highest academic degree of his day (Doctor of the Sacred Scriptures), who spent his life as a university professor, and whose learning and cultural interests are beyond dispute. In actuality, Luther's literary "vulgarity" was not peculiar to him but was a common phenomenon of the time, and only by refusing to see Luther in historical context can Shirer's argument be sustained. As Roland Bainton has well pointed out: "Luther delighted less in muck than many of the literary men of his age.... Detractors have sifted from the pitch-blende of his ninety tomes a few pages of radioactive vulgarity."
Source: John Warwick Montgomery, In Defense of Martin Luther (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1970) p. 144.

Free Book: "Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther" by Roland Bainton

Here is a link to an online downloadable version of the famous Luther biography, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther by Roland Bainton.

I assume those who are interested in finding a Luther biography really don’t want books written for scholars- you want easily readable and digestible material. Probably the most popular biography of Martin Luther written in English is Roland Bainton’s Here I Stand: A Life Of Martin Luther [New York: Mentor Books, 1950]. I always mention this book when asked for recommendations. The reason? The book is easy to find, it’s very affordable, and it’s historically reliable. It’s been in print for over 50 years now.

The book presents the basic “facts” about the 16th Century Reformation in non-technical terms. Bainton’s work is generally very reliable. A review states,

“…Dr. Bainton displays masterful skill in writing a history of those times which is at once technically sound and singularly readable. In relatively few pages he has made those eventful times “come alive” for the lay reader of church history” [Westminster Theological Journal, Volume 13 (Vol. 13, Page 167)].

One knows if they utilize his book as a historical reference, one is not getting “hearsay” or speculative psychological interpretations. One is getting the facts from a man who spent his academic career keenly focused on Luther’s writings. A review from 1950 states,

“Dr. Bainton, who holds the Titus Street Professorship of Ecclesiastical History in the Yale Divinity School, is one of the foremost Reformation scholars in this country—a fact which in itself lends considerable worth to this work”[Westminster Theological Journal Volume 13 (Vol. 13, Page 164)].

It should be pointed out, Here I Stand is not a book interested in expositions on Luther’s theology. Primarily, the book is a historical analysis, and a simple one at that. Also, what one finds in Bainton’s book is a head-on interaction with some of the hot issues surrounding his life. Bainton takes on these issues: like Luther’s later coarseness in his writings, his usage of Cranach’s paintings, his railings against the Jews, the bigamy of Phillip of Hesse, to name a few. Bainton does provide an apologetic in evaluating these diffiucult issues. Bainton though does not act as if nothing's wrong with Luther. His is an evaluation of the facts surrounding the controversial issues and putting them in perspective.

Scott Windsor on Luther and "Justification is by Faith Alone, It is Not by a Faith That is Alone"

Catholic apologist Scott Windsor popped into ProsApologian Chat last night. I actually recognized his nickname, “Big Scott” (I don’t think the others in the channel did). I came across this page from his website, and I asked him about it. Scott says,

One of the mainstays of Protestantism is the concept of “sola fide.” Two very straight-forward words which translated mean “faith alone.” The stand, foundationally started with Martin Luther, is in opposition to the Church's position that true “saving faith” is never alone. True “saving faith” is always accompanied by good works, the first and foremost of these works is believing. Believing in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior is the foundational work of faith in our lives. That is the Catholic position. Now what Protestant really disagrees with this position? I am not aware of any, yet they have this “doctrine” of “sola fide!”

It should be noted that Luther believed “true ‘saving faith’ is never alone,” and “True ‘saving faith’ is always accompanied by good works.” “Faith,” wrote Luther, “is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith”[Roland Bainton, Here I Stand (New York: Mentor Books), 259.] Luther scholar Paul Althaus notes: “[Luther] also agrees with James that if no works follow it is certain that true faith in Christ does not live in the heart but a dead, imagined, and self-fabricated faith" [Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 246.] The book of James describes a real true faith in Christ: a real saving faith is a living faith. If no works are found in a person, that faith is a dead faith (c.f. James 2:17). James then describes a dead faith: the faith of a demon. A demon has faith that God exists, that Christ rose from the dead- I would dare say a demon knows theology better than you or I. But is the faith of this demon a saving faith? Absolutely not. Luther says, “Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell in our heart, but dead faith…”

Scott went on to revise his paper after I provided him with these quotes and a link to my paper, which goes into this in great detail. Of the first quote Scott says, “…this quote (which TQuid cited only a secondary source to a secondary source, not giving the primary source of the quote)…” . Yes, I cited a secondary source, Roland Bainton, who cited the primary source. Normally, I would not do this- however the evidence of Luther’s position on this is overwhelming, and I liked the way the quote was phrased. Had this been my only quote to prove Luther’s view, I would agree that such methodology is spurious. If you read this blog regularly, you know I have a field day with context-less quotes from secondary sources. Had Scott read section 6 of the link I gave him “Quotations from Luther on Faith and Works”, he would have read dozens of quotes from Luther substantiating the position I outlined.

Scott makes a big deal out of the “sola” in sola fide, because the classic Protestant position states justification is by faith alone, it is not by a faith that is alone. Scott says, “What I find even more ironic is that few, if any, Protestants see the double-speak of that statement! Is it “alone” or not? If it is by faith alone, then nothing – and we must insist that nothing – stands next to it for justification.” Theological terms can’t be handled the way Scott Windsor insists. Roman Catholics should especially know this. They have nuanced certain theological concepts to make them say, or not say, whatever will best suit Rome. For example, take the Roman Catholic phrase, "no salvation outside the church." Try dialoging with a Roman Catholic on this concept and watch how nuanced the explanation becomes. I find Scott's argument to be the typical double standard approach put forth by Roman Catholics.

Protestants arrive at what Windsor calls “double speak” because they seek to be faithful to the Biblical text. Our best efforts are tainted with sin. If God demands perfection in order for one to be justified before Him, no one would ever be justified. Justification is actually totally of works, but those works were perfect and performed by the perfect savior, Jesus Christ. These works are acquired by faith, imputed to the sinner. Grace, faith, and the work of Christ are essential ingredients that justify, and that justification is a gift as well as the very faith involved. As Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory.”

If God judges a man by Christ’s perfect works, why should any Christian ever care about leading a righteous life? If grace, faith, and justification are God’s gifts, what is left for us to do? Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Paul answers in Ephesians 2:10, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.” Faith performs good works, not to keep one justified, but out of heartfelt gratitude to God graciousness. Salvation is unto good works. Note what this means: good works are not unto eventual salvation. We are saved in order to perform good works, not by performing them.

The catch phrase "justification is by faith alone, it is not by a faith that is alone" is just a way to describe a living faith. I'm not going to quibble with Scott over this. The phrase was coined to try to point out, as simply as possible, the relationship between justification and good works.

Catholic Apologist Art Sippo on Roland Bainton's "Here I Stand"

"People like Mr. Swan attack me because I assert opinions that disagree with theirs. When I challenge them to defend their views, they are unable to do so and so they run away making excuses."- Catholic Apologist Art Sippo

Comments like the one above from Dr. Sippo are definitely "head scratchers". If anyone reading through my "discussion" (for lack of a better word) with Dr. Sippo can substantiate Sippo's assertion, i'd like to see it. For the most part, Sippo has ignored my comments. I write about 3 pages reviewing his comments, and then he responds in a few paragraphs ignoring what I wrote. This cycle has gone on now for a few weeks. My review of Roland Bainton's book Here I Stand followed this same cycle.

I assume those who are interested in finding a Luther biography really don’t want books written for scholars- they want easily readable and digestible material. Probably the most popular biography of Martin Luther written in English is Roland Bainton’s Here I Stand: A Life Of Martin Luther [New York: Mentor Books, 1950]. I always mention this book when asked for recommendations. The reason? The book is easy to find, it’s very affordable, and it’s historically reliable. It’s been in print for over 50 years now.

The book presents the basic “facts” about the 16th Century Reformation in non-technical terms. Bainton’s work is generally very reliable. A review states,“…Dr. Bainton displays masterful skill in writing a history of those times which is at once technically sound and singularly readable. In relatively few pages he has made those eventful times “come alive” for the lay reader of church history” [Westminster Theological Journal Volume 13 (Vol. 13, Page 167)].

One knows if they utilize his book as a historical reference, one is not getting “hearsay” or speculative psychological interpretations. One is getting the facts from a man who spent his academic career keenly focused on Luther’s writings. A review from 1950 states, “Dr. Bainton, who holds the Titus Street Professorship of Ecclesiastical History in the Yale Divinity School, is one of the foremost Reformation scholars in this country—a fact which in itself lends considerable worth to this work”[Westminster Theological Journal Volume 13 (Vol. 13, Page 164)]. It should be pointed out, Here I Stand is not a book very interested in expositions on Luther’s theology. Primarily, the book is a historical analysis, and a simple one at that.

Catholic apologist Art Sippo though does not recommend this book:

“Bainton is also a convinced Protestant who lacks balance in his study of the Deformation. He acts as if there was nothing wrong with Luther and that it was the Catholic Church which was at fault. His book is definitely not recommended.”

Granted, Roland Bainton is a “convinced Protestant”, but this doesn’t diminish the accuracy of the presentation. Even a scholar that Dr. Sippo recommends positively utilizes the book. For instance, Dr. Sippo strongly recommends the work of Richard Marius on Luther. If one picks up his book, Luther: The Christian Between God And Death, Marius utilizes Bainton’s Here I Stand, as well as other of his writings. In most instances, Marius uses the book in the same way I do: simply a ready guide for the “facts.” If the books shouldn’t be used because it was written by a “convinced Protestant”, Sippo needs to explain why Marius used it, and if the writings of Marius can still be trusted.

Sippo also says Bainton “acts as if there was nothing wrong with Luther…”. Granted, Bainton is sympathetic to Luther, and this has been a criticism of his work over the years. Interestingly, another Catholic apologist has used Bainton’s book to prove many of the negative characteristics of Luther that Sippo so gravitates to. One would think that if Bainton’s book “acts as if there was nothing wrong with Luther…” this other apologist wouldn’t be able to use it to build a case. (See the review of Roland Bainton and Luther here).

What one finds in Bainton’s book is a head on interaction with some of the hot issues surrounding his life. Bainton says, “There are several incidents over which one would rather draw the veil, but precisely because they are so often exploited to his discredit they are not to be left unrecorded” [Here I Stand, 292]. Bainton takes on issues: like Luther’s later coarseness in his writings, his usage of Cranach’s paintings, his railings against the Jews, the bigamy of Phillip of Hesse, to name a few. Bainton though provides an apologetic in evaluating these issues. This isn’t acting as if nothings wrong with Luther- this is an evaluation of the facts surrounding the “hot” issues and putting them in perspective. If Dr. Sippo disagrees, he should be willing to get himself a copy of Here I Stand and be ready to counter argue against Bainton’s explanations. I would never argue that Bainton is an infallible interpreter of Luther’s life, but I would say his apologetic is sound in most instances.

Dr. Sippo also states that Bainton writes as if “…it was the Catholic Church which was at fault…” in the Reformation controversy. What Bainton does in Here I Stand in present the facts going on at the time of the Reformation. One reads the deliberate subterfuge of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. One sees how the Papacy was motivated by its desire to continue gaining funds for its building project. Discussion would have probably helped the situation, but Luther came up against a “bulwark” of Roman power that basically said, “our way or the highway”.

Bainton recalls the basic “facts” of the situation: The Pope sent one of his best theologians to demand Luther to recant his position on indulgences: Cardinal Cajetan. Luther refused. The Cardinal was well versed in Roman Catholic doctrine, and realized quickly the dilemma the Pope had: there was no adequate foundation to condemn Luther as a heretic. Why? Because there was not an official teaching on indulgences when Luther posted the 95 Theses. There was no official doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence upon Purgatory. So Cajetan knew that in order to put Luther down as a heretic, he must first be declared one according to some sort of doctrinal standard. Cajetan quickly drafted a declaration of dogma on the subject of indulgences. Pope Leo X found this to be a good idea. Thus came the decretal Cum postquam. The dogma of indulgences was defined as Cajetan outlined them. The Pope also threatened any of his representatives that may have held a divergent view on the subject.

Sippo concludes of Bainton, “…His book is definitely not recommended.” Of course Art Sippo would never recommend Here I Stand. The book has a noticeable absence of psychohistory (a.k.a. “guessing”)… and by the way, Bainton elsewhere wrote a devastating critique of Erik Erikson’s Young Man Luther.

Here I Stand is a basic presentation of the facts surrounding Luther’s life. The book should be read by Catholics- if for just the reason to have an accurate account of the Luther situation. Balance this with Catholic biographies of Luther, like John Todd, Jared Wicks, or George Tavard. All I’m asking is that Catholics at least be willing to read the works by Protestants. I frequently read Catholic produced material. It doesn’t hurt to have perspective. Take the time to understand where your opponent is coming from.

I know where Dr. Sippo is coming from in his opinion on Luther and Luther biographies. This is why he so wants to move away from a discussion of sources. It puts the spotlight on why he believes what he believes about the Reformation. This spotlight shows a bias that produces hostility. It shows why we could never discuss the actual facts about Luther in a cordial way.