Martin Luther's Childhood

[@twhuning6352]

Erickson was full of it.

[@11Kralle]

An earthy fellaw, hehe... "Warumb rölpset unnd pfortzet Ihr nicht? Hat es Euch nicht geschmecket?" (Why don't you burp and fart? Didn't You enjoy the meal? --- from the Tischgespräche/table talks)

[@KTChamberlain]

Ian McKellen played Martin Luther? That's freaking awesome.

[@hello1992ful]

This is great! Thank you!

[@BombshellBibleProphecies]

Yes, Luther was only a man, but what A MAN! If we were in his position, I think we would all piss in our pants, recanting right away when faced with the most formidable odds against us~The highest powers religiously in heaven and politically on earth namely the Pope and the Emperor. He took his stand and refused to give way because the God of Luther whom he trusted is A MIGHTY FORTRESS above ALL! And it's not a matter of life and death but of ETERNITY, OF SALVATION~HEAVEN OR HELL!

[@dlwatib]

Erickson is clearly way off base. He's not even a native speaker of German so he doesn't understand the import of what he reads. That said, there is something "wrong" with a young man who becomes a monk and a priest and then starts attacking the very institution he has decided to join and surrender his life to. One does not automatically become a priest when one enters a monastery. It is an honor reserved only for the most worthy monks, and usually only when there is a need for a priest to minister to the monks themselves or an outside community. So here's a fellow who excels enough at his education for his father to be recommending law school, a rigorous course in any era. He agrees, then willfully changes his mind and enters a monastery, risking a permanent breech with his father to do so, when he could just as easily have discussed it with his father and made the change with equanimity. What attracted him so urgently to the monastery that he would be so impetuous? One does not undertake a life of permanent celibacy lightly. Luther could not have unthinkingly done this for the thrill of it. At the monastery he again excels among his peer monks and is given the additional training to become a priest. He completes that addition education and sometime after his first mass he starts getting doubts at last about the direction of his life. How is it that he only now notices the corruption in the church? How is it that he is only now bothered by it, after he has taken vows to uphold the teachings of the church and be an obedient son to his superiors in the church? How is it that every attempt to discipline this wayward monk and priest is met with obstinance and recalcitrance on his part? How is it that this apparently exemplary monk and priest does not take his doubts to the confessional like any good Catholic is urged to do? Instead he wants to have a public debate, going entirely against every convention of grievance resolution in the church and his own role as priest and pastor and monk within the church? I'm not here to psychoanalyze Luther. I only want to suggest that it is a worthy subject for investigation by competent researchers. This man clearly had psychological problems of some kind. He promised to go to law school, then totally ignored his promise in his eagerness to take up celibacy and enter the church. That's not normal, in his day even more than our own. Once within the church, he twice solemnly swore his fealty and obedience to her (once as a monk and again as a priest) and then once in positions of considerable trust and honor, he betrayed her in the most public and damaging ways possible. It's true that he found himself at the head of a movement almost by surprise, but it's also true that he continued to act outrageously considering his roles and to fan the flames of conflict at every opportunity. He seems to go out of his way to foment conflict. Would an evangelical young man in our day enter seminary, get ordained, go out into the mission field and then start trying to debate his superiors while there? Would he fan the flames of his argument with his superiors by going to political and business leaders to gather support for his position? The psychological conflict is palpable.

[@RyanReevesM]

Yeah I had to fight hard not to just tease the Erikson thesis, especially since it's so widespread. I agree with Luther's personality and I'll pull those threads in as the story gets going. As I'll say, he may have stumbled and bumbled into the Reformation, but then again you hammer on the foundational principles of papal authority from the start and you shouldn't really be so surprised at the negative response. My take is he believed it was his job as a professor to cry foul (even doing so in a rough way) and he thought he would tip the scales to have a council or other change in the church's engagement with scripture. He does seem altogether surprised that nothing like this ever came about. Much of the reason why he refers to the papacy as the 'Antichrist' comes from this shock: he always thought it would be rough going at first and then come to a resolution internally.

[@DarkKing009]

good