A Critique of Tom Holland's Portrayal of Martin Luther
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.ย. 2024
- Our website: www.justandsinn...
Our periodical: www.theconserva...
My substack: substack.com/@...
This video is a discussion of the five part series on Martin Luther from The Rest is History podcast with historian Tom Holland. In this video, I discuss some of the problems with their portrayal of Luther's theology.
The ONLY time Jordan Cooper ever gets mad is when someone misrepresents Luther
He’s just that based
Radical Lutheranism gets him mad too
Because it‘s a misrepresentation of Luther
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Cooper's false idol.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Cooper's fαlsε ιdοl.
That title implies that Tom Holland was acting as Martin Luther😄
I had the same thought, like he starred in a movie about Martin Luther and Jordan didn't like his acting, lol
My reaction was “ Wait that guy from Spider-Man is in a movie as Martin Luther?!”
May the algorithm favor the title!
There's also a British soccer player and an American horror movie director of the same name. Perhaps the Holland family should hold off on naming people "Tom" for a while.
Me too....Another Luther movie!
I listened to the entire series that Holland did on Luther, and while it was a compelling narrative, it was painful when the hosts struggled to make clear distinctions between the different Protestant factions. Thanks for making this response.
That's exactly what it was: a narrative. Tom Holland isn't an academic historian, he writes narrative history for popular audiences. He's really good at crafting narratives for easy consumption.
If I hear the phrase "living your truth" one more time...
I winced when I heard that. It pains me.
I'll scream.
OMG my ex-girlfriend is a new-agey type who constantly used that term "living my truth." Just thinking about it now raises my blood pressure.
You're clearly not living your best life. lol
_"There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about “isms” and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said."_ -C.S Lewis
I think about this quote a lot when historical people are misrepresented. If this is representative of Tom Holland's work as a historian, then I wouldn't trust him on historical matters. Great video Jordan.
We are so back 📜🔨
Javier 😮 Begome Luderan
it was never over.
You should do a vid on Fernando Casanova. I haven’t seen it discussed by anyone.
@@jamiecharles8334 Who’s that Guy anyway?
@@ministeriosemmanuel638 quite an influential Catholic who has, I believe, converted to Lutheranism
His podcast got me interested in the life of Martin Luther, so I'm grateful for that. But I was also horrified when I found out how inaccurately Luther's ideas had been represented by Holland.
“I would rather drink blood with the Pope than mere Wine with the fanatics”
- Martin Luther
Against those who believe the Eucharist is merely symbolic
That's where he drew the strength to begin a brand new Church.
@@koppite9600 Bro doesn’t know anything about Church History or the Reformation 😂
@@ministeriosemmanuel638
You Don't want it said that way?
@@koppite9600Luther never wanted to start a new group. To this day, Lutherans would gladly reunite with the Roman Catholic Church, if they would get rid of their blatant errors.
that's not the real quote. He says he would sooner agree with the Pope the wine is ONLY blood, than with the fanatics that there is no blood at all. Luther would in fact, not drink Christ with the seat of antichrist.
>Luther is even harder on the enthusiasts than he is the pope
>Luther then equates the pope with the enthusiasts
That was really funny! 😁
non-Lutherans try not to misrepresent/misunderstand Luther challenge (IMPOSSIBLE DIFFICULTY, 99.9% WILL FAIL)
If you think all others are wrong - you might be the wrong one.
@@williamnathanael412 or maybe protestants misrepresents catholic figures because of a lack of understanding the other tradition and the same goes the other way around...
i think LUTHERANS probably have a better grasp of LUTHER than some people digging into his writings as a piece of a far greater body of work
It's not like we in the church are much much better
@@williamnathanael412 That's a bad idea to think that the majority might be right simply because it's the majority.
@@williamnathanael412yea, when you go to a foreign country where everyone mispronounce your name. It must be you got your own name wrong your whole life
Wait. Spider Man is involved in theology debates?
since his last movie, he has to have something to do for the moment
Tom Holland is wrong about many things.
His work on early Islam and the Christian shaping of western civilisation was top notch. Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.
RCC: "Yo Erasmus! what do you think about Martin Luther?"
Erasmus: "Not my monastery... not my monk"
Tom Holland is a great communicator and author. But it's not possible to be an expert on *everything*. Luther is an advanced theologian and not a feeling-oriented mystic. But the mystical side is there, too. Thomas Aquinas had a similar temperament. He even wrote a mystical work called Aurora Consurgens, which is never mentioned.
He needs to go back to spinning webs and fighting crime
15:33 How could a scholar of Christianity not know that the term “Born again” comes from the Bible?
The one asking the question is a modern historian (Dominic Sandbrook) and Tom Holland is a classical historian. Holland has written a book on the effect of Christianity on the world, but I don't think that makes him a scholar of Christianity per se (it's not an academic work).
That said, it seems clear Holland knew the term came from the Bible, but didn't want to embarrass his co-host so instead just answered a different question to the one asked.
I know that it's nonsense because I've had the exact same tortured experiences struggling to uphold God's Law as Luther had when I was a Roman Catholic, and my parents are as soft and liberal as you can find. If you've never tried to follow God's Law as strenuously as Paul or Luther did, you have no understanding or right to comment on that experience.
Spider-Man? 😨
1:26 oh, nvm.
My thought process
Thank you so much for this rebuttal of Holland. I happened to listen to most of the Luther series and was pretty horrified at Holland’s interpretation of Luther. I would really like to see you do more on this. Again, thank you!
He wasn't perfect, but thank God for Luther.
An honest historian will first of all read the writings of the person he is investigating, and not rely on what others have said about him before
Holland should have read Luther's works first
Continue examining the later parts!
Martin Luther had some mental problems.
He was just very German.
There's no evidence of this.
Sad to see how many people presenting themselves as scholars start with a conclusion and work backwards, treating the topic in such a shallow manner.
Love this podcast, but was left head scratching after these episodes! Thank you for doing this!
Sir, I honestly think 25 seconds intro is too long
It's OK though, it's _'saved by faith'._
I am for further videos on the subject
57 k subs....congrats...slowly growing
Dr. Cooper, I agree with you assessment that Holland‘s statements do not portray Luther‘s view accurately, but I think your way of showing that was not optimal. You say yourself that Holland sees a shift in Luther‘s thought from earlier to later Luther. In this video, you criticize his claims about early Luther. Bit as prooftext, you rely mainly on two of his later writings: The 1535 Galatians commentary and the Smalcald articles. I know that you also used other sources, but these two were used heavily by you and are not really relevant to the questions of „early Luther‘s“ thought.
Nonetheless, from what I have read of Luther, I also have a hard time reconciling that with Holland‘s description of a proto-individualistic pietist. I highly encourage you to continue this response, which I think is very valuable, but I think the prooftexts should be chosen more carefully.
Ok, I get it, Jordan doesn't like any criticism of Luther, even though there are wagon loads of documentation describing Luther as a mentally disturbed person.
I did like Holland's Dominion, but I have noticed when TRIH podcast talks Theology they tend not to be very accurate.
OK but admit it's funny the glasses collard shirt bookcase background showdown 😂
Thank you for the rebuttal
Thanks....I sometimes listen to Hollands podcast...but ...now I do not have to struggle through his Luther stuff.
I let out an audible groan when I heard them use the phrase “living your truth.”
Habe you thought about doing such videos as live streams? I've heard that they are pushed by the algorithm to a greater extent. Might be a good way to reach more people
Can someone find the full source and quote from 34:35? It's so wonderful and sweet, but I can't find it by copying and pasting it online.
I think disconnect I am noticing is the difference between what Luther said and how he behaved. Not in some moral way but in terms of theology. At 58:00 you speak about Luther's whole idea is you can't look to yourself for salvation but it comes from without. The problem is that sacraments, as Luther points to, are already practiced in the Catholic church. The true novelty of Luther is personal conviction over church tradition. Yes, Luther grounds his beliefs in what he believes scripture says but previously what the church ruled on as a community is what the interpretation was, not one man alone.
Also, just because his ideas as he explains them may not be what comes about later, it is clear even in Luther's day that his stand on personal conviction and interpretation is what leads to many of the other reformers. That is why he has so many non catholic opponents who are reforming in different ways and that idea of individual ideas being supreme over the collective clearly has outcomes Luther would never support but none the less wouldn't have been possible without the reformation.
The focus of the study on Luther was not his exact theology but on the man and the broad ideas and changes he brings about and it seems clear to me Holland is right. I'm sure he would conceed the points you are making in reply but that wasn't the focus of what he was speaking about. Who is this man, what did he do and how has it changed the world so dramatically? Luther had influence far beyond what he would have wanted or intended and that is what Holland is getting at.
Thank you for sharing this. I hope you are able to do a couple more of these.
When we read theologians it doesnt always mean what it says.😉
Holland's area of study was the ancient world (in particular, Rome). Sandbrook's was the modern history of the US and Britain. As mentioned, they have relied for this podcast on sources which misconstrue and anachronize Luther's psychology and they have so erred in this Luther series that one must struggle to justify baptizing one's ears with a single episode of their podcast.
More the pity, because their podcast is worth listening to for episodes like they did on Carthage. Holland's work about how the modern world differs from the ancient one due to Christianity is instructive, but their podcast must be regarded as historical entertainment first and foremost. It's downright Suetonian when they speak of modern history (witness their series on French presidents). If you want a better idea of the history, go back to the sources and serious academic works. This Luther series definitely suffered from its subject having too much written about him, in a sense, so that it is easy to take a wrong turn into cul de sacs of misintepretation.
About 30 mins in and it seems to me that mostly it's been agreeing wih Holland BUT wanting to add additional context. Part of what is important to remember if they were doing a study of the man and not the theology of Luther. Much of the criticisms you seem to have against Holland's portrayal is the lack of theological depth portrayed. If people want to understand Luther's theology there are plenty of resources for that. If you want a decent sized summary of the man's life, Holland's is as good as any I have seen.
Is it worth any money?
One would have to have some idea of his own sins in order properly to understand Luther, even if one does not, as a consequence, embrace the Lutheran views.
Did you get your pocket square from The Tie Bar? I think I have that exact one
Having read unbelieving scholarship on the Bible and Christian theology generally, what is your general impression of the degree to which those scholars correctly perceive the theology upon which they write?
Specifically on the question of antinomianism, I have heard it said by James White that Luther had a weaker grasp of Koine Greek in comparison with Melanchthon: did that impact his understanding of James use of "justify" and consequently tilt him to think that James was not apostolic, or was his skepticism on that point for other reasons?
James White has a VERY strange understanding of Luther and especially Lutheranism. No Lutheran has ever accepted James White's understanding. White knows Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, and Reformed Theology well. But I'd avoid him when it comes to Luther and especially Lutheranism.
Thoughts on Carl Trueman's book on Luther?
I would like to see a response to the anti-Luther book titled, "Facts about Luther." Also, I would like to see a response to a book titled "The Devil's Bagpipe." A TH-camr with a channel called Uniquely Mary did a interview with its translator about two weeks ago. He called it one of the earliest band most accurate biographies of Matin Luther. He said it was originally written in Latin. Two red flags right there that we aren't dealing with a fair account, but would still like to hear a response.
That was... wow that was hard to listen to. How is possible to get Luther's theology so wrong when his beliefs are written down?
From what I understand Holland has become a Christian in the past year. Last I heard he was a catechumen in the Anglican Church
Really? I want to believe you, but are there any sources you can provide?
Luther was vulgar AF.
Martin Luther was my favorite mid 20th century U.S. evangelical theologian really ahead of his time when you think about it
It a mans opinion..why rehash it,,,$…what Adam are we..?
✝️🛐🏵📜🔨
1:06:11 so just ignore all the “extreme” stuff and say that’s just how he talks…
Holland def understands Luther is propositional…but that Luther believes his internal judgement overcomes existing dogmatic realities being handed down by the successors to the apostles
Who is this Holland guy?
Spider man.
Nah but seriously he’s an agnostic who wrote a great book on Christianity. The book is “Dominion” and it’s worth reading.
@user-ug5rb6qi4r Based on what I heard from him in this video, I highly doubt the accuracy and quality of his book.
The director of Child’s Play.
I’ve yet to view this video but I want to comment again on that part which appeared the other day where Holland said that Luther maintained that unless you feel you're loved by God and that you’ve been born again you're not really a Christian. The following is an excerpt from Luther's Commentary on Galatians chapter 4 verse 6: (And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” ESV):
St. Augustine observed that “every man is certain of his faith, if he has faith.” This the Romanists deny. “God forbid,” they exclaim piously, “that I should ever be so arrogant as to think that I stand in grace, that I am holy, or that I have the Holy Ghost.” We ought to feel sure that we stand in the grace of God, not in view of our own worthiness, but through the good services of Christ. As certain as we are that Christ pleases God, so sure ought we to be that we also please God, because Christ is in us. And although we daily offend God by our sins, yet as often as we sin, God’s mercy bends over us. Therefore sin cannot get us to doubt the grace of God. Our certainty is of Christ, that mighty Hero who overcame the Law, sin, death, and all evils. So long as He sits at the right hand of God to intercede for us, we have nothing to fear from the anger of God. This inner assurance of the grace of God is accompanied by outward indications such as gladly to hear, preach, praise, and to confess Christ, to do one’s duty in the station in which God has placed us, to aid the needy, and to comfort the sorrowing. These are the affidavits of the Holy Spirit testifying to our favourable standing with God.
Luther says that we ought to feel sure that we're saved through Christ and that we please God, so since according to Luther this is how Christians should feel on an ongoing basis, it follows that when people are converted they’re going to experience being enlightened with the saving knowledge of Christ, and experience their lives being transformed from their old way of living (in slavery to their fallen nature) to their new way of living in which they’re free to serve God and their neighbour. So since conversion is being born again to new life it's impossible that this isn't a felt experience. Those who have been regenerated as infants through baptism will have had this experience even though they might be unable to remember it in later life, but the reality of it having happened will live on in that they will have the inner assurance that they're saved. So I think Holland was undoubtedly correct to say that Luther’s position is that unless you have this feeling that God loves you, and that you feel that you've been born again that you’re not really a Christian.
My belief is that the majority of those who hold that the Holy Spirit operates universally through the Word and can be resisted aren't actually converted because they're believing something which is false about the Holy Spirit. They don't think it's necessary to have had a conversion experience because it isn't something they've ever experienced themselves. They've convinced themselves that they're converted when in reality they’re not, which explains why they're so opposed to believing that the Holy Spirit converts people irresistibly through the Word. This is what Luther maintained is the teaching of Scripture, but those who claim to be his followers won’t accept it as it entails that those not irresistibly regenerated have been predestined by God to be damned. They follow the teaching contained in the Formula of Concord concerning predestination and the Holy Spirit without realising that it's false. God works in mysterious ways and one of the most surprising things is that He has blinded so-called confessional Lutherans to the fact that Luther in The Bondage of the Will comprehensively proved from Scripture that the teaching on the working of the Holy Spirit and predestination contained in the Formula of Concord is false.
I’m a Christian but I don’t describe myself as a Protestant. I prefer to identify as non denominational (not inter denominational). I’m particularly opposed Luther’s recommendation for the Jews. It was very bad without going into details. Even if Jews are anti Christian, it does not justify the way they were treated as Luther recommended. We are to treat *all* people with respect since we are not the keepers of their hearts.
41:30 Luther may not have said, 'Well, if you're saved by faith, you don't need to worry so much about your ultimately doomed, impossible struggle for sanctity and sanity; crack on and get some!'; but the question is, whether that was the actual result of this revolution, when it was diffused through culture. No?
I've recently been reading Luther's commentaries on the Sunday readings, which mostly follow the catholic liturgical cycle he inherited, and my first impression was that you can see in it the trajectory of the long-modern to-come.
(Not that Luther was alone in this, nor to make any judgement upon it.)
If you have faith,you can not live an life dominated by these earthly sinful desires.Faith will always produce works given enough time.Still the works do not justify us and an faithful conversion at the last second(just before death)will grant paradise,even thought no works were produce,because of the lack of time.
I think some things about Luther cannot be argued away. Luther was an ardent anti-Semite. Luther promoted the witch-craze. Luther betrayed the peasantry.
He may have written many beautiful and clever things about God, but in the end he was just a useful idiot for the German princes. Perhaps the German princes would have reduced my fatherland to rubble and ashes even without him. But the fact that his rebellion made it possible to place the cloak of religion over the rape of the German population makes him, for me, one of the villains in German history.
Luther not only tore apart the unity of the Western Church. He also tore apart Germany and with it all of Europe.
"I think my highly partisan read on Luther can't be easily explained away."
I also think my highly partisan take on Luther can't be easily explained away. And yet here you are.
Go listen to yo pope
@@logosimian Find a context in which the statement: "You have to kill them like mad dogs" can be justified in connection with the peasant uprisings.
The reasons for the peasant uprising were completely legitimate. From today's perspective, even more so than from that time.
The reason for his writing Wider die Mordischen und Reubischen Rotten der Bawren was the so-called Weinsberger Bluttat. In contrast to the usual war customs of the time, the peasants largely spared the population. The execution of the nobles after the capture of the town was not an unusual measure for the time. The method of execution was unusual, but only in the sense that nobles were normally given a quicker method of execution. Running the gauntlet was an extremely common military punishment, and up until the 19th century it was so common that running the gauntlet became a proverbial term in German for unpleasant situations.
The peasants did not touch the noble women and children or their staff and let them go without ransom, which was rather unusual for the time.
The reaction of the Franconian nobility and the treatment of the population, even of people who were not directly involved in the hostilities after the suppression of the uprising, was anything but moderate. Luther gave the nobles carte blanche to do this at a time when the defeat of the peasants was already foreseeable. If the text were not already disgusting in itself, this kind of free courage makes it repulsive.
Luther is not fit to be a saint and as a politician he hung his cloak in every wind that brought him personal advantages.
@@rickdockery9620 It wasn't your people and your country that suffered the political consequences of his actions, was it? It wasn't your nation that he divided, was it? It wasn't your preachers who anchored the divine right of princes and the spirit of subjection in people's minds.
Rome had good and bad popes, but none of them had such a lasting influence as Luther on German politics and the reality of life of the population.
I think that as a German I can mourn the negative consequences of his influence on German history.
@@NoSabine dude, the Roman church was awful to so many people. If your nation was content his teachings would had zero effect
God was Satan before he became God - this is Luther’s theology.
Cooper doesn’t think Luther was anti semitic… how much history can cooper be trusted with ?
It is necessary to define. One can argue the Gospels are antii semitic
@@magnobraga4619 yes one can argue that. But a narrative with multiple meanings is different than a text labeled “against the Jews” in which it is argued to burn their synagogues, destroy their property, religious texts and not to give them safe passage. Probably used at the Geneva convention as what not to do
@@magnobraga4619So, antisemitism originates from the gospel? That’s quite alarming
@@js1423I know what you are
@@VirtueInEternity What am I?
What one understands from the perspective of 500 years is that Luther essentially acted as an agent of the German princes and Emperor to drive a wedge between Rome and the secular powers.
Understand this: The Lutheran Church was a state Church. Luther had no tolerance for evangelical free churches such as the anabaptists, and his liberty was limited to the soul; the body belonged to the state as the peasants soon discovered.
Martin Luther was basically an employee of German princes.
Luther wasnt trying to start a church. He was rightly attempting to correct the extra biblical teachings from Rome.
Cope however you will.
@@michaels7325 In another generation or two there will be virtually no lutheranism in North America. Cope harder.
@@michaels7325 Luther invented Bible Alone, which is unbiblical.
@@fantasia55 faith alone my friend.
The only Church that teaches the fullness of the means of salvation is the Church established by Christ on the foundation of the apostles in 33 AD. Luther had a lot of mental issues If he could not remember every sin he committed, it would drive him mad.
Unfortunately the Holy Spirit does not inspire those who are separated from Christ's Church to read and interpret Scripture correctly,
That is why all these denominations are always fighting with each other about the meaning of certain Scripture
When Christ re-establishes his Church, there will me no more man-made religions. Churches or denominations. Peace at last.
@@aussierob7177 I'll never understand how they get along without the rosary.
How is he supposed to confess the sins he can't remember?
@@Catholic-Perennialist Remarkably well because praying to Mary doesn't do anything
It's hysterical that you think that Church is Rome😂😂😂
@@winnietheblue3633 That is what terrified him
Here we can really put the lιε to the old claim that Luther does not define lutheranism.
If he were not pivotal to the present movement there would not be such a rabid effort to rehabilitate him.
Yes, his output was voluminous, which only means that Tom Holland is certainly correct. Because if you quote Luther against Holland, youre likely also quoting Luther against Luther.
Be careful which idols you set up.
you did not watch the full video. It came out 35 min ago, and it is more than 90 min.
Even if you watched at double speed, you would not finish by the time you made this video.
Additionally, and I say this as someone who's currently Catholic, the reasons why Lutherans defend Luther, is because his ideas are the bedrock of the denomination. (And I believe that some of his ideas, especially that of Total Depravity, are correct.) By attacking Luther, you essentially attack the whole denomination. It would basically be the same as attacking/trying to discredit the pope in order to deride Catholicsm.
Additionally, about the status of Luther, If Luther is an idol; then the Pope is also an idol.
Lastly, you seem to be slightly hostile in the comments section of this channel. Don't throw your pearls before swine. If you don't like lutheranism, pay no attention to it
Idols like the popes? You can find plenty of quotes of popes contradicting. Your accusation is a confession.
@@ScarletPhoenix0 I watched all 5 hours + of the series being critiqued. I already know most of what Cooper will say. Your criticism is moot.
@@chestersnapdragonmcphistic579 I neither worship nor defend the Pope. He's flawed like every other man. Catholicism will outlast them all.
@@chestersnapdragonmcphistic579 I don't defend the Popes.
Look at the fruit of Luther & the Deformation!
Confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17:11-23
Without altars & no liturgical sacrifice, most sects don’t have proper worship so are not “church” more like synagogues with prayer & teaching!
Stop playing games & being childish. God deserves proper worship!
Tell me you know nothing about Lutheranism without telling me you know nothing about Lutheranism.
@@jansvarz3522IKR 😂
You obviously have never studied the Reformation. Luther didn’t cause Calvin or Zwingli. The Roman Catholic church has only itself to blame.
It bore wonderful fruit not like the darkness that was before it. Praise God for Luther who took his stand for true Biblical Christianity. The world was transformed by the Reformation. Have a look at the Catholic countries and compare; South America dominantly catholic for centuries not affected by European wars etc yet it s been stagnant riddled with corruption and poverty. Compare that to Protestant North America.
Luther was NOT the one removing altars from church. Luther kept the mass. Luther kept the 2 sacraments of Baptism and Communion. Luther taught the same as Catholics about Baptism and affirmed real presence in the Eucharist. Luther didn't start a Church, he was kicked out. Like the "Pope" today kicks out people like Vigano and Strickland who stand up for the Faith. Luther was a Catholic priest and Doctor of Theology not a self appointed pastor like many modern charismatic pentecostal "evangelicals". Luther used the term "Evangelical Catholic" to point out that he is Catholic and based on the gospel. Luther strictly spoke against Calvinism and Anabaptists and church splits.
You're so whiny.
That’s not a very constructive comment. There is an irony in saying “you’re so whiny” when there are billions of other videos on TH-cam to watch.
@@williampeters9838And there are a million other things happening in the world, does that mean we all have to sit in silence and never give our opinion? Obviously not.
It is constructive to point out when someone has dedicated their limited time to complaining that someone didn't write a hagiography about Martin Luther. There's a point at which we need to get over ourselves and move on rather than waste time attempting to rehabilitate the reputation of a man who died roughly 500 years ago because we got offended other people don't view him the same way.
You could upload your own videos to show us how it is more aptly done.
@@stegabro5011Okay well it’s frustrating because
1. people call us Lutherans and assume we hold to everything he said
2. People have misconceptions of Luther and so they completely write off Lutheranism
I wish there were more people like you who can separate the ideas in Lutheranism from Luther, but that’s not how it normally works out.
This podcast makes Roman Catholic quote-mining seen intelligent by comparison