Question: What did Fritschel say the man's sleep was disturbed by?

Answer: dreams

Luther's Commentary on Genesis contains a passage which concludes that "the soul does not sleep (anima non sic dormit), but wakes (sed vigilat) and experiences visions". <hl> Francis Blackburne in 1765 argued that John Jortin misread this and other passages from Luther, while Gottfried Fritschel pointed out in 1867 that it actually refers to the soul of a man "in this life" (homo enim in hac vita) tired from his daily labour (defatigus diurno labore) who at night enters his bedchamber (sub noctem intrat in cubiculum suum) and whose sleep is interrupted by dreams . <hl>

Luther's Commentary on Genesis contains a passage which concludes that "the soul does not sleep (anima non sic dormit), but wakes (sed vigilat) and experiences visions". Francis Blackburne in 1765 argued that John Jortin misread this and other passages from Luther, while Gottfried Fritschel pointed out in 1867 that it actually refers to the soul of a man "in this life" (homo enim in hac vita) tired from his daily labour (defatigus diurno labore) who at night enters his bedchamber (sub noctem intrat in cubiculum suum) and whose sleep is interrupted by <hl> dreams <hl>.

Francis Blackburne in 1765 argued that John Jortin misread this and other passages from Luther, while Gottfried Fritschel pointed out in 1867 that it actually refers to the soul of a man "in this life" (homo enim in hac vita) tired from his daily labour (defatigus diurno labore) who at night enters his bedchamber (sub noctem intrat in cubiculum suum) and whose sleep is interrupted by <hl> dreams <hl> .

question: What did Fritschel say the man's sleep was disturbed by?, context: Luther's Commentary on Genesis contains a passage which concludes that "the soul does not sleep (anima non sic dormit), but wakes (sed vigilat) and experiences visions". Francis Blackburne in 1765 argued that John Jortin misread this and other passages from Luther, while Gottfried Fritschel pointed out in 1867 that it actually refers to the soul of a man "in this life" (homo enim in hac vita) tired from his daily labour (defatigus diurno labore) who at night enters his bedchamber (sub noctem intrat in cubiculum suum) and whose sleep is interrupted by dreams.


Question: When did Philip I convene an assembly to set doctrine in the Protestant states?

Answer: October 1529

<hl> In October 1529 , Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states. <hl> Agreement was achieved on fourteen points out of fifteen, the exception being the nature of the Eucharist – the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—an issue crucial to Luther.

In <hl> October 1529 <hl>, Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states. Agreement was achieved on fourteen points out of fifteen, the exception being the nature of the Eucharist – the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—an issue crucial to Luther.

In <hl> October 1529 <hl> , Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states.

question: When did Philip I convene an assembly to set doctrine in the Protestant states?, context: In October 1529, Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states. Agreement was achieved on fourteen points out of fifteen, the exception being the nature of the Eucharist – the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—an issue crucial to Luther.


Question: Who was Philip I?

Answer: Landgrave of Hesse

<hl> In October 1529, Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse , convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states. <hl> Agreement was achieved on fourteen points out of fifteen, the exception being the nature of the Eucharist – the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—an issue crucial to Luther.

In October 1529, Philip I, <hl> Landgrave of Hesse <hl>, convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states. Agreement was achieved on fourteen points out of fifteen, the exception being the nature of the Eucharist – the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—an issue crucial to Luther.

In October 1529, Philip I, <hl> Landgrave of Hesse <hl> , convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states.

question: Who was Philip I?, context: In October 1529, Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states. Agreement was achieved on fourteen points out of fifteen, the exception being the nature of the Eucharist – the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—an issue crucial to Luther.


Question: What was the Marburg Colloquy meant to establish?

Answer: doctrinal unity

<hl> In October 1529, Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states. <hl> Agreement was achieved on fourteen points out of fifteen, the exception being the nature of the Eucharist – the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—an issue crucial to Luther.

In October 1529, Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish <hl> doctrinal unity <hl> in the emerging Protestant states. Agreement was achieved on fourteen points out of fifteen, the exception being the nature of the Eucharist – the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—an issue crucial to Luther.

question: What was the Marburg Colloquy meant to establish?, context: In October 1529, Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states. Agreement was achieved on fourteen points out of fifteen, the exception being the nature of the Eucharist – the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—an issue crucial to Luther.


Question: How many of the fifteen points of discussion were agreed on?

Answer: fourteen points

In October 1529, Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states. <hl> Agreement was achieved on fourteen points out of fifteen, the exception being the nature of the Eucharist – the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—an issue crucial to Luther. <hl>

In October 1529, Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states. Agreement was achieved on <hl> fourteen points <hl> out of fifteen, the exception being the nature of the Eucharist – the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—an issue crucial to Luther.

question: How many of the fifteen points of discussion were agreed on?, context: In October 1529, Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states. Agreement was achieved on fourteen points out of fifteen, the exception being the nature of the Eucharist – the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—an issue crucial to Luther.


Question: What one point was not agreed on that was dear to Luther?

Answer: nature of the Eucharist

In October 1529, Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states. <hl> Agreement was achieved on fourteen points out of fifteen, the exception being the nature of the Eucharist – the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—an issue crucial to Luther. <hl>

In October 1529, Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states. Agreement was achieved on fourteen points out of fifteen, the exception being the <hl> nature of the Eucharist <hl> – the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—an issue crucial to Luther.

question: What one point was not agreed on that was dear to Luther?, context: In October 1529, Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, convoked an assembly of German and Swiss theologians at the Marburg Colloquy, to establish doctrinal unity in the emerging Protestant states. Agreement was achieved on fourteen points out of fifteen, the exception being the nature of the Eucharist – the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—an issue crucial to Luther.


Question: What point did the theologians differ on concerning the Last Supper?

Answer: words spoken by Jesus

<hl> The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). <hl> Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union, while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present. Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland." On his table Luther wrote the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.

The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the <hl> words spoken by Jesus <hl> at the Last Supper: "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union, while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present. Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland." On his table Luther wrote the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.

question: What point did the theologians differ on concerning the Last Supper?, context: The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union, while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present. Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland." On his table Luther wrote the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.


Question: What did Luther insist was present in the bread and wine?

Answer: body and blood of Christ

The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). <hl> Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union, while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present. <hl> Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland." On his table Luther wrote the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.

The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the <hl> body and blood of Christ <hl> in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union, while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present. Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland." On his table Luther wrote the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.

question: What did Luther insist was present in the bread and wine?, context: The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union, while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present. Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland." On his table Luther wrote the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.


Question: What did Luther call the consecrated bread and wine?

Answer: sacramental union

The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). <hl> Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union , while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present. <hl> Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland." On his table Luther wrote the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.

The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the <hl> sacramental union <hl>, while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present. Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland." On his table Luther wrote the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.

Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the <hl> sacramental union <hl> , while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present.

question: What did Luther call the consecrated bread and wine?, context: The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union, while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present. Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland." On his table Luther wrote the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.


Question: What did Luther's opponents think that it meant about God's presence?

Answer: symbolically present

The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). <hl> Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union, while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present . <hl> Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland." On his table Luther wrote the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.

The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union, while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or <hl> symbolically present <hl>. Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland." On his table Luther wrote the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.

Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union, while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or <hl> symbolically present <hl> .

question: What did Luther's opponents think that it meant about God's presence?, context: The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union, while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present. Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland." On his table Luther wrote the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.


Question: What did the meeting often become in argument?

Answer: confrontational

The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union, while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present. Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. <hl> According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational . <hl> Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland." On his table Luther wrote the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.

The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union, while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present. Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became <hl> confrontational <hl>. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland." On his table Luther wrote the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.

According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became <hl> confrontational <hl> .

question: What did the meeting often become in argument?, context: The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: "This is my body which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union, while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present. Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus' ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus' words "The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.63), Zwingli said, "This passage breaks your neck". "Don't be too proud," Luther retorted, "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland." On his table Luther wrote the words "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.


Question: When was the Augsburg Confession signed?

Answer: 1530

<hl> Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in 1530 of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach. <hl> The Swiss cities, however, did not sign these agreements.

Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in <hl> 1530 <hl> of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach. The Swiss cities, however, did not sign these agreements.

question: When was the Augsburg Confession signed?, context: Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in 1530 of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach. The Swiss cities, however, did not sign these agreements.


Question: What paved the way for the Augsburg Confession?

Answer: Marburg Colloquy

<hl> Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in 1530 of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach. <hl> The Swiss cities, however, did not sign these agreements.

Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the <hl> Marburg Colloquy <hl> paved the way for the signing in 1530 of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach. The Swiss cities, however, did not sign these agreements.

question: What paved the way for the Augsburg Confession?, context: Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in 1530 of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach. The Swiss cities, however, did not sign these agreements.


Question: What did Protestant nobles form the following year after the signing of the Augsburg Confession?

Answer: Schmalkaldic League

<hl> Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in 1530 of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach. <hl> The Swiss cities, however, did not sign these agreements.

Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in 1530 of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the <hl> Schmalkaldic League <hl> the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach. The Swiss cities, however, did not sign these agreements.

question: What did Protestant nobles form the following year after the signing of the Augsburg Confession?, context: Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in 1530 of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach. The Swiss cities, however, did not sign these agreements.


Question: Which group did not agree to sign these agreements?

Answer: The Swiss cities

Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in 1530 of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach. <hl> The Swiss cities , however, did not sign these agreements. <hl>

Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in 1530 of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach. <hl> The Swiss cities <hl>, however, did not sign these agreements.

<hl> The Swiss cities <hl> , however, did not sign these agreements.

question: Which group did not agree to sign these agreements?, context: Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in 1530 of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach. The Swiss cities, however, did not sign these agreements.


Question: What ruler, besides John of Saxony and Philip of Hesse, formed the Schmalkaldic League?

Answer: George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach

<hl> Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in 1530 of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach . <hl> The Swiss cities, however, did not sign these agreements.

Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in 1530 of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and <hl> George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach <hl>. The Swiss cities, however, did not sign these agreements.

Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in 1530 of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and <hl> George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach <hl> .

question: What ruler, besides John of Saxony and Philip of Hesse, formed the Schmalkaldic League?, context: Despite the disagreements on the Eucharist, the Marburg Colloquy paved the way for the signing in 1530 of the Augsburg Confession, and for the formation of the Schmalkaldic League the following year by leading Protestant nobles such as John of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, and George, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach. The Swiss cities, however, did not sign these agreements.


Question: What do scholars sometimes assert that Luther believed about what faith and reason were to each other?

Answer: antithetical

<hl> Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and reason were antithetical in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. <hl> He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." and "[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." However, though seemingly contradictorily, he also wrote in the latter work that human reason "strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it", bringing claims he was a fideist into dispute. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther. Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. Bernhard Lohse, for example, has demonstrated in his classic work "Fides und Ratio" that Luther ultimately sought to put the two together. More recently, Hans-Peter Grosshans has demonstrated that Luther's work on Biblical Criticism stresses the need for external coherence in the right exegetical method. This means that for Luther it is more important that the Bible is reasonable according to the reality outside of the scriptures than that the Bible makes sense to itself, that it has internal coherence. The right tool for understanding the world outside of the Bible for Luther is none other than reason, which for him is the field of science, philosophy, history and empirical observation. Here a different picture is presented of a Luther who deeply valued both faith and reason, and held them in dialectical partnership. Luther's concern thus in separating them is honoring their different epistemological spheres.

Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and reason were <hl> antithetical <hl> in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." and "[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." However, though seemingly contradictorily, he also wrote in the latter work that human reason "strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it", bringing claims he was a fideist into dispute. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther. Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. Bernhard Lohse, for example, has demonstrated in his classic work "Fides und Ratio" that Luther ultimately sought to put the two together. More recently, Hans-Peter Grosshans has demonstrated that Luther's work on Biblical Criticism stresses the need for external coherence in the right exegetical method. This means that for Luther it is more important that the Bible is reasonable according to the reality outside of the scriptures than that the Bible makes sense to itself, that it has internal coherence. The right tool for understanding the world outside of the Bible for Luther is none other than reason, which for him is the field of science, philosophy, history and empirical observation. Here a different picture is presented of a Luther who deeply valued both faith and reason, and held them in dialectical partnership. Luther's concern thus in separating them is honoring their different epistemological spheres.

question: What do scholars sometimes assert that Luther believed about what faith and reason were to each other?, context: Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and reason were antithetical in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." and "[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." However, though seemingly contradictorily, he also wrote in the latter work that human reason "strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it", bringing claims he was a fideist into dispute. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther. Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. Bernhard Lohse, for example, has demonstrated in his classic work "Fides und Ratio" that Luther ultimately sought to put the two together. More recently, Hans-Peter Grosshans has demonstrated that Luther's work on Biblical Criticism stresses the need for external coherence in the right exegetical method. This means that for Luther it is more important that the Bible is reasonable according to the reality outside of the scriptures than that the Bible makes sense to itself, that it has internal coherence. The right tool for understanding the world outside of the Bible for Luther is none other than reason, which for him is the field of science, philosophy, history and empirical observation. Here a different picture is presented of a Luther who deeply valued both faith and reason, and held them in dialectical partnership. Luther's concern thus in separating them is honoring their different epistemological spheres.


Question: What did Luther think that faith could not be understood by?

Answer: reason

<hl> Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and reason were antithetical in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. <hl> He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." and "[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." However, though seemingly contradictorily, he also wrote in the latter work that human reason "strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it", bringing claims he was a fideist into dispute. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther. Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. Bernhard Lohse, for example, has demonstrated in his classic work "Fides und Ratio" that Luther ultimately sought to put the two together. More recently, Hans-Peter Grosshans has demonstrated that Luther's work on Biblical Criticism stresses the need for external coherence in the right exegetical method. This means that for Luther it is more important that the Bible is reasonable according to the reality outside of the scriptures than that the Bible makes sense to itself, that it has internal coherence. The right tool for understanding the world outside of the Bible for Luther is none other than reason, which for him is the field of science, philosophy, history and empirical observation. Here a different picture is presented of a Luther who deeply valued both faith and reason, and held them in dialectical partnership. Luther's concern thus in separating them is honoring their different epistemological spheres.

Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and <hl> reason <hl> were antithetical in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." and "[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." However, though seemingly contradictorily, he also wrote in the latter work that human reason "strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it", bringing claims he was a fideist into dispute. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther. Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. Bernhard Lohse, for example, has demonstrated in his classic work "Fides und Ratio" that Luther ultimately sought to put the two together. More recently, Hans-Peter Grosshans has demonstrated that Luther's work on Biblical Criticism stresses the need for external coherence in the right exegetical method. This means that for Luther it is more important that the Bible is reasonable according to the reality outside of the scriptures than that the Bible makes sense to itself, that it has internal coherence. The right tool for understanding the world outside of the Bible for Luther is none other than reason, which for him is the field of science, philosophy, history and empirical observation. Here a different picture is presented of a Luther who deeply valued both faith and reason, and held them in dialectical partnership. Luther's concern thus in separating them is honoring their different epistemological spheres.

question: What did Luther think that faith could not be understood by?, context: Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and reason were antithetical in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." and "[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." However, though seemingly contradictorily, he also wrote in the latter work that human reason "strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it", bringing claims he was a fideist into dispute. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther. Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. Bernhard Lohse, for example, has demonstrated in his classic work "Fides und Ratio" that Luther ultimately sought to put the two together. More recently, Hans-Peter Grosshans has demonstrated that Luther's work on Biblical Criticism stresses the need for external coherence in the right exegetical method. This means that for Luther it is more important that the Bible is reasonable according to the reality outside of the scriptures than that the Bible makes sense to itself, that it has internal coherence. The right tool for understanding the world outside of the Bible for Luther is none other than reason, which for him is the field of science, philosophy, history and empirical observation. Here a different picture is presented of a Luther who deeply valued both faith and reason, and held them in dialectical partnership. Luther's concern thus in separating them is honoring their different epistemological spheres.


Question: How did Luther say that reason contributes to faith?

Answer: no way contributes

Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and reason were antithetical in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." <hl> and "[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. <hl> [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." However, though seemingly contradictorily, he also wrote in the latter work that human reason "strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it", bringing claims he was a fideist into dispute. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther. Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. Bernhard Lohse, for example, has demonstrated in his classic work "Fides und Ratio" that Luther ultimately sought to put the two together. More recently, Hans-Peter Grosshans has demonstrated that Luther's work on Biblical Criticism stresses the need for external coherence in the right exegetical method. This means that for Luther it is more important that the Bible is reasonable according to the reality outside of the scriptures than that the Bible makes sense to itself, that it has internal coherence. The right tool for understanding the world outside of the Bible for Luther is none other than reason, which for him is the field of science, philosophy, history and empirical observation. Here a different picture is presented of a Luther who deeply valued both faith and reason, and held them in dialectical partnership. Luther's concern thus in separating them is honoring their different epistemological spheres.

Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and reason were antithetical in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." and "[That] Reason in <hl> no way contributes <hl> to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." However, though seemingly contradictorily, he also wrote in the latter work that human reason "strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it", bringing claims he was a fideist into dispute. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther. Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. Bernhard Lohse, for example, has demonstrated in his classic work "Fides und Ratio" that Luther ultimately sought to put the two together. More recently, Hans-Peter Grosshans has demonstrated that Luther's work on Biblical Criticism stresses the need for external coherence in the right exegetical method. This means that for Luther it is more important that the Bible is reasonable according to the reality outside of the scriptures than that the Bible makes sense to itself, that it has internal coherence. The right tool for understanding the world outside of the Bible for Luther is none other than reason, which for him is the field of science, philosophy, history and empirical observation. Here a different picture is presented of a Luther who deeply valued both faith and reason, and held them in dialectical partnership. Luther's concern thus in separating them is honoring their different epistemological spheres.

question: How did Luther say that reason contributes to faith?, context: Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and reason were antithetical in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." and "[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." However, though seemingly contradictorily, he also wrote in the latter work that human reason "strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it", bringing claims he was a fideist into dispute. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther. Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. Bernhard Lohse, for example, has demonstrated in his classic work "Fides und Ratio" that Luther ultimately sought to put the two together. More recently, Hans-Peter Grosshans has demonstrated that Luther's work on Biblical Criticism stresses the need for external coherence in the right exegetical method. This means that for Luther it is more important that the Bible is reasonable according to the reality outside of the scriptures than that the Bible makes sense to itself, that it has internal coherence. The right tool for understanding the world outside of the Bible for Luther is none other than reason, which for him is the field of science, philosophy, history and empirical observation. Here a different picture is presented of a Luther who deeply valued both faith and reason, and held them in dialectical partnership. Luther's concern thus in separating them is honoring their different epistemological spheres.


Question: What was faith's greatest enemy according to Luther?

Answer: reason

<hl> Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and reason were antithetical in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. <hl> He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." and "[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." However, though seemingly contradictorily, he also wrote in the latter work that human reason "strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it", bringing claims he was a fideist into dispute. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther. Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. Bernhard Lohse, for example, has demonstrated in his classic work "Fides und Ratio" that Luther ultimately sought to put the two together. More recently, Hans-Peter Grosshans has demonstrated that Luther's work on Biblical Criticism stresses the need for external coherence in the right exegetical method. This means that for Luther it is more important that the Bible is reasonable according to the reality outside of the scriptures than that the Bible makes sense to itself, that it has internal coherence. The right tool for understanding the world outside of the Bible for Luther is none other than reason, which for him is the field of science, philosophy, history and empirical observation. Here a different picture is presented of a Luther who deeply valued both faith and reason, and held them in dialectical partnership. Luther's concern thus in separating them is honoring their different epistemological spheres.

Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and <hl> reason <hl> were antithetical in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." and "[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." However, though seemingly contradictorily, he also wrote in the latter work that human reason "strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it", bringing claims he was a fideist into dispute. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther. Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. Bernhard Lohse, for example, has demonstrated in his classic work "Fides und Ratio" that Luther ultimately sought to put the two together. More recently, Hans-Peter Grosshans has demonstrated that Luther's work on Biblical Criticism stresses the need for external coherence in the right exegetical method. This means that for Luther it is more important that the Bible is reasonable according to the reality outside of the scriptures than that the Bible makes sense to itself, that it has internal coherence. The right tool for understanding the world outside of the Bible for Luther is none other than reason, which for him is the field of science, philosophy, history and empirical observation. Here a different picture is presented of a Luther who deeply valued both faith and reason, and held them in dialectical partnership. Luther's concern thus in separating them is honoring their different epistemological spheres.

question: What was faith's greatest enemy according to Luther?, context: Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and reason were antithetical in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." and "[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." However, though seemingly contradictorily, he also wrote in the latter work that human reason "strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it", bringing claims he was a fideist into dispute. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther. Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. Bernhard Lohse, for example, has demonstrated in his classic work "Fides und Ratio" that Luther ultimately sought to put the two together. More recently, Hans-Peter Grosshans has demonstrated that Luther's work on Biblical Criticism stresses the need for external coherence in the right exegetical method. This means that for Luther it is more important that the Bible is reasonable according to the reality outside of the scriptures than that the Bible makes sense to itself, that it has internal coherence. The right tool for understanding the world outside of the Bible for Luther is none other than reason, which for him is the field of science, philosophy, history and empirical observation. Here a different picture is presented of a Luther who deeply valued both faith and reason, and held them in dialectical partnership. Luther's concern thus in separating them is honoring their different epistemological spheres.


Question: By separating faith and reason, what does Luther honor?

Answer: different epistemological spheres.

Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and reason were antithetical in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." and "[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." However, though seemingly contradictorily, he also wrote in the latter work that human reason "strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it", bringing claims he was a fideist into dispute. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther. Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. Bernhard Lohse, for example, has demonstrated in his classic work "Fides und Ratio" that Luther ultimately sought to put the two together. More recently, Hans-Peter Grosshans has demonstrated that Luther's work on Biblical Criticism stresses the need for external coherence in the right exegetical method. This means that for Luther it is more important that the Bible is reasonable according to the reality outside of the scriptures than that the Bible makes sense to itself, that it has internal coherence. The right tool for understanding the world outside of the Bible for Luther is none other than reason, which for him is the field of science, philosophy, history and empirical observation. Here a different picture is presented of a Luther who deeply valued both faith and reason, and held them in dialectical partnership. <hl> Luther's concern thus in separating them is honoring their different epistemological spheres. <hl>

Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and reason were antithetical in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." and "[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." However, though seemingly contradictorily, he also wrote in the latter work that human reason "strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it", bringing claims he was a fideist into dispute. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther. Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. Bernhard Lohse, for example, has demonstrated in his classic work "Fides und Ratio" that Luther ultimately sought to put the two together. More recently, Hans-Peter Grosshans has demonstrated that Luther's work on Biblical Criticism stresses the need for external coherence in the right exegetical method. This means that for Luther it is more important that the Bible is reasonable according to the reality outside of the scriptures than that the Bible makes sense to itself, that it has internal coherence. The right tool for understanding the world outside of the Bible for Luther is none other than reason, which for him is the field of science, philosophy, history and empirical observation. Here a different picture is presented of a Luther who deeply valued both faith and reason, and held them in dialectical partnership. Luther's concern thus in separating them is honoring their <hl> different epistemological spheres. <hl>

question: By separating faith and reason, what does Luther honor?, context: Some scholars have asserted that Luther taught that faith and reason were antithetical in the sense that questions of faith could not be illuminated by reason. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." and "[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." However, though seemingly contradictorily, he also wrote in the latter work that human reason "strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it", bringing claims he was a fideist into dispute. Contemporary Lutheran scholarship, however, has found a different reality in Luther. Luther rather seeks to separate faith and reason in order to honor the separate spheres of knowledge that each applies to. Bernhard Lohse, for example, has demonstrated in his classic work "Fides und Ratio" that Luther ultimately sought to put the two together. More recently, Hans-Peter Grosshans has demonstrated that Luther's work on Biblical Criticism stresses the need for external coherence in the right exegetical method. This means that for Luther it is more important that the Bible is reasonable according to the reality outside of the scriptures than that the Bible makes sense to itself, that it has internal coherence. The right tool for understanding the world outside of the Bible for Luther is none other than reason, which for him is the field of science, philosophy, history and empirical observation. Here a different picture is presented of a Luther who deeply valued both faith and reason, and held them in dialectical partnership. Luther's concern thus in separating them is honoring their different epistemological spheres.


Question: What did Luther state as a means of discouraging mistreatment of Jews?

Answer: Jesus Christ was born a Jew

<hl> In 1523, Luther wrote that Jesus Christ was born a Jew which discouraged mistreatment of the Jews and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ. <hl> However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity. In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the Anabaptists, Zwinglianism, and the papacy. His 1543 treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) took its place among other anti-Jewish literature of the times, although historians acknowledge that this treatise was particularly extreme, even by the standards of sixteenth century Europe. In it, he takes a hardline against Judaism, writing that synagogues and Jewish homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.

In 1523, Luther wrote that <hl> Jesus Christ was born a Jew <hl> which discouraged mistreatment of the Jews and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ. However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity. In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the Anabaptists, Zwinglianism, and the papacy. His 1543 treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) took its place among other anti-Jewish literature of the times, although historians acknowledge that this treatise was particularly extreme, even by the standards of sixteenth century Europe. In it, he takes a hardline against Judaism, writing that synagogues and Jewish homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.

question: What did Luther state as a means of discouraging mistreatment of Jews?, context: In 1523, Luther wrote that Jesus Christ was born a Jew which discouraged mistreatment of the Jews and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ. However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity. In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the Anabaptists, Zwinglianism, and the papacy. His 1543 treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) took its place among other anti-Jewish literature of the times, although historians acknowledge that this treatise was particularly extreme, even by the standards of sixteenth century Europe. In it, he takes a hardline against Judaism, writing that synagogues and Jewish homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.


Question: What did Luther gradually see as hopeless in the Reformation?

Answer: Jewish conversion to Christianity

In 1523, Luther wrote that Jesus Christ was born a Jew which discouraged mistreatment of the Jews and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ. <hl> However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity . <hl> In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the Anabaptists, Zwinglianism, and the papacy. His 1543 treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) took its place among other anti-Jewish literature of the times, although historians acknowledge that this treatise was particularly extreme, even by the standards of sixteenth century Europe. In it, he takes a hardline against Judaism, writing that synagogues and Jewish homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.

In 1523, Luther wrote that Jesus Christ was born a Jew which discouraged mistreatment of the Jews and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ. However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale <hl> Jewish conversion to Christianity <hl>. In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the Anabaptists, Zwinglianism, and the papacy. His 1543 treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) took its place among other anti-Jewish literature of the times, although historians acknowledge that this treatise was particularly extreme, even by the standards of sixteenth century Europe. In it, he takes a hardline against Judaism, writing that synagogues and Jewish homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.

However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale <hl> Jewish conversion to Christianity <hl> .

question: What did Luther gradually see as hopeless in the Reformation?, context: In 1523, Luther wrote that Jesus Christ was born a Jew which discouraged mistreatment of the Jews and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ. However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity. In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the Anabaptists, Zwinglianism, and the papacy. His 1543 treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) took its place among other anti-Jewish literature of the times, although historians acknowledge that this treatise was particularly extreme, even by the standards of sixteenth century Europe. In it, he takes a hardline against Judaism, writing that synagogues and Jewish homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.


Question: Who did Luther strike out against in later years?

Answer: Jews

<hl> In 1523, Luther wrote that Jesus Christ was born a Jew which discouraged mistreatment of the Jews and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ. <hl> However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity. In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the Anabaptists, Zwinglianism, and the papacy. His 1543 treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) took its place among other anti-Jewish literature of the times, although historians acknowledge that this treatise was particularly extreme, even by the standards of sixteenth century Europe. In it, he takes a hardline against Judaism, writing that synagogues and Jewish homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.

In 1523, Luther wrote that Jesus Christ was born a Jew which discouraged mistreatment of the <hl> Jews <hl> and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ. However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity. In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the Anabaptists, Zwinglianism, and the papacy. His 1543 treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) took its place among other anti-Jewish literature of the times, although historians acknowledge that this treatise was particularly extreme, even by the standards of sixteenth century Europe. In it, he takes a hardline against Judaism, writing that synagogues and Jewish homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.

question: Who did Luther strike out against in later years?, context: In 1523, Luther wrote that Jesus Christ was born a Jew which discouraged mistreatment of the Jews and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ. However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity. In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the Anabaptists, Zwinglianism, and the papacy. His 1543 treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) took its place among other anti-Jewish literature of the times, although historians acknowledge that this treatise was particularly extreme, even by the standards of sixteenth century Europe. In it, he takes a hardline against Judaism, writing that synagogues and Jewish homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.


Question: Luther treated Jews in a like way as he treated what group?

Answer: Anabaptists

In 1523, Luther wrote that Jesus Christ was born a Jew which discouraged mistreatment of the Jews and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ. However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity. <hl> In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the Anabaptists , Zwinglianism, and the papacy. <hl> His 1543 treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) took its place among other anti-Jewish literature of the times, although historians acknowledge that this treatise was particularly extreme, even by the standards of sixteenth century Europe. In it, he takes a hardline against Judaism, writing that synagogues and Jewish homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.

In 1523, Luther wrote that Jesus Christ was born a Jew which discouraged mistreatment of the Jews and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ. However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity. In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the <hl> Anabaptists <hl>, Zwinglianism, and the papacy. His 1543 treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) took its place among other anti-Jewish literature of the times, although historians acknowledge that this treatise was particularly extreme, even by the standards of sixteenth century Europe. In it, he takes a hardline against Judaism, writing that synagogues and Jewish homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.

In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the <hl> Anabaptists <hl> , Zwinglianism, and the papacy.

question: Luther treated Jews in a like way as he treated what group?, context: In 1523, Luther wrote that Jesus Christ was born a Jew which discouraged mistreatment of the Jews and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ. However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity. In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the Anabaptists, Zwinglianism, and the papacy. His 1543 treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) took its place among other anti-Jewish literature of the times, although historians acknowledge that this treatise was particularly extreme, even by the standards of sixteenth century Europe. In it, he takes a hardline against Judaism, writing that synagogues and Jewish homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.


Question: When did Luther write an extreme treatise against the Jews?

Answer: 1543

In 1523, Luther wrote that Jesus Christ was born a Jew which discouraged mistreatment of the Jews and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ. However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity. In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the Anabaptists, Zwinglianism, and the papacy. <hl> His 1543 treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) took its place among other anti-Jewish literature of the times, although historians acknowledge that this treatise was particularly extreme, even by the standards of sixteenth century Europe. <hl> In it, he takes a hardline against Judaism, writing that synagogues and Jewish homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.

In 1523, Luther wrote that Jesus Christ was born a Jew which discouraged mistreatment of the Jews and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ. However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity. In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the Anabaptists, Zwinglianism, and the papacy. His <hl> 1543 <hl> treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) took its place among other anti-Jewish literature of the times, although historians acknowledge that this treatise was particularly extreme, even by the standards of sixteenth century Europe. In it, he takes a hardline against Judaism, writing that synagogues and Jewish homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.

question: When did Luther write an extreme treatise against the Jews?, context: In 1523, Luther wrote that Jesus Christ was born a Jew which discouraged mistreatment of the Jews and advocated their conversion by proving that the Old Testament could be shown to speak of Jesus Christ. However, as the Reformation continued, Luther began to lose hope in large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity. In his later years, Luther grew more hostile toward the Jews, writing against them with the kind of venom he had already unleashed on the Anabaptists, Zwinglianism, and the papacy. His 1543 treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) took its place among other anti-Jewish literature of the times, although historians acknowledge that this treatise was particularly extreme, even by the standards of sixteenth century Europe. In it, he takes a hardline against Judaism, writing that synagogues and Jewish homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.


Question: How did Luther view the Ottoman Turks?

Answer: as a scourge

At the time of the Marburg Colloquy, Suleiman the Magnificent was besieging Vienna with a vast Ottoman army. Luther had argued against resisting the Turks in his 1518 Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, provoking accusations of defeatism. <hl> He saw the Turks as a scourge sent to punish Christians by God, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would destroy the antichrist, whom Luther believed to be the papacy, and the Roman Church. <hl> He consistently rejected the idea of a Holy War, "as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name". On the other hand, in keeping with his doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther did support non-religious war against the Turks. In 1526, he argued in Whether Soldiers can be in a State of Grace that national defence is reason for a just war. By 1529, in On War against the Turk, he was actively urging Emperor Charles V and the German people to fight a secular war against the Turks. He made clear, however, that the spiritual war against an alien faith was separate, to be waged through prayer and repentance. Around the time of the Siege of Vienna, Luther wrote a prayer for national deliverance from the Turks, asking God to "give to our emperor perpetual victory over our enemies".

At the time of the Marburg Colloquy, Suleiman the Magnificent was besieging Vienna with a vast Ottoman army. Luther had argued against resisting the Turks in his 1518 Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, provoking accusations of defeatism. He saw the Turks <hl> as a scourge <hl> sent to punish Christians by God, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would destroy the antichrist, whom Luther believed to be the papacy, and the Roman Church. He consistently rejected the idea of a Holy War, "as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name". On the other hand, in keeping with his doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther did support non-religious war against the Turks. In 1526, he argued in Whether Soldiers can be in a State of Grace that national defence is reason for a just war. By 1529, in On War against the Turk, he was actively urging Emperor Charles V and the German people to fight a secular war against the Turks. He made clear, however, that the spiritual war against an alien faith was separate, to be waged through prayer and repentance. Around the time of the Siege of Vienna, Luther wrote a prayer for national deliverance from the Turks, asking God to "give to our emperor perpetual victory over our enemies".

question: How did Luther view the Ottoman Turks?, context: At the time of the Marburg Colloquy, Suleiman the Magnificent was besieging Vienna with a vast Ottoman army. Luther had argued against resisting the Turks in his 1518 Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, provoking accusations of defeatism. He saw the Turks as a scourge sent to punish Christians by God, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would destroy the antichrist, whom Luther believed to be the papacy, and the Roman Church. He consistently rejected the idea of a Holy War, "as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name". On the other hand, in keeping with his doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther did support non-religious war against the Turks. In 1526, he argued in Whether Soldiers can be in a State of Grace that national defence is reason for a just war. By 1529, in On War against the Turk, he was actively urging Emperor Charles V and the German people to fight a secular war against the Turks. He made clear, however, that the spiritual war against an alien faith was separate, to be waged through prayer and repentance. Around the time of the Siege of Vienna, Luther wrote a prayer for national deliverance from the Turks, asking God to "give to our emperor perpetual victory over our enemies".


Question: What was the purpose of the Turks in Luther's mind?

Answer: to punish Christians

At the time of the Marburg Colloquy, Suleiman the Magnificent was besieging Vienna with a vast Ottoman army. Luther had argued against resisting the Turks in his 1518 Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, provoking accusations of defeatism. <hl> He saw the Turks as a scourge sent to punish Christians by God, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would destroy the antichrist, whom Luther believed to be the papacy, and the Roman Church. <hl> He consistently rejected the idea of a Holy War, "as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name". On the other hand, in keeping with his doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther did support non-religious war against the Turks. In 1526, he argued in Whether Soldiers can be in a State of Grace that national defence is reason for a just war. By 1529, in On War against the Turk, he was actively urging Emperor Charles V and the German people to fight a secular war against the Turks. He made clear, however, that the spiritual war against an alien faith was separate, to be waged through prayer and repentance. Around the time of the Siege of Vienna, Luther wrote a prayer for national deliverance from the Turks, asking God to "give to our emperor perpetual victory over our enemies".

At the time of the Marburg Colloquy, Suleiman the Magnificent was besieging Vienna with a vast Ottoman army. Luther had argued against resisting the Turks in his 1518 Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, provoking accusations of defeatism. He saw the Turks as a scourge sent <hl> to punish Christians <hl> by God, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would destroy the antichrist, whom Luther believed to be the papacy, and the Roman Church. He consistently rejected the idea of a Holy War, "as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name". On the other hand, in keeping with his doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther did support non-religious war against the Turks. In 1526, he argued in Whether Soldiers can be in a State of Grace that national defence is reason for a just war. By 1529, in On War against the Turk, he was actively urging Emperor Charles V and the German people to fight a secular war against the Turks. He made clear, however, that the spiritual war against an alien faith was separate, to be waged through prayer and repentance. Around the time of the Siege of Vienna, Luther wrote a prayer for national deliverance from the Turks, asking God to "give to our emperor perpetual victory over our enemies".

question: What was the purpose of the Turks in Luther's mind?, context: At the time of the Marburg Colloquy, Suleiman the Magnificent was besieging Vienna with a vast Ottoman army. Luther had argued against resisting the Turks in his 1518 Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, provoking accusations of defeatism. He saw the Turks as a scourge sent to punish Christians by God, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would destroy the antichrist, whom Luther believed to be the papacy, and the Roman Church. He consistently rejected the idea of a Holy War, "as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name". On the other hand, in keeping with his doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther did support non-religious war against the Turks. In 1526, he argued in Whether Soldiers can be in a State of Grace that national defence is reason for a just war. By 1529, in On War against the Turk, he was actively urging Emperor Charles V and the German people to fight a secular war against the Turks. He made clear, however, that the spiritual war against an alien faith was separate, to be waged through prayer and repentance. Around the time of the Siege of Vienna, Luther wrote a prayer for national deliverance from the Turks, asking God to "give to our emperor perpetual victory over our enemies".


Question: Since Luther believed that the Turks were sent by God, what was their purpose?

Answer: destroy the antichrist

At the time of the Marburg Colloquy, Suleiman the Magnificent was besieging Vienna with a vast Ottoman army. Luther had argued against resisting the Turks in his 1518 Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, provoking accusations of defeatism. <hl> He saw the Turks as a scourge sent to punish Christians by God, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would destroy the antichrist , whom Luther believed to be the papacy, and the Roman Church. <hl> He consistently rejected the idea of a Holy War, "as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name". On the other hand, in keeping with his doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther did support non-religious war against the Turks. In 1526, he argued in Whether Soldiers can be in a State of Grace that national defence is reason for a just war. By 1529, in On War against the Turk, he was actively urging Emperor Charles V and the German people to fight a secular war against the Turks. He made clear, however, that the spiritual war against an alien faith was separate, to be waged through prayer and repentance. Around the time of the Siege of Vienna, Luther wrote a prayer for national deliverance from the Turks, asking God to "give to our emperor perpetual victory over our enemies".

At the time of the Marburg Colloquy, Suleiman the Magnificent was besieging Vienna with a vast Ottoman army. Luther had argued against resisting the Turks in his 1518 Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, provoking accusations of defeatism. He saw the Turks as a scourge sent to punish Christians by God, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would <hl> destroy the antichrist <hl>, whom Luther believed to be the papacy, and the Roman Church. He consistently rejected the idea of a Holy War, "as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name". On the other hand, in keeping with his doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther did support non-religious war against the Turks. In 1526, he argued in Whether Soldiers can be in a State of Grace that national defence is reason for a just war. By 1529, in On War against the Turk, he was actively urging Emperor Charles V and the German people to fight a secular war against the Turks. He made clear, however, that the spiritual war against an alien faith was separate, to be waged through prayer and repentance. Around the time of the Siege of Vienna, Luther wrote a prayer for national deliverance from the Turks, asking God to "give to our emperor perpetual victory over our enemies".

He saw the Turks as a scourge sent to punish Christians by God, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would <hl> destroy the antichrist <hl> , whom Luther believed to be the papacy, and the Roman Church.

question: Since Luther believed that the Turks were sent by God, what was their purpose?, context: At the time of the Marburg Colloquy, Suleiman the Magnificent was besieging Vienna with a vast Ottoman army. Luther had argued against resisting the Turks in his 1518 Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, provoking accusations of defeatism. He saw the Turks as a scourge sent to punish Christians by God, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would destroy the antichrist, whom Luther believed to be the papacy, and the Roman Church. He consistently rejected the idea of a Holy War, "as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name". On the other hand, in keeping with his doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther did support non-religious war against the Turks. In 1526, he argued in Whether Soldiers can be in a State of Grace that national defence is reason for a just war. By 1529, in On War against the Turk, he was actively urging Emperor Charles V and the German people to fight a secular war against the Turks. He made clear, however, that the spiritual war against an alien faith was separate, to be waged through prayer and repentance. Around the time of the Siege of Vienna, Luther wrote a prayer for national deliverance from the Turks, asking God to "give to our emperor perpetual victory over our enemies".


Question: Who did Luther view to be the Antichrist?

Answer: the papacy

At the time of the Marburg Colloquy, Suleiman the Magnificent was besieging Vienna with a vast Ottoman army. Luther had argued against resisting the Turks in his 1518 Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, provoking accusations of defeatism. <hl> He saw the Turks as a scourge sent to punish Christians by God, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would destroy the antichrist, whom Luther believed to be the papacy , and the Roman Church. <hl> He consistently rejected the idea of a Holy War, "as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name". On the other hand, in keeping with his doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther did support non-religious war against the Turks. In 1526, he argued in Whether Soldiers can be in a State of Grace that national defence is reason for a just war. By 1529, in On War against the Turk, he was actively urging Emperor Charles V and the German people to fight a secular war against the Turks. He made clear, however, that the spiritual war against an alien faith was separate, to be waged through prayer and repentance. Around the time of the Siege of Vienna, Luther wrote a prayer for national deliverance from the Turks, asking God to "give to our emperor perpetual victory over our enemies".

At the time of the Marburg Colloquy, Suleiman the Magnificent was besieging Vienna with a vast Ottoman army. Luther had argued against resisting the Turks in his 1518 Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, provoking accusations of defeatism. He saw the Turks as a scourge sent to punish Christians by God, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would destroy the antichrist, whom Luther believed to be <hl> the papacy <hl>, and the Roman Church. He consistently rejected the idea of a Holy War, "as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name". On the other hand, in keeping with his doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther did support non-religious war against the Turks. In 1526, he argued in Whether Soldiers can be in a State of Grace that national defence is reason for a just war. By 1529, in On War against the Turk, he was actively urging Emperor Charles V and the German people to fight a secular war against the Turks. He made clear, however, that the spiritual war against an alien faith was separate, to be waged through prayer and repentance. Around the time of the Siege of Vienna, Luther wrote a prayer for national deliverance from the Turks, asking God to "give to our emperor perpetual victory over our enemies".

He saw the Turks as a scourge sent to punish Christians by God, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would destroy the antichrist, whom Luther believed to be <hl> the papacy <hl> , and the Roman Church.

question: Who did Luther view to be the Antichrist?, context: At the time of the Marburg Colloquy, Suleiman the Magnificent was besieging Vienna with a vast Ottoman army. Luther had argued against resisting the Turks in his 1518 Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, provoking accusations of defeatism. He saw the Turks as a scourge sent to punish Christians by God, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would destroy the antichrist, whom Luther believed to be the papacy, and the Roman Church. He consistently rejected the idea of a Holy War, "as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name". On the other hand, in keeping with his doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther did support non-religious war against the Turks. In 1526, he argued in Whether Soldiers can be in a State of Grace that national defence is reason for a just war. By 1529, in On War against the Turk, he was actively urging Emperor Charles V and the German people to fight a secular war against the Turks. He made clear, however, that the spiritual war against an alien faith was separate, to be waged through prayer and repentance. Around the time of the Siege of Vienna, Luther wrote a prayer for national deliverance from the Turks, asking God to "give to our emperor perpetual victory over our enemies".