Did Luther claim for himself that infallibility, which he would not allow to the Church of Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dpoc41
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dpoc41

Guest
Mimicking the style of St. Paul he wrote

"I, Martin Luther, by the grace of God, ecclesiastes in Wittenberg, to the popish bishops grace and peace. This title I now assume with the utmost contempt of you and Satan, that you may not plead ignorance. And should I style myself an evangelist by the grace of God, I could sooner prove my claim to this title, than you to that of bishop. For I am certain that Christ himself calls me so, and looks upon me as an ecclesiastes. He is that master of my doctrine. Neither doubt I, but in the great day of accounts he will be my witness, that this doctrine is not mine, but the doctrine of God, of the spirit of the Lord, and of the pure and sincere gospel.

So that should you kill me, ye bloodsuckers, yet you will never extinguish either me, or my name, or my doctrine, unless Christ be not living. Since now I am certain that I teach the word of God, it is not fit I should want a title for the recommending of this word, and work of the ministry, to which I am called by God; which I have not received of men, nor by men, but by the gift of God, and revelation of Jesus Christ—And now I declare beforehand, that for the time to come, I will not honor you so far, as to condescend to submit myself, or my doctrine to your judgment, or to that of an angel from heaven." Tom. 2, fol. 305, 2.
 
Dpoc41 said:
Mimicking the style of St. Paul he wrote

"I, Martin Luther, by the grace of God, ecclesiastes in Wittenberg, to the popish bishops grace and peace. This title I now assume with the utmost contempt of you and Satan, that you may not plead ignorance. And should I style myself an evangelist by the grace of God, I could sooner prove my claim to this title, than you to that of bishop. For I am certain that Christ himself calls me so, and looks upon me as an ecclesiastes. He is that master of my doctrine. Neither doubt I, but in the great day of accounts he will be my witness, that this doctrine is not mine, but the doctrine of God, of the spirit of the Lord, and of the pure and sincere gospel.

So that should you kill me, ye bloodsuckers, yet you will never extinguish either me, or my name, or my doctrine, unless Christ be not living. Since now I am certain that I teach the word of God, it is not fit I should want a title for the recommending of this word, and work of the ministry, to which I am called by God; which I have not received of men, nor by men, but by the gift of God, and revelation of Jesus Christ—And now I declare beforehand, that for the time to come, I will not honor you so far, as to condescend to submit myself, or my doctrine to your judgment, or to that of an angel from heaven." Tom. 2, fol. 305, 2.
Click to expand...
It does seem that way in word and action. This narrative only reinforces what we already know.

Calvin even proclaimed his own authority to interpret scripture and did not appreciate others doing the same.
 
Dpoc41 said:
Mimicking the style of St. Paul he wrote

"I, Martin Luther, by the grace of God, ecclesiastes in Wittenberg, to the popish bishops grace and peace. This title I now assume with the utmost contempt of you and Satan, that you may not plead ignorance. And should I style myself an evangelist by the grace of God, I could sooner prove my claim to this title, than you to that of bishop. For I am certain that Christ himself calls me so, and looks upon me as an ecclesiastes. He is that master of my doctrine. Neither doubt I, but in the great day of accounts he will be my witness, that this doctrine is not mine, but the doctrine of God, of the spirit of the Lord, and of the pure and sincere gospel.

So that should you kill me, ye bloodsuckers, yet you will never extinguish either me, or my name, or my doctrine, unless Christ be not living. Since now I am certain that I teach the word of God, it is not fit I should want a title for the recommending of this word, and work of the ministry, to which I am called by God; which I have not received of men, nor by men, but by the gift of God, and revelation of Jesus Christ—And now I declare beforehand, that for the time to come, I will not honor you so far, as to condescend to submit myself, or my doctrine to your judgment, or to that of an angel from heaven." Tom. 2, fol. 305, 2.
Click to expand...
Anyone who refuses to believe Christ’s TRUTHS, puts themselves up against the Church Jesus founded as Infallible! Seems we think we know better than God!!! God Bless, Memaw
 
Dr. David Anders, host of EWTN’s “Called to Communion” believes that ML was manic-depressive, based on historical records of his radically variable behavior. Phillip Melanchthon himself wrote of ML:
…often when contemplating the wrath of God, as exhibited in striking instances of
His avenging hand, suddenly such terrors have overwhelmed his mind,
as almost to deprive him of consciousness; and I myself have seen him whilst
engaged in some doctrinal discussion, involuntarily affected in this manner,
when he has thrown himself on a bed in an adjoining room, and repeatedly
mingled with his prayers the following passage “God has concluded them all in
unbelief that he might have mercy upon all.” These terrors he experienced
either for the first time, or in the most acute manner, during the year in
which he was deprived of a favorite friend, who lost his life by some accident
of which I am ignorant.
Click to expand...
As well, he used condemning language toward Erasmus, who was trying to help maintain unity in the Church. Erasmus wrote:
We are dealing with this: Would a stable mind depart from the opinion handed down by so many men famous for holiness and miracles, depart from the decisions of the Church, and commit our souls to the faith of someone like you who has sprung up just now with a few followers, although the leading men of your flock do not agree either with you or among themselves – indeed though you do not even agree with yourself, since in this same Assertion[48] you say one thing in the beginning and something else later on, recanting what you said before
Click to expand...
To which ML replied:
In a letter to Nikolaus von Amsdorf, Luther objected to Erasmus’ Catechism and called Erasmus a “viper,” “liar,” and “the very mouth and organ of Satan.”
Click to expand...
If not infallibility, ML was certainly filled with condemnation of those who disagreed with him. I think this is a distinction without a difference.
 
Dpoc41 said:
Mimicking the style of St. Paul he wrote

"I, Martin Luther, by the grace of God, ecclesiastes in Wittenberg, to the popish bishops grace and peace. This title I now assume with the utmost contempt of you and Satan, that you may not plead ignorance. And should I style myself an evangelist by the grace of God, I could sooner prove my claim to this title, than you to that of bishop. For I am certain that Christ himself calls me so, and looks upon me as an ecclesiastes. He is that master of my doctrine. Neither doubt I, but in the great day of accounts he will be my witness, that this doctrine is not mine, but the doctrine of God, of the spirit of the Lord, and of the pure and sincere gospel.

So that should you kill me, ye bloodsuckers, yet you will never extinguish either me, or my name, or my doctrine, unless Christ be not living. Since now I am certain that I teach the word of God, it is not fit I should want a title for the recommending of this word, and work of the ministry, to which I am called by God; which I have not received of men, nor by men, but by the gift of God, and revelation of Jesus Christ—And now I declare beforehand, that for the time to come, I will not honor you so far, as to condescend to submit myself, or my doctrine to your judgment, or to that of an angel from heaven." Tom. 2, fol. 305, 2.
Click to expand...
The short answer is no, he didn’t, because he didn’t claim infallibility by virtue of an office. He did claim to have the right and duty to teach publicly by virtue of his office as a Doctor of Theology, but he didn’t claim infallibility on that basis, obviously.

Still, you’re on to something. The Reformers–Calvin as well–were very confident that they were interpreting Scripture rightly and thus that their ideas were the Word of God. And so, in a way, they did claim a different sort of “infallibility.” Luther and Calvin were perhaps the boldest about this (in rather different ways), and that may be one reason why they have emerged as the two big names (also because they were probably the best writers in the movement).

Edwin
 
po18guy said:
Dr. David Anders, host of EWTN’s “Called to Communion” believes that ML was manic-depressive, based on historical records of his radically variable behavior.
Click to expand...
Gee, what will future historians think of us for our writings? One minute posting a cat, the next minute re-posting some venomous diatribe against a political candidate. What manic-depressive people we all were! Especially online! Look, this is silly. Luther wrote more than perhaps anybody in history up to that point, and his writings and thoughts were shared by many thanks to movable type, and collected by even more (partly thanks to the ingrained concept of “relics” inherited from Roman Catholicism). But for some mere historian (not even a trained psychologist!) to look back 500 and make a medical diagnosis? Utterly stupid, at best. Slanderous, at worst.
po18guy said:
As well, he used condemning language toward Erasmus, who was trying to help maintain unity in the Church.
Click to expand...
Shall we quote Erasmus words toward Luther, too? Perhaps Cochleaus’s …ahem, colorful language to describe Luther’s mother and parentage? Would that ‘condemnation’ of Luther also render Cochleaus’s Catholic Church false? This sort of case is just gross ad hominem.
po18guy said:
If not infallibility, ML was certainly filled with condemnation of those who disagreed with him. I think this is a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...
Disagreement, even in its most basest forms, is not a claim for infallibility. Luther never claimed any infallibility. That wouldn’t be claimed by much of anyone until 1870.
 
Contarini said:
The short answer is no, he didn’t, because he didn’t claim infallibility by virtue of an office. He did claim to have the right and duty to teach publicly by virtue of his office as a Doctor of Theology, but he didn’t claim infallibility on that basis, obviously.

Still, you’re on to something. The Reformers–Calvin as well–were very confident that they were interpreting Scripture rightly and thus that their ideas were the Word of God. And so, in a way, they did claim a different sort of “infallibility.” Luther and Calvin were perhaps the boldest about this (in rather different ways), and that may be one reason why they have emerged as the two big names (also because they were probably the best writers in the movement).

Edwin
Click to expand...
I would agree. Luther pointed out that the Church was wrong, but was much less open to seeing things that he might have been wrong about. And most of that is just human nature; we are all hypocrites in one form or another.

But saying so wouldn’t by necessity invalidate Luther’s critique.
 
I’m not going to defend Luther’s personality.

One thing I would say is that it appears the original quote in this thread was extracted from a much longer letter written by Luther. The entire letter (found in Luther’s Works 39:248-249) contains somewhat polemic language, but reading it in its entirety gives a little different view IMO. I would provide a link but am unsure of this site’s policy about that.

The German in the quote on this thread is translated in somewhat stronger language than the English translation in Luther’s Works, such as the first sentence from LW:

“Martin Luther, ecclesiastic in Wittenberg by the grace of God: To the papal bishops * my service and self-understanding in Christ.”

Now, the language in other places is still defiant, I’ll grant. But it would be better to give the full quote.

Blessings,

Mike*
 
DaddyGirl said:
Where does this quote/writing come from?

If these are his words, it doesn’t sound like he’s claiming “infallibility” for himself with them.

.
Click to expand...
Where is the infallibility claim?
Am I missing something?
 
alwayswill said:
Where is the infallibility claim?
Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
There was no infallibility claim. Infallibility in regards to a flesh and blood human being who’s not Jesus Christ simply doesn’t exist in the Protestant paradigm.
 
He did not have to claim infallibility because an infallible teaching does not state it is an infallible teaching.

More importantly was what he did with his teaching, which was enough for him to break off from the Church that he was a part of. That in itself speaks pretty much of its infallibly on his part.

For those who do not have the word infallibility in their usage, it is just the same as about being confidently right. Otherwise without that, which is pretty much in saying infaiblility anyway, then all that has been done in the last five hundred years is just based on gut feeling that might be wrong.

I think it is perfectly alright for ML to claim infallibility in his teaching or a close equivalent of it. I could not imagine one would give one’s life for something much less. But of course, there’s people that do just that.
 
Reuben_J said:
He did not have to claim infallibility because an infallible teaching does not state it is an infallible teaching.

More importantly was what he did with his teaching, which was enough for him to break off from the Church that he was a part of. That in itself speaks pretty much of its infallibly on his part.

For those who do not have the word infallibility in their usage, it is just the same as about being confidently right. Otherwise without that, which is pretty much in saying infaiblility anyway, then all that has been done in the last five hundred years is just based on gut feeling that might be wrong.

I think it is perfectly alright for ML to claim infallibility in his teaching or a close equivalent of it. I could not imagine one would give one’s life for something much less. But of course, there’s people that do just that.
Click to expand...
stop the press:
infallibility does not mean " it is just the same as about being confidently right"

Infallibility means “to be incapable of error”
 
alwayswill said:
not sure what was funny:???

Do you disagree that infallible means to be incapable of error?
Do you really think M.L. thought he was incapable of error
Click to expand...
The denial is kind of funny to me in the context of my post. It may scandalize you to hear that so I will not pursue this. To us there are hundreds, if not more, popes out there with their own infallible teachings except that they do not use such title or word. Too Catholic.

It is of course your choice to follow uninfallible teachings, I mean his followers, not you necessarily.
 
Reuben_J said:
The denial is kind of funny to me in the context of my post. It may scandalize you to hear that so I will not pursue this. To us there are hundreds, if not more, popes out there with their own infallible teachings except that they do not use such title or word. Too Catholic.
Click to expand...
I have no idea why you think the “Protestant popes” think they are infallible (incapable of error).

After decades of study and teaching Reformed Theology, I have never heard of such a thing.
Do you know what a strawman argument is?
It is of course your choice to follow uninfallible teachings, I mean his followers, not you necessarily.
Click to expand...
I follow the infallible (incapable of error) and inerrant (contains no error) teachings of Scripture (graphe theopneustos: God breathed writings)
 
alwayswill said:
I have no idea why you think the “Protestant popes” think they are infallible (incapable of error).

After decades of study and teaching Reformed Theology, I have never heard of such a thing.
Do you know what a strawman argument is?

I follow the infallible (incapable of error) and inerrant (contains no error) teachings of Scripture (graphe theopneustos: God breathed writings)
Click to expand...
Not a straw man at all.

I have encountered many protestants who are OVERLY-confident in their own ability to correctly interpret the bible. Dare I say, yes, I do think some honestly think they can not fall into error because they think the Spirit is guiding their every move, page by page. And when you point out to them a different perspective, they typically appeal to emotion and then remind you they are guided by the Holy Spirit.

So in that sense, yes, many protestant Popes exist today. Does not mean they will not at some point, humble themselves enough to see differently later on in life, though…

And let me just close by saying that would not include like 99% of the protestants in this forum. The ones found here seem humble and inquisitive and open to possible correction.
 
alwayswill said:
I follow the infallible (incapable of error) and inerrant (contains no error) teachings of Scripture (graphe theopneustos: God breathed writings)
Click to expand...
You should try to understand that a Catholic looks at this statement, and concludes that you claim to “know without error” the interpretation of Scripture and it’s absolute intention as a whole.

Most all Christians, especially us Catholics, believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture. We believe we are faithful to God, when we are faithful to Scripture.

The matter, then, becomes the confidence we have in the correct interpretation of the morals and faith expressed in Scripture. We call the magisterial judgment of the Church our ultimate confidence on earth. Therefore, we say with confidence that her interpretation is Infallible (or is able to pronounce an infallible decree, so long as it is done within the law).

Understanding this concept, and all things pertaining to the faith, requires the Holy Spirit as guide and counselor. It is the Spirit that urges us to have confidence in the Church Decree.

Yet, it is not a simple task to discern Church Teaching (official Decree) many times. You could imagine this, if you participate in Catholic discussions 😉 So, we all need the Holy Spirit to counsel and guide our minds.
 
rcwitness said:
You should try to understand that a Catholic looks at this statement, and concludes that you claim to “know without error” the interpretation of Scripture and it’s absolute intention as a whole.

…
.
Click to expand...
Well I can’t change the way others think.
But I wish Catholics would know that most Holy Spirit filled, Sola Scriptura practicing Christians
consider infallibility as a Divine-only attribute.
 
alwayswill said:
Well I can’t change the way others think.
But I wish Catholics would know that most Holy Spirit filled, Sola Scriptura practicing Christians
consider infallibility as a Divine-only attribute.
Click to expand...
Ummm… we do…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top