Hi Mary,
Topper,
I’d say on the faculty of Harvard Divinity School is “currently active” status in regard to current professional endeavors.
Yes, and in fact, Edwards is very much at the top of his profession, and as such his opinions SHOULD matter here. As you have noticed, what we do not see here are any comments about what Edwards has actually said. At least though, nobody can question Edwards’s credentials of his affiliation as a true Lutheran.
“Just move along there. Nothing to see here.”
Instead what we see is people trying to take the focus OFF Luther, who by the way is the subject of the thread (in case anybody has forgotten that fact)
At this point, I am reminded of Ben Affleckism, which of course is the newly founded, politically correct ‘right to have your beliefs NOT be challenged.’ What blows my mind is that here on a Catholic Apologetics forum site, it seems to be ‘impermissible’ to quote a noted Lutheran Scholar making honest comments about Luther. It makes one wonder if it is ‘permissible’ to discuss Luther at all, other than comments which ‘stay positive’ of course. Also of interest, who is it that ‘decides’ whether something is acceptable or not? Its it popular opinion or only the loudest opinion.
A year ago I never would have believed that quoting a noted Lutheran expert who is making an honest assessment of Luther, would draw such uncharitable remarks and be characterized as being ‘uncharitable’. Amazingly though it is somehow acceptable to describe the Pope being the antichrist as being ‘only historically conditional’ while still admitting that he still is. This truly is a ‘through the looking glass’ experience.
That being said, Edwards continues on is his describing Luther’s ‘special authority’, which is by the way another subject that will NOT be addressed:
“His claim to a special role was made when he was challenged by other evangelicals. ** It was at this point, perhaps because conventional arguments were not persuasive enough for those evangelicals
who did not understand the disagreement that Luther resorted to a claim of personal authority**.” Edwards, “Luther and the False Brethren”, pg. 200
There is of course the possibility that the reason that other evangelicals were not in agreement with Luther is because his arguments were NOT compelling.
**
It was with the intention of testing his evangelical opponents that Luther had defined the characteristics of the true prophet.** At that time (meaning early in his ‘reforming career’), he had not applied the term to himself, although many of his followers had maintained long before that he was no ordinary man.** Gradually, however, he came to see himself as occupying in his time a rule occupied by the true prophets and apostles in biblical times. ****He possessed the proper characteristics as he had defined them, and he had consistently acted as a prophet was supposed to.**
By the 1530’s he was drawing parallels between St. Paul’s experiences and his own, and using these parallels to justify his actions……
Almost** from the first encounter with his evangelical opponents Luther accused them of being false brethren, much like the false prophets and apostles in the biblical accounts. He charged that they were all possessed by Satan’s spirit and were bent on destroying **the true church…….
**If they resisted Luther’s admonitions and his arguments, he said that they thereby demonstrated their satanic perversity, obduracy, and vanity. If, on the other hand, they requested a concord or expressed a willingness to be instructed if they had erred, Luther said that they thereby showed their uncertainty. This proved that they could not possess the Holy Spirit, which bestowed certainty of faith. This proved that they could not possess the Holy Spirit, which bestowed certainty of faith. If they appeared to yield to any of his arguments or to abandon a previous position (even a position that only some of them had espoused), Luther saw this as a tacit admission that all their beliefs were false, for the Holy Spirit did not allow true believers to err in any manner of faith. Lacking the Holy Spirit, they were of necessity slaves of Satan, all their avowals of Christian belief were a sham, and all evidence to the contrary could be dismissed as deception and works-righteousness.” **Edwards, “Luther and the False Brethren”, pg. 200-201
It should be noted that it was from this ‘theological foundation’ that was born Sola Scriptura. How could it NOT have led to doctrinal dissension and disunity? People emulated Luther’s revolt in their challenge against, among other things – him.
Honestly Mary, I am truly alarmed and fear for the future of the Church that Christ established for us ALL. Do you know the term ‘The Church of Nice’?
God Bless You Mary, Topper
) the “real Luther” by constantly using Lutheran writers. Clever, we Lutherans, surreptitiously hiding “the real Luther” in plain sight by writing about his flaws for all to read.
