Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Stilldreamn]

Freak out, but bon’t freak out too much - Lutherans reject (our opinion) the modern additions to the Bishop of Rome - welding the two swords, universal jurisdiction, papal infallibility - to be against Christ.

That said, only a hard-hearted Lutheran would fail to love many people who have been Pope. I especially love the last three.

Knowing full well of the Lutheran troubles with the papacy - Pope Benedict XVI gave us LC-MS Lutherans an especially kind greeting and we received it in love.

All is not lost.

Maybe we need a thread to discuss the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms (two swords) because I don’t think that is well understood outside of our Lutheran fortress

And put it in the context of the times in which it was brought forth. Lutherans are extremely sensitive to separation of church and state, which can make for some strange bedfellows.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Thor,

Thanks for your response.

Already by 1519 Luther was starting to question papal authority and in a letter to Spalatin on 7 February 1519 he spoke of “the Roman tyranny.” In that letter he stated:
I can’t imagine any compromise on this issue of papal authority that could have satisfied both sides and averted the split. Calvin also had a lot of critical things to say about the papacy.

First of all, I very much appreciate your willingness to engage on this matter. Personally, I agree that it is hard to imagine how the Catholic Church could have possibly have compromised with Luther such that it would have ended his doctrinal challenges. He actually suggested, as we have seen, that the Pope depose himself so that he could help Luther ‘reform’ the Church.

In my view, if Luther had wanted to ‘reform’ the Church, and wanted to be considered an actual ‘reformer’, then he should not have left it. While he was right to rebuke the Church for abuses in matters of practice that were being committed, it didn’t take him long at all to ‘transform’ his efforts into an assault on Christian doctrine. Plenty of people complained about the abuses and DID NOT lead a doctrinal revolt. In fact, before he was officially excommunicated from the Church, he had refuted more than 4 dozen important doctrines of the Church. Luther was not a ‘reformer’. In fact, it was just a few months after his 95 Theses that he had already decided that he was going to fight the Church tooth and nail.

Professor Warren H. Carroll comments:

“Some time during the** early spring of 1518 **Luther had received a letter from his former professor of philosophy at the University of Erfurt, Jodocus Trutfetter, a man whom he deeply respected and who had expected great service to the Church from so able a mind and so strong a personality as Luther. Now Professor Trutfetter solemnly warned his former student against the path he was taking, urging him to turn back before it was too late. On May 9 **Luther replied: ‘To speak plainly, my firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as the at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted.’ Such uprooting, he said, had now become his fixed purpose, **‘a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of the greatest weight for me, much less than that of any others, can turn me aside.’ Martin Luther, (Carrol quoting Fife, ‘Revolt of Martin Luther’, pg. 267)

“This is one of the most important of the thousands of letters Luther wrote in his long, full lifetime. It reveals that as early as May 1518 he was essentially committed to the destruction of the Church as he knew it, though he had not yet proceeded to total public defiance of all Church authority. It shows his revolutionary temper, his purpose to ‘uproot’ rather than simply to reform, which is the goal of every revolutionary. It provides our first evidence that the upheaval to come was rightly to be called a revolt or a revolution, not a ‘reformation’. It also shows Luther in the act of coldly and deliberately breaking a bond whose quality and strength only the dedicated teacher and his former student know: the love and loyalty that emanate from their memories of each other.” Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christenedom”, pg. 7-8

Carroll quote to be continued….

 

[Topper17]

Carroll continued:

"Luther wrote this letter just before completing his defense in Latin of his position on indulgences. He sent a copy to the Pope with a cover letter, later printed with is as a preface. In the preface he says that he ‘cannot recant’ from his position on indulgences, yet still insists on his willingness to listen to Leo X ‘as the ‘Voice of Christ’, who presides in him and speaks through him…….enliven me, kill me, call me back, confirm me, reject me, just as it pleases you’……despite the fact that in **the text itself, sent with this letter, he had flatly and insultingly declared: ‘I do not care what pleases or displeases the Pope. **He is just a man like other men. There have been many Popes inclined to errors, vices, and even very strange things.’

………In early July Luther was summoned to appear at Rome for trial within sixty days. He responded with his characteristic defiance, declaring that he would not accept excommunication if the Church decreed it for him. On July 25 he reiterated that defiance, along with references to ‘eternal predestination,’ in another sermon before Duke George of Saxony and his court. Shouting matches broke out afterward between Luther and professors defending scholastic theology. Undoubtedly the entire academic brawl deepened Duke George’s concern about the damage Luther was already doing and much greater damage he was capable of doing.” William H. Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom’, pg. 7-8

In this early 1518 letter to the pope, a year before the 7 day long Leipzig Debate with Eck, and 5 months before his ‘interview’ with Cardinal Cajetan, and a full 2 and a half years before he was excommunicated, Luther stated that he wanted to uproot the ‘ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they at present exist’. To uproot all of these things would be to destroy the Church, which was exactly what Luther had in mind. This mid 1518 letter reveals Luther’s real intentions, which was not ‘reform’, but destruction of the Church.

More importantly, this early letter (among others) proves that Luther’s very early intent was NOT the ‘reform’ of the Church but it’s destruction. Given that Luther actually was able to achieve the destruction of Western Christian unity, which was his early stated goal, it seems obvious that he would NOT have altered his course had he been able to foresee the results of his Revolt. After all, the ‘results’ that he ended up achieving were exactly what he told Trutfetter his goals were.

All that being said Thor, I think we all agree that Luther was correct to chastise the Church for the abuses that were being practiced. But do you think that he was correct to challenge/deny SO MANY established Christian doctrines?

God Bless You Thor, Topper

 

[eonporter]

Sounds like you are in full agreement with this:

A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod
Adopted 1932 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.)

1. As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) **Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” **(Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

Source: lcms.org/doctrine/doctrinalposition#antichrist

Reading this made me profoundly sad. It really did.

As a catholic, my sense of identity revolves entirely around Jesus and his teachings, and of course, his church, which I believe was catholic since the beginning. So in order to justify my own existence as a christian, I do not have to portrait other churches negatively, nor I have the necessity to prove that an specific leader of person (or office) represents the devil on earth or anything like that. In order to explain the existence of my church to any person, I do not have to mention anything except scripture and point out to Jesus, which ultimately is our founder.

Of course, to a protestant this is absolutely impossible, and the piece of text above is just one more evidence that many (if not all) protestant churches construct their own sense of identity around the idea that they are not catholics whereas everything else seems to come second, in terms of what is acceptable regarding christian doctrine.

I have seen it happen many times: “Are you a christian? That is so nice… which church do you belong to?” And as soon as you say “catholic” you immediately realize that person would rather prefer that you belonged to any church, even one that he/she knows nothing about, as long as it is protestant.

This is plain sad, and there are no words to describe the evil contained in such hatred and division among christians that should be brothers and love each other.

So I am pretty sure that not only Luther would have done differently in the past - if he knew that today the only thing that really unites all the people who followed him is the complete rejection of the catholic church and pretty much nothing else - but I also believe that the Catholic Chuch would have tried different things to repair the damage that they themselves provoked in the first place, by abusing their authority at that time.

There is nothing to do nowadays except praying for unity and make an extra effort to love ALL christians regardless of their denomination. The fact that many christian today have no way to explain their own existence unless they refer negatively to another church just adds insult to the injury that the schism represents in our common history.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response.

Good point Topper. The Church does not “negotiate” doctrine. The Church had no alternative but to excommunicate Luther and hope he repented.

First of all, as we learned in my last post, more than 2 years before his actual excommunication, Luther declared that he “would not accept excommunication if the Church decreed it for him.”

Rather than consider the possibility that the Church was right and he was wrong, even at this early date, he believed that HE had more authority than the WHOLE Church.

This attitude was reflected in later writings.

The Book of Concord, The Confession of the Lutheran Church,

The Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article XII. Of the Church.

**1] We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and [in truth] they are not [the Church]; **nor will we listen to those things which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid. 2] For, thank God, [to-day] a child seven years old knows what the Church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd. For the children pray thus: I believe in one holy [catholic or] Christian Church. 3] This holiness does not consist in albs, tonsures, long gowns, and other of their ceremonies devised by them beyond Holy Scripture, but in the Word of God and true faith."

Here we learn Mary, that it is the official position of the Lutheran church that WE, the Catholic Church, are NOT the Church. Maybe here I should comment on ‘source and intent’.

The ‘source’ of this sentiment is of course Martin Luther, who wrote the Smalcald Articles in 1537.

Nothing Luther ever wrote was ‘isolated’.

“However, so that we may not completely waste our time with Harry’s devilish dirt, but may offer the reader something better and more useful—though not for the sake of Harry or those who incite him, for they are “self-condemned; they have ears, but hear not”—we will come to the point at issue, namely, why **the papists, through their Harry, call us heretics. And the point is that they allege that we have fallen away from the holy church and set up a new church. This then is the answer: since they themselves boast that they are the church, it is for them to prove that they are. If they can prove it with a single reason (I don’t ask for more), then we shall give ourselves up as prisoners, **willingly saying, “We have sinned, have mercy upon us.” But if they cannot prove it, they must confess (whether they like it or not) that they are not the church and that we cannot be heretics since we have fallen away from what is not the true church. Indeed, since there is nothing in-between, we must be the church of Christ and they the devil’s church, or vice versa. Therefore it all turns on proving which is the true church.” Against Hanswurst, Luther Works, Vol. 41, p 193, (c) Fortress Press

This is an amazing bit of ‘logic’. After 1500 years of representing Christ on Earth, the Catholic Church must PROVE to Martin Luther, a young Professor at Europe’s least distinguished university, that THEY are the Church. If the Church does not prove that to Luther (to Luther’s satisfaction of course), then they are NOT the Church, and HE is.

Being the new kid on the block, the guy trying to supplant recognized authority, why didn’t HE have the burden of proof on his shoulders rather than vice versa. Isn’t that the way it works normally, the new and radical have to do the ‘proving’.

I think that everyone here can see this for what it is.

That being said, I do agree with Luther on one point. Either the Catholic Church or the Lutheran church is the ‘true Church’, (as Luther argues) with regards to the authority to Teach (correctly). It is NOT POSSIBLE that they both can both be, because they teach so differently on so many issues. There is of course the possibility that NEITHER is correctly representing the Teachings of Christ, but if people have to choose, JUST ONE, of the two, meaning one over the other, it would seem that the choice is pretty clear.

The fact is that Luther’s teachings, and his Revolt, forced people, then, to make that choice, and today, people have tens of thousands of ‘choices’ as a result of Luther’s teachings.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Thorolfr]

There is of course the possibility that NEITHER is correctly representing the Teachings of Christ, but if people have to choose, JUST ONE, of the two, meaning one over the other, it would seem that the choice is pretty clear.

You’re right, it is pretty clear, the Lutheran one

 

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

That said, only a hard-hearted Lutheran would fail to love many people who have been Pope. I especially love the last three.

I think that it is very kind of you to express such love for our three latest anti-Christs, especially since they teach such lies. It’s very open minded of you. :tiphat:

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[Thorolfr]

Hi ben,

I think that it is very kind of you to express such love for our three latest anti-Christs, especially since they teach such lies. It’s very open minded of you. :tiphat:

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[JonNC]

I think that it is very kind of you to express such love for our three latest anti-Christs, especially since they teach such lies. It’s very open minded of you. :tiphat:

God Bless You ben, Topper

Hi Topper,
It seems you care very much what Lutherans and Lutheranisms says and teaches.

Why is this the case, Topper? Why would you care so what we believe teach and confess when we are under the anathemas of Trent, and the condemnation to Hell under* Unam sanctam *, simply and only because we are subject to the Roman Pontiff?

From New Advent:

"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).

The Bull is universal in character. As its content shows, a careful distinction is made between the fundamental principles concerning the Roman primacy and the declarations as to the application of these to the secular power and its representatives. In the registers, on the margin of the text of the record, the last sentence is noted as its real definition: “Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis” (It is here stated that for salvation it is necessary that every human creature be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff). This definition, the meaning and importance of which are clearly evident from the connection with the first part on the necessity of the one Church for salvation, and on the pope as the one supreme head of the Church, expresses the necessity for everyone who wishes to attain salvation of belonging to the Church, and therefore of being subject to the authority of the pope in all religious matters.

all highlighting is mine

Clearly here, unam sanctam teaches that billions of Orthodox Christians and protestant Christains are in Hell, regardless of grace, regardless of faith, regardless of baptism, simply because they were not in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Therefore, even if Ben and I believed that the last three popes were antichrists (which we don’t, since that’s not what our communion teaches, as you already know), what difference would it make in the long run since your communion has already condemned us eternally?

Or,

Please show me where I am wrong about unam sanctam using your own standard, that being that you must show it from unam sanctam only.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

It might seem to me it’s a two way street that persons are interested in what another religion is teaching and professing especially regarding their own Faith. Thus we have this site, Catholic Answers forums with a non Catholic religions section.

Forum rules dictate you stick to the topic and not the poster.

Mary.

 

[Topper17]

Hi hn,

Thanks for your response.

Take time to read the Lutheran Confession, you will see specifics where the Church went astray as they are too numerous to list. I am sorry the Luther burnt the Papal Bull, it would have been nice to have it framed.

Actually I have taken the time to read a great deal of your Confessions, enough to see how anti-Catholic they are.

It is interesting to think about the Papal Bull being on display somewhere with a few singe marks on it. I wonder - where do you think it would be displayed and with what degree of ‘Reverence’. Do you think it would be the equivalent of a Catholic Holy Relic? Would Lutherans be making the sign of the cross before it or something?

Yes, but it is the Office of the Papacy not the person.

OK – I have asked here many times with no response so far. Where does your Confession use the term ‘office’ in reference to the Papacy and the AntiChrist? I would suggest that it DOES NOT use that term. I would also the idea of the ‘office of the papacy’ WAS actually known in the 16th century, and YET, that word ‘office’ was not used in your Confessions. It was very much more ‘personalized’. It seems to me that this whole idea of the ‘office’ being the antiChrist is much more of a 20th century construct by the more ecumenically minded.

If you can point me to a part of the Confessional text which speaks specifically of the ‘office’ as being the Antichrist, please do so.

As for that matter, which are we Catholics supposed to find the ‘less offensive’, the idea that the Pope is personally the antichrist, or the idea that a man BECOMES the Antichrist by becoming pope, or that it is simply the highest office of my Church which is the Antichrist. Quite frankly, I think that they are ALL super offensive.

Please don’t misunderstand. I very much appreciate the ecumenical mindset of many of the people here, but that mindset does not change the text of the Confession and give it a meaning that it did not have when it was written. The meaning that it had when it was written is being fleshed out by use of other writings of the same era.

God Bless You hn, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper: You made a great point. The real question that I see is that while Luther always claimed he was willing to be disproved from Scripture, at the same time Luther states his authority, teachings, theologies and personal interpretations of Scripture was not to be questioned This sounds to me to be a bit of double talk, since how does one disprove Luther yet not be able to question him? It seems to me that Luther was only willing if all interpretations of Scripture conformed to his own personal interpretations of Scripture.

  It appears that it did not matter how many times Luther was warned, as he had already made his mind up that he was correct and everyone else was wrong. Luther it also seems not to be able to see past own thinking except to see any differing opinions as personal attacks on himself. Any refusal on the part of the CC was also seen as personal attacks on himself as well as on his authority, teachings, theologies and personal Scriptural interpretations.

 To Luther it became either one was with him or against him; there was no middle ground. Luther it seems to have refused to see that what he was doing was to create chaos confusion and misunderstandings of Scripture and who had authority to interpret it. It did not take long before others decided that if Luther could give himself authority to interpret Scripture so to could they interpret Scripture in whatever manor they themselves deemed correct. Its rather doubtful that if Luther were living in our day and age that he would have changed his mind, and only would have gone on with his vicious and violent attacks whether it be the CC or any Christian denomination that did not accept what he taught.

As you mentioned, with Luther, you either agreed with him or you were wrong. It wasn’t really a matter of opinion. Luther didn’t have opinions really. His beliefs were FACTS. He allowed for NO dissenting beliefs.

There are a LOT of really bizarre statements of Luther regarding his ‘authority’ to teach (everybody).

“Again, we never said that the body and blood of Christ are a matter of indifference or do not confer salvation, but we have said that they must be preached by the Word as the true food of the soul….In a word, either they or we must be ministers of Satan. There is no room here for negotiation or mediation. …The arguments which they advance are worthless. I am sorry that Zwingli and the rest are offended because** I said, “What I say must be true**.” They show that their minds are poisoned against me. Why do they boast of their experience of faith?..**We are certain that they are in error; let them see to it how certain they are that they are not in error.” **Preserved Smith, “Luther’s Correspondence and other Contemporary Letters, Vol II, 713. Luther to Gregory Casel, Enders, v, 263. (Wittenberg, November 5, 1525.)

This is basically the same approach that Luther took towards the Catholic Church. On what basis did he make these astounding claims to authority?

For the record, there are dozens of dozens of statements like this. What are we supposed to think about them? They do though add credence to your comment that you were either for Luther or you were against him. The problem though is that by the time he was done, there were FAR more people who were against him that there were for him, and much of that had to do with his ‘style’. He was not exactly all about ‘staying positive’ in his confrontations with others.

Coincidently, today I had a good friend in my office extolling the virtues of the ‘church plant’. He has participated in two of them, and while he understands my position, he is very willing to tell me how wonderful the process is. He is also though much more interested in ‘community’ than he is Christian doctrine.

So anyway, a little while later I’m reading the Wall Street Journal and find the following:

“Gathering the Faithful, No Church Required”

“**Church construction in the U.S. has fallen 80% since 2002, **now at its lowest level since record-keeping began in 1967, according to reporting in this newspaper. ** The $3.15 billion in spending on religious buildings is half the level of a decade ago. **Several factors are contributing to the declines, including post-recession financial challenges – religious giving has never returned to its 2007 peak – **and the waning of religious affiliation. **

Yet even as church construction ebbs, church congregations are sprouting more rapidly than ever – about 4000 annually, according to estimates by the nonprofit Leadership Network’s Warren Bird. LifeWay Research, estimates that growth has doubled or tripled in two decades. Most of these congregations are renting facilities from schools, community centers or other churches. ……

**Much of the recent growth has been driven by individual churches deciding to start new congregations, rather than denominations directing the process.” **WSJ, Friday 16, 2015

This supports one of my positions, that non-denominational churches are rapidly replacing the so called “mainline” denominations. With that shift comes a lesser importance of doctrine. This is more evidence of the slide down the continuum from Catholicism on the one end, to atheism on the other. The two general steps in between are, Mainline Protestantism and the non-denominational Bible church. The last step (societally) is atheism or disbelief, which is the unfortunate and ultimate long term end result of Protestantism.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[JonNC]

It is interesting to think about the Papal Bull being on display somewhere with a few singe marks on it. I wonder - where do you think it would be displayed and with what degree of ‘Reverence’. Do you think it would be the equivalent of a Catholic Holy Relic? Would Lutherans be making the sign of the cross before it or something?

I’ve been a CAF member for some time, intentionally avoiding many non-catholic forums. This is probably the most disappointing post I have ever seen here from a Catholic.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, but it is the Office of the Papacy not the person.

So, anyone who holds that office is the anti-Christ?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Thor,

Thanks for your response.

You’re right, it is pretty clear, the Lutheran one

I’m really happy that we agree that it is “pretty clear” as to ‘which’ it is.

I guess we are 50% in agreement.

God Bless You Thor, Topper

 

[JonNC]

So, anyone who holds that office is the anti-Christ?

If hn160 answers “yes” to your question, his view would be inconsistent with the teaching of our synod.

Jon.

 

[MaryT777]

I’ve been a CAF member for some time, intentionally avoiding many non-catholic forums. This is probably the most disappointing post I have ever seen here from a Catholic.

Jon

It seems to me with posts like this it’s always the “other poster” and never oneself that
posts a “disappointing post.”

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

It seems to me with posts like this it’s always the “other poster” and never oneself that
posts a “disappointing post.”

Mary.

Mary,
If you can find where I’ve made such a comment about Catholic worship, or Catholic piety and devotion, by all means I will accept that criticism.

I have had my share of “disappointing posts”, to be sure. I am not a perfect person, nor do I play one on the internet, but I think, over the years, I have represented my communion with respect and charity. If you and others no longer believe that to be the case, well then perhaps I have worn out my welcome, a welcome that used to be rather warm for us grumpy Lutherans.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Mary,
If you can find where I’ve made such a comment about Catholic worship, or Catholic piety and devotion, by all means I will accept that criticism.

I have had my share of “disappointing posts”, to be sure. I am not a perfect person, nor do I play one on the internet, but I think, over the years, I have represented my communion with respect and charity. If you and others no longer believe that to be the case, well then perhaps I have worn out my welcome, a welcome that used to be rather warm for us grumpy Lutherans.

Jon

It’s simply best to stick to the topic and not how disappointing a post is, why someone is so interested in a Faith, my thoughts on your intentions of your post etc etc etc…

I have always enjoyed reading your posts.

Mary

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

It also appears that the debates Luther engaged in were merely a stage to promote his theology, teachings and personal interpretations of Scripture as well as his authority to do so. In these debates Luther was not willing to concede any other Scriptural interpretation except his own, nor was he willing to concede to the CC’ authority and discipline. When the CC refused to allow Luther to mold the CC into what Luther envisioned to concede its authority to Luther, Luther’s attacks against the CC grew more and more violent and vicious.

I agree. Luther was never willing to allow for Scriptural interpretations that varied from his own. If he had had sufficient wisdom, he certainly would have realized that once Sola Scriptura was unleashed on Western Christendom, the only outcome possible was doctrinal dissension. It seems impossible that Luther could not have realized this.

In fact, he understood it perfectly, but apparently – he forgot. Richard Marius explains:

“The risks involved in paying careful heed to the Scriptures, in finding the thin line between using and abusing [the Scriptures], were described unmistakably by Luther in a sermon he preached in 1515 on the anniversary of his baptism:

‘Whoever wants to read the Bible must make sure he is not wrong, for the Scriptures can easily be stretched and guided, but no one should guide them according to his own emotions; he should lead them to the well, that is to the cross of Christ, then he will certainly be right and cannot fail.” Marius, pg. 173

If Luther, in rebuking and rejecting more than 4 dozen important Christian teachings before he was finally excommunicated, wasn’t he really just ‘stretching and guiding’ the Scriptures?

“In a curious paradox, this letter revealed some of Luther’s weaknesses against the storm of Catholic attack rising against him. He himself would be regularly accused of claiming private revelation against the tradition of the church for centuries. Once upon a time, he said, anyone who claimed private revelation, had it certified by someone else. When the child Samuel heard the voice of God calling him, Eli the priest testified that it was so. Luther placed himself in this line so that the truly Godly men of his own time would affirm his divine call. But as Catholic were to point out time and again, this attitude begged the question. These ancient prophets of the Hebrew Bible also had their prophetic mission validated by ‘signs’, (signa). ‘Signs’ are used in the biblical text, especially in the fourth Gospel, denotes miracles, and Luther could claim no miracles to confirm his divine mission. Even Erasmus would throw this barb at him. Perhaps the constancy of these attacks moved Luther to the opinion that the word of God came to the church through its appointed ministers, those able to interpret with their own voices the Word for their time.** As Heiko Oberman has observed, Luther never grounded his own authority either in special revelation or in deep mystical experience.** He claimed only to be an expositor of Scripture. Yet his reading of Scripture at this time involved tortured and allegorical interpretations, and his reasoning had a circular quality that foes were quick to point out and ridicule.” Marius, pg. 324

If Luther’s only claim to authority was as an ‘expositor of Scripture’, then what was it about his ‘qualifications’ that allowed him to refute OTHER ‘expositors’, people with at least as good an education as he had?

As we know, Luther wrote dozens of volumes of material. How careful and how well thought out were his writings? Lutheran Professor E. G. Schweibert comments:

“He never rewrote his tracts and made but few corrections in the proofs. Luther explained his facility by saying:

“I have a fast hand and rapid memory. As I write the thoughts just naturally come to me, so I do not have to force myself or ponder over my materials.” Schweibert, “Luther and His Times”, pg. 439

We know that Luther was not a ‘Systematic Theologian’, but just dashing off all of these groundbreaking radical doctrines, basically without having thought them over a little bit? It’s no wonder that the results have been so disastrous for Christian unity. And when a controversy develops over a poorly thought out belief, how did Luther react?

“****Luther always assumed that he had a monopoly of truth, and that those who proposed different views were infringing his copyright, so to speak. “Zwingli, Carlstadt and Oecolampadius would never have known Christ’s gospel rightly,” he opined, “had not Luther written of it first.” Preserved Smith, “The Age of the Reformation”, pg. 108

Spina, it seems to me that a great deal depends on whether Luther was right or wrong about the massive amount of Authority that he proclaimed for himself. If he was wrong it means that Protestantism is based on a faulty foundation, with that foundation being Luther’s false perception of his authority.

It’s a pretty important issue. IF there were a good explanation as to how Luther was ‘right’ to proclaim the level of authority that he did, you would expect it to be presented here for scrutiny.

Do you think that the history of the early Reformation bears out this point, or does it support Luther’s doctrinal Revolt as being ‘valid’ in the Eyes of God?

God Bless You Spina, Topper