Luther Really Did Want to Start a New Religion: Documentation

[Johann_du_Toit]

Luther was clearly confused as to what he actually wanted to create. His theory on Sola Scriptura is contradictory, as he did what he accused the Catholic Church of doing-taking and adding to the Bible, by tossing out the Deutorcanonical books and adding “alone” after the word "faith in Romans 3.28 (“faith alone”).

His denial of free will is also impossible to defend from a rational perspective.

The only thing he was certain about is he wanted his new Church to not be Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

The only thing he was certain about is he wanted his new Church to not be Catholic.

I don’t think this is true. I think he retained the vast majority of Catholicism. I think he wanted to get rid of “Popery” and the corrupted temporal power of Cardinals, Bishops, and even priests (especially those seling indulgences).

In the beginning he did not think the authorities knew that the local clerics were “out of order” and believed if he informed them, it would fix the problem. Of course, he had no idea the archbishop of Mainz was one of the biggest parts of the problem.

• But what can I do, good Primate and Most Illustrious Prince, except pray your Most Reverend Fatherhood by the Lord Jesus Christ that you would deign to look [on this matter] with the eye of fatherly care, and do away entirely with that treatise and impose upon the preachers of pardons another form of preaching; lest, perchance, one may some time arise, who will publish writings in which he will confute both them and that treatise, to the shame of your Most Illustrious Sublimity. I shrink very much from thinking that this will be done, and yet I fear that it will come to pass, unless there is some speedy remedy.

These faithful offices of my insignificance I beg that your Most Illustrious Grace may deign to accept in the spirit of a Prince and a Bishop, i.e., with the greatest clemency, as I offer them out of a faithful heart, altogether devoted to you, Most Reverend Father, since I too am a part of your flock.
*

Whatever heretical ideas he may have entertained in 1517, at that point he was still respectful and obedient to the Bishop and brought his concers appropriately, as any of us should do.

I challenge you to find me something in this letter that shows he intends to break from the Church.

 

[mattp0625]

I don’t think this is true. I think he retained the vast majority of Catholicism. I think he wanted to get rid of “Popery” and the corrupted temporal power of Cardinals, Bishops, and even priests (especially those seling indulgences).

In the beginning he did not think the authorities knew that the local clerics were “out of order” and believed if he informed them, it would fix the problem. Of course, he had no idea the archbishop of Mainz was one of the biggest parts of the problem.

• But what can I do, good Primate and Most Illustrious Prince, except pray your Most Reverend Fatherhood by the Lord Jesus Christ that you would deign to look [on this matter] with the eye of fatherly care, and do away entirely with that treatise and impose upon the preachers of pardons another form of preaching; lest, perchance, one may some time arise, who will publish writings in which he will confute both them and that treatise, to the shame of your Most Illustrious Sublimity. I shrink very much from thinking that this will be done, and yet I fear that it will come to pass, unless there is some speedy remedy.

These faithful offices of my insignificance I beg that your Most Illustrious Grace may deign to accept in the spirit of a Prince and a Bishop, i.e., with the greatest clemency, as I offer them out of a faithful heart, altogether devoted to you, Most Reverend Father, since I too am a part of your flock.
*

Whatever heretical ideas he may have entertained in 1517, at that point he was still respectful and obedient to the Bishop and brought his concers appropriately, as any of us should do.

I challenge you to find me something in this letter that shows he intends to break from the Church.

What about the wood carvings he commissioned with vulgar depictions of the Pope, rejection of the pope’s authority, calling him the antichrist, the creation of his own canon of scripture, and the creation of his own doctrine (inserting “alone” to create Sola Fide)? While he did not reject 100% of the dogmas and doctrines, is this not a rejection of the Catholic Church?

 

[guanophore]

What about the wood carvings he commissioned with vulgar depictions of the Pope, rejection of the pope's authority, calling him the antichrist,

Certainly any reverence he had for Church authorities expressed in his letter to the archbishop of Mainz in 1917 quickly dissolved. Luther became pursuaded that Leo VIII was the/an antichrist, and so was the office he occupied. That still does not mean he intended to start a new religion. The office of the Papacy is not found in Scripture, either.

Modern evangelicals may not see the Pope as the antichrist, but they certainly don’t believe a Christian need be in unity with the Pope.

 the creation of his own canon of scripture, and the creation of his own doctrine (inserting "alone" to create Sola Fide)?  While he did not reject 100% of the dogmas and doctrines, is this not a rejection of the Catholic Church?

We consider it so, yes, but to Luther, these things made the Catholic faith more pure, and removed things he believed Popery had obscured about the true Gospel. He was not trying to found a new religion, but purify the one that Christ founded from the contamination he believed had crept into it.

Luther was not encouraged in his Catholic faith during his visit to Rome.

 

[marymary1975]

I agree that his excommunication was related to teaching heresies, but that was not the only factor. He became a pain in the backside of the heirarchy as soon as he posted his95 theses.

I also am not defending his methods or attitudes. Certainly Christendom would have been much more unified if he had taken the saintly route of St. Francis. All I am saying is that he did not intend to start a new religion.

Well, we see it differently.

I think this is debatable, tho we cannot debate it here. If you read the history of his early life, you can see that he was tortured by the feeling of needing to justify himself before God. If you read his writings against the Jews and the Peasants, it is not only impossible to see a saintly soul, but difficult to see even a Chrsitian attitude.

I don’t think that most people involved in the REformation had any idea how much fracturing would occur in Christendom. And I am certain he did not know the consequences. I agree he knew he would end up excommunicated, and probably had every expectation he would be assasinated or at least imprisoned. But he was very upset when the other reformers denied the Real Presence, and when people took it upon themselves to interpret the scriptures outside the mind of the Church.

ARe you serious? You never did something with the best of intentions that caused a lot of damage?

Well we will never know the state of his soul or his conscience before God, and if he made a perfect confession at the end, or not. We will never know how much of what he said and did was influenced by being brought up in an abusive home that made him hateful toward authority.

I think there is some evidence, yes.

Just for.clarification, I don’t mean that Luther did not have psychological issues. Yes he clearly suffered from.depression and had psychological issues but from.there to not knowing what he is actually doimg, there is a lengthy road. You can have depression but to give an example, depression doesn’t prevent anyone from knowing.That stealing is wrong. Of you go and steal.and later argue that you should be acquired because given your depression you did not know what you were doing, any Judge will laugh at you. Most of the time the whole thing is an excuse to try to away with things. Of course, we don’t.know.what influenced him and that is only to Jesus to judge that, but again, those kinds of.situations do mot.prevent people from knowing right from.wrong. There are a lot of people.out there who grew up.in abusive households and had to.deal.with abusive authority which knew.right from.wrong and choose to do the right thing. Everything is a.matter of.choice and Luther made choices.all the way. And that is what sets the difference between Luther and st Francis, choices. To me he intended to because he made an active choice that he knew.which ones will be the consequences.

I do not.agree that he could not.foresee the fragmentation of the Church. He knew that if he insisted in heresies he would be excommunicated and.he knew that excommunication would Gove him the opportunity to go to people.with very little knowledge off the church and convince them that his heresies were right. After he got excommunication he did work on building.a.church separate from.the church and in getting followers.to his heresies…So I don’t.see.where he could not have foreseen that there was going to be a fragmentation. How could he.not see the consequences of they were obvious? To me is like.saying that.a.person.Of.normal intelligence cannot.see that if you kill someone.you will probably end up in jail.

What do you mean by “a.lot of.damage”. I may have done.things wrong that may have affected me and.May have hurt other`s feelings, but a lot of damage? Sorry I have never caused damage to anyone’s property, I have never caused permanent damage to anyone, I have never caused damage to society in general or to a large group.Of.people, I have never done.anything.illegal, or anything that has caused anyone large sums of.money or that has.gotten into a severe problem, and I have not even acted with gross.negligence. So, no I have never caused “a lot of damage”.

 

[mattp0625]

Certainly any reverence he had for Church authorities expressed in his letter to the archbishop of Mainz in 1917 quickly dissolved. Luther became pursuaded that Leo VIII was the/an antichrist, and so was the office he occupied. That still does not mean he intended to start a new religion. The office of the Papacy is not found in Scripture, either.

Modern evangelicals may not see the Pope as the antichrist, but they certainly don’t believe a Christian need be in unity with the Pope.

We consider it so, yes, but to Luther, these things made the Catholic faith more pure, and removed things he believed Popery had obscured about the true Gospel. He was not trying to found a new religion, but purify the one that Christ founded from the contamination he believed had crept into it.

Luther was not encouraged in his Catholic faith during his visit to Rome.

I see your point but disagree.

The word pope is not in the bible, but several examples of Peter leading the early church are there as well as reference to the bishop. In addition, the names of Linus and Clement are found.

I do not agree you can change a church by your own authority (Five Solas, canon), and still call it the same thing. This is why there are 30,000 Protestant denominations.

Perhaps we are disagreeing on the definition of church. To me, the corporate body of Christ gets its authority from apostolic succession. Luther had the backing as a monk but no such authority to change dogma- especially after excommunication.

 

[mattp0625]

To Mary’s point, Luther also argued with Jews, humanists, and other Protestant reformers right from the get go… I don’t see that as a sign of solidarity with anyone- even his own fellow reformers!

 

[marymary1975]

My studies of Luther’s life prior to the Reformation have made it clear to me that he never understood what it meant to be saved by grace, through faith. He never understood and experienced the peace of sacramental graces. To me he seems like a tortured soul that never believed he was forgiven.

It was hard for me to believe too, but any biography of his life will show that he joined the Augustinian order because it was the most severe, and he was looking for a way to expiate himself. By thei time he finally grasped what grace and forgiveness really meant, he had fallen into heresy.

The main complaint he had (justification) has since been addressed in the JDDJ. It seems clear to me that Luther did not understand what the CC taught about justification.

On the contrary, he believed what he was saying was the true gospel, and that the Church was teaching heresy. He did not expect the Church to accept his correction, so he knew he would be excommunicated.

Luther was acting in accordance with his conscience. When he said “here I stand” he felt that he could not do otherwise. He could not deny what he believed was the truth, no matter what the consequences.

I do agree that he intended to teach what he believed was the truth. By the time the bull of excommunication came, I don’t think he cared anymore (that is why he burned it). He was beyond being reconciled at that point.

Yes, he had to act according to what he believed was the TRuth.

I think Frances was able to perceive that the Holy Bride of Christ was higher and impervious to the sins of those who are attached to her. I don’t see that Luther could do this.

Luther really wanted to follow Christ, but he thought the Church was obscuring him. He was fully moved by Scripture and his consience. He did not trust the authorities that God had placed over him in the Church. He was not looking for any personal gain, but I do think of him as a very arrogant man (his writings seem to reflect that).

Again I.don’t.intend to.say that he wasn’t a tortured soul. I agree with your first two paragraphs as he was.a troubled.person, he suffered from.scrupulous, he was depressed and al that stuff. What think is that despite all his psychological troubles, that doesn’t blind anyone from.knowing the objective facts of things. To give you an.example,.the guy from.St Bernardino shooting. He obviously is a troubled person who has a very different subjective view than reality. But do you actually think he did not.know.That going there with a gun and shot was going to kill people? Do.you think he didn’t.know that murder is a crime? Of.course he knew. He may have all the psychological problems in the world but he knew what he was doing and because of that he will probably end up in mal for the rest of his life.

Luther subjectively believed the pope was the devil.and.the church was corrupted and everything else and never understood grace until it was too late. But he knew that reality`s objective view was different. Of course he was acting by his conscience which was led.by his subjective view, but the st Bernardino.shooter also was acting based on his conscience. The ends don’t justify the means. His methods were wrong and.he knew.it, he insisted on them because he wanted to be right and he wanted things to be the way he wanted. I do think too that he was extremely arrogant. That is why I have trouble believing he was not looking for personal gain. His personal.gain was being right and being recognized by men that he was right and the church was wrong.

 

[guanophore]

 To me he intended to because he made an active choice that he knew.which ones will be the consequences.

I think he might have assumed he was going to get excommunicated or assasinated, especially later as his attitude was so defiant against authority. Anyone who preached something the authorities did not approve was treated as treasonist and heretical (punishable by death).

But he preached what he did because he believed it was true, and he never intended to “start a new religion” by doing so. On the contrary, he thought that the True Faith had been obscured by superstitious practices such as the selling of indulgences. One can clearly see this in the letter he wrote in 1517 to which I linked above in the thread. He was pleading with the archbishop to intervene and correct the problems.

  He knew that if he insisted in heresies he would be excommunicated and.he knew that excommunication

But marymary, he did not believe what he was teaching was heresy. He believed the Church hierarchy had fallen into heresy.

 would Gove him the opportunity to go to people.with very little knowledge off the church and convince them that his heresies were right.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Luther did not “go to people” any more after than he did when he was in good standing. Even less, in fact, because he lost his faculties for teaching, preaching, and pastoring he was left only with writing, which actually reached fewer people.

  After he got excommunication he did work on building.a.church separate from.the church and in getting followers.to his heresies...

He labored to continue in his faith as his conscience dictated. He contributed to the formation of documents that would educate the followers of the Catholic faith in the true gospel, one not overshadowed by errors and misunderstandings. Most of the material written in his catechism has no conflict with the Roman Church.

How could he.not see the consequences of they were obvious?  To me is like.saying that.a.person.Of.normal intelligence cannot.see that if you kill someone.you will probably end up in jail.

It is a matter of perspective. If you see someone harming the innocent, and you try to stop them, and they end up dead, you can still go to jail, even if your intentions were honorable. The circumstances of Europe economically, politically and religously were a convergence of factors that no one had ever experienced before, or since the Reformation. Even the Pope, also an educated fellow, could not forsee that the way he dealt with Luther had such divisive effects.

  Sorry I have never caused damage to anyone's property, I have never caused permanent damage to anyone, I have never caused damage to society in general or to a large group.Of.people, I have never done.anything.illegal, or anything that has caused anyone large sums of.money or that has.gotten into a severe problem, and I have not even acted with gross.negligence.  So, no I have never caused "a lot of damage".

Such a saintly person you are! I am glad that you have walked in righteousness so well from the day of your birth until now. No wonder you can sit in judgement on Luthers’ motives! I shall defer to your greater sanctity in this matter. :bowdown:

 

[guanophore]

I see your point but disagree.

The word pope is not in the bible, but several examples of Peter leading the early church are there as well as reference to the bishop. In addition, the names of Linus and Clement are found.

I do not agree you can change a church by your own authority (Five Solas, canon), and still call it the same thing. This is why there are 30,000 Protestant denominations.

Perhaps we are disagreeing on the definition of church. To me, the corporate body of Christ gets its authority from apostolic succession. Luther had the backing as a monk but no such authority to change dogma- especially after excommunication.

We don’t disagree, Matt.

I am just saying that Luther did not intend to start a new religion. In fact, all Christian denominations are defined by how much, and which parts of the Catholic faith they reject.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

guanophore:

But he preached what he did because he believed it was true, and he never intended to “start a new religion” by doing so.

The terrorists believe they are doing the will of God. The 911 Hijackers believed what they were doing was good. The San Bernardino terrorists thought this was a true act of goodness. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Other than answering the question to this thread with your opinion, stated over and over again, I see no other purpose to it. Are you trying to rehabilitate Luther?

Only God can read hearts. You or anyone else has no way of knowing Luther’s true intentions. You can state what you believe based on evidence you find convincing, but that is still nothing more than your opinion.

What we DO have is historical events with the evil consequence of dividing the Church. That is the Truth. We know for a fact that this was due to Luther’s work, in close cooperation with the Princes of Germany and other like minded “reformers.” It is just as compelling to suppose that this was his intention, no matter how altruistic we believe his original intent may have been.

 

[mattp0625]

The terrorists believe they are doing the will of God. The 911 Hijackers believed what they were doing was good. The San Bernardino terrorists thought this was a true act of goodness. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Other than answering the question to this thread with your opinion, stated over and over again, I see no other purpose to it. Are you trying to rehabilitate Luther?

Only God can read hearts. You or anyone else has no way of knowing Luther’s true intentions. You can state what you believe based on evidence you find convincing, but that is still nothing more than your opinion.

What we DO have is historical events with the evil consequence of dividing the Church. That is the Truth. We know for a fact that this was due to Luther’s work, in close cooperation with the Princes of Germany and other like minded “reformers.” It is just as compelling to suppose that this was his intention, no matter how altruistic we believe his original intent may have been.

Likewise, I do not see fruits of the Spirit in his language and actions.

 

[guanophore]

The terrorists believe they are doing the will of God. The 911 Hijackers believed what they were doing was good. The San Bernardino terrorists thought this was a true act of goodness. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

A point of fact about which we are in full agreement. I do not dispute that his preaching/teaching/writing caused great fragmentation that continues today. I am just responding to the question of the thread. I don’t beleive he intended for this to happen.

When I read his pleading letter to Archbishop Mainz in 1917, I see a person deeply desiring that the authorities of the Church would act to reform abuses.

Other than answering the question to this thread with your opinion, stated over and over again, I see no other purpose to it. Are you trying to rehabilitate Luther?

No, in fact, I get queezy when I read some posts along the lines that he may be canonized. :bigyikes:

I think Luther gets outcomes blamed on him for which he had little responsibility. Politically and economically, a landslide was imminent. The German princes used Luther to get lands and taxes away from Rome.

Only God can read hearts. You or anyone else has no way of knowing Luther’s true intentions. You can state what you believe based on evidence you find convincing, but that is still nothing more than your opinion.

This is true, only God knows. but we do have some evidence we can examine. I notice that many condemn Luther without doing this.

What we DO have is historical events with the evil consequence of dividing the Church.  That is the Truth.  We know for a fact that this was due to Luther's work, in close cooperation with the Princes of Germany and other like minded "reformers."  It is just as compelling to suppose that this was his intention, no matter how altruistic we believe his original intent may have been.

I think this is an example of placing responsibility on Luther that does not all belong to him. Had the clerics in Europe not been so corrupt, greedy, uneducated (in some cases) and failing to live their faith, these conditions would not have developed in the first place. There were centuries of Rome leveraging temporal control over Europe which should not have been. Had those in leadership confined themselves to spiritual matters, rather than temporal control, the state that existed when Luther came on the scene would not have been. The Counter-Reformation is proof of itself that reform was needed (men are always in need of reform).

Catholics can, with honorable conscience, accept that Luther was reacting (and over reacting) to legitimate problems in some cases.

And for the record, I do agree with marymary that the right kind of reform comes through humility and not arrogance. St. Francis was successful because of his humility. The attitude demonstrated in his Open Letter on Translation:

If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing… Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope.” Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never even learned their own art of sophistry…"

Is uncharitable (someone on CAF would be banned for such a comment!) and arrogant.

But there were Catholic leaders who were every bit as arrogant. In short, there is enough “blame” to go around for everyone. We must now to the task of healing the wounds of separation. Does the argument about intentions help that? I don’t think so.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

guanophore:

I think this is an example of placing responsibility on Luther that does not all belong to him. Had the clerics in Europe not been so corrupt, greedy, uneducated (in some cases) and failing to live their faith, these conditions would not have developed in the first place. There were centuries of Rome leveraging temporal control over Europe which should not have been. Had those in leadership confined themselves to spiritual matters, rather than temporal control, the state that existed when Luther came on the scene would not have been.

Yes, I can fully agree with you. I can also understand your perspective too.

Of course we can make the same mitigating claims for the corrupt clergy of Rome as was done for Luther! IOW, they had no intention of causing scandal or inkling that they were about to be the cause (or catalyst) for the greatest evil to ever sunder the Church. They might be excused just as easily for merely doing what was considered expedient in their own time and place.