09/21/2015 50 Heterodox Beliefs of Luther in 1520 (Departures from Church Tradition). (Part 1)
Dave Armstrong
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/09/50-heterodox-beliefs-of-luther-in-1520.html Original title: “50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated)”
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/09/50-heterodox-beliefs-of-luther-in-1520.html (3-29-06) Martin Luther’s words will be in, . . . green.
* * * * *
Chris Jones (Lutheran) asked:
“So why was Dr Luther excommunicated?
In what way was he heterodox?”
I must confess that that subject is quite ambitious . . .,
But nevertheless I will reply because I’m sick and tired of this canard, and it is high time to decisively refute it.
This I will do below.
How about, for starters, separating justification from sanctification, adopting an extrinsic, forensic, imputed notion of justification (a radical departure from precedent, as McGrath and Geisler have noted).
Championing the novelty of fiduciary faith,
Changing the ancient rule of faith of Church, Tradition,
And Bible to sola Scriptura, adopting private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
(Luther denied that even ecumenical councils possess this;
Going beyond the conciliarist position of some nominalists), throwing out the Sacrifice of the Mass and seven books of the Bible, and ditching five sacraments?
Is that enough to be heretical by Catholic standards?
In his Commentary on Romans (1516), Luther wrote:
. . . It is clear that according to substance and nature venial sin does not exist, and that there is no such thing as merit.
Two more Catholic doctrines denied. Now, you may think he was right, but the question at hand concerns why he was excommunicated as a “heterodox” Catholic.
This is more than enough evidence to convict him of this “shortcoming,” wouldn’t you agree?
It gets even more bizarre than that, for those who are interested in the history of doctrine and theology.
Luther thought that men should have an “ineffable joy.”
If they discovered that they were damned, because they were resigned to God’s will:
. . . If men willed what God wills, even though He should will to damn and reject them, they would see no evil in that
[in the predestination to hell which he teaches];
. . . For, as they will what God wills, they have, owing to their resignation, the will of God in them.
Luther asserts (I think, blasphemously), during this same period, long before 1521, that Jesus Christ offered to go to hell for the sake of the salvation of mankind (a heresy picked up today by the hyper-faith teachers such as Kenneth Copeland):
. . . He actually and in truth offered Himself to the eternal Father to be consigned to eternal damnation for us.
. . . His human nature did not behave differently from that of a man who is to be condemned eternally to hell. On account of this love of God, God at once raised Him from death and hell, and so He overcame hell.
In the Heidelberg Disputation (1518), Luther stated:
. . . The mercy of God consists in this, that He has patience with us in spite of our sins and graciously accepts our works and our life notwithstanding their complete worthlessness . . .
All that a man does is the work of the devil, of sin, of darkness and foolishness.
The radical nature of Luther’s so-called “reform” is clearly evident in the three great treatises of 1520. Let’s make a survey of [two of] them, since there seems to be so much ignorance in this matter of how far Luther had departed from the received Catholic faith by 1520.
I cite from the book Three Treatises, taken from Luther’s Works, revised edition, 1970 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press):
1) To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation A)
. . . “We are all consecrated priests through baptism . . . The consecration by pope or bishop would never make a priest, and if we had no higher consecration than that which pope or bishop gives, no one could say mass or preach a sermon or give absolution . . . the whole community, all of whom have like power . . .”
(p. 12) B)
. . . “A priest in Christendom is nothing else but an officeholder . . . a priest is never a priest when he is deposed . . . there is no true, basic difference between laymen and priests . . .”
. . . (p. 14)
[Denial of ordination, the special status of the priesthood, and in effect, apostolic succession; going back to the mentality of the Donatist heresy; on p. 13 Luther claims that a group of laymen in a desert could
. . . “elect”
One of themselves to say mass and give absolution; cf. p. 70] C)
. . . “Since the temporal power is ordained by God to punish the wicked and protect the good, it should be left free to perform its office in the whole body of Christendom without restriction and without respect to persons, whether it affects pope, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, or anyone else . . .
. . . “All that canon law has said to the contrary is the invention of Romanist presumption.”
(pp. 15-16; cf. pp. 45-46, and p. 53:
. . . “The pope should have no authority over the emperor”)
[radical overthrow of the entire Catholic medieval understanding of the relationship of Church and state] D)
. . . “They play about with words before our very eyes, trying to persuade us that the pope cannot err in matters of faith, regardless of whether he is righteous or wicked.”
(p. 19)
[denial of papal infallibility, which was widely believed; also adoption of the schismatic ancient Donatist mentality of righteousness nullifying an office or sacramental efficacy] E)
. . . “The keys were not given to Peter alone but to the whole community.”
(p. 20)
[this is untrue; the “keys of the kingdom” were only given to Peter in Scripture, and to no one else.] F)
. . . “if we are all priests . . . why should we not also have the power to test and judge what is right or wrong in matters of faith?”
(p. 21)
[private judgment and sola Scriptura: radical innovations concerning Christian authority] G)
. . . “The Romanists have no basis in Scripture for their claim that the pope alone has the right to call or confirm a council.”
(p. 22)
[overthrows the long-established principle of governance of ecumenical councils; on p. 23 he states that when the pope is
. . . “An offense to Christendom, the first man who is able should . . . do what he can to bring about a truly free council”
and on p. 24 says that
. . . “we”
can
. . . “excommunicate”
The pope if he has gone astray] H)
. . . “Restore freedom to everybody and leave every man free to marry or not marry.”
(p. 65)
[denial of the ancient practice of celibate priests, nuns, and monks] I)
. . . “Popes, bishops, canons, and monks. God has not instituted these offices.”
(p. 66)
[self-explanatory] J)
. . . “Furthermore, I advise anyone henceforth being ordained a priest or anything else that he in no wise vow to the bishop that he will remain celibate.”
. . . “The pope has as little power to command this as he has to forbid eating, drinking, the natural movement of the bowels, or growing fat.”
(pp. 66, 68)
[denial of vows of celibacy, and the institutional right to demand same as a matter of discipline, contrary to Jesus’ statement about eunuchs and Paul’s teaching that celibacy is preferable for the purposes of serving God more fully in an undistracted manner] K)
. . . “All festivals should be abolished, and Sunday alone retained. If it were desired, however, to retain the festivals of Our Lady, and of the major . . . . . . . . Saints, they should be transferred to Sunday, or observed only by a morning mass.”
(pp. 72-73)
[radical revision of the liturgical calendar] L)
“. . . fasts should be left to individuals and every kind of food left optional . . . “
(p. 74)
[overthrow of the Church’s prerogative to prescribe penitential practices in commemoration of our Lord’s suffering, such as on Fridays and during Lent] M)
. . . “What spirit gave the pope authority to canonize saints? . . . My advice is to let the saints canonize themselves. Indeed, it is God alone who should canonize them.
. . . “Although the canonization of saints may have been a good thing in former days, it is certainly never good practice now.”
(pp. 77-78)
[So much for saints . . . throw the baby out with the bath water, as usual with Luther . . .] N)
. . . “The brotherhoods, and for that matter, letters of indulgence . . . dispensations, and everything of that kind, should be snuffed out and brought to an end.”
(p. 84)
[Indulgences are an expressly biblical practice.
St. Paul issued a penitential punishment, or “binding.”
(1 Cor 5:3-5 )
And then relaxed or “loosed” it, which is all that an indulgence is.
(2 Cor 2:6-11). ] O)
Luther goes after Aristotle (and by extension, all philosophy), on
pp. 92-94, calling him a
. . . “Blind, heathen teacher”
and
. . . “Damned, conceited, rascally heathen . . . wretched fellow”
and recommending discarding his books because
. . . “Nothing can be learned from them either about nature or the Spirit . . . nobody has yet understood him.”
He then claims that
(End Part 1)