Protestantism Christian division and sectarianism drove Luther nuts — bothered him to no end
Nov 30, 2018 10:14:41 #
09/08/2017 Luther’s Disgust Over Protestant Sectarianism and Radical Heresies
Dave Armstrong
http://m.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/luthers-disgust-over-protestant-sectarianism-and-radical-heresies
Luther vigorously critiqued many of his fellow Protestants.
This Christian division and sectarianism drove Luther nuts — bothered him to no end —
But Luther never showed how it wasn’t permissible or to be expected based on his own notion of sola Scriptura.
Protestant founder Martin Luther's radical change of the rule of faith from an infallible Bible and Church and tradition to private judgment and sola Scriptura (Scripture as the only infallible authority)
And comments about plowboys being able to interpret Scripture without the checks and balances of that Church and tradition, naturally led to excesses of individuality and sectarianism.
People reasoned (consciously or not) that since Luther felt free to break away from Catholicism and gave the example of an ongoing smear campaign of propaganda and calumny against the existing Church.
That there was little reason why they could not reject both the Catholic Church and him.
In other words, he was naive to think that he could unleash an entirely new principle, yet expect that no one besides him would utilize it, in precisely the way that he had.
Hence, Carlstadt and the Anabaptists and Zwinglians and Calvinists and other groups arose, to his great dismay.
The truth (whatever it was) was not self-evidently clear to all from Scripture alone.
He failed to see any connection whatever between his teachings on authority, and what ensued.
Yet the connection is almost self-evidently obvious.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), in its article on Luther, made the same general point:
Luther by the creation of his “universal priesthood of all Christians”, by delegating the authority “to judge all doctrines” to the “Christian assembly or congregation”.
By empowering it to appoint or dismiss teacher or preacher, sought the overthrow of the old Catholic order.
It did not strike him, that to establish a new Church, to ground an ecclesiastical organization on so precarious and volatile a basis, was in its very nature impossible.
The seeds of inevitable anarchy lay dormant in such principles.
Luther vigorously critiqued many fellow Protestants:
The Anabaptists (who “won't have baptism”) and,
Zwinglians and proto-Calvinists,
or those groups known as “sacramentarians” (those who “deny "the efficacy of the Lord's supper”).
Thus, Luther condemned beliefs that are hardly distinguishable from present-day Baptists, or anyone who holds to adult baptism, non-regenerative baptism, or who denies the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
This would include the vast majority of Protestant evangelicals and Calvinists.
Luther would almost certainly regard them all as damned.
He regarded fellow Protestant “reformers” like Zwingli and Martin Bucer and Oecolampadius as damned.
Thus, he regarded Zwingli's 1531 slaying on the battlefield as evidence of God's judgment for his having forsaken the Christian faith.
The following excerpts of Luther were drawn from his Letter to the Christians of Antwerp (1525); found on pp. 91-92 in Jules Michelet, The Life of Luther Gathered From His Own Writings, (translated by G. H. Smith, London: Whittaker & Co., from the original 1835 work):
The devil seeing that this sort of disturbance could not last, has devised a new one; and begins to rage in his members, I mean in the ungodly, through whom he makes his way in all sorts of chimerical follies and extravagant doctrines.
This won't have baptism, that denies the efficacy of the Lord's supper;
a third, puts a world between this and the last judgment;
others teach that Jesus Christ is not God; some say this, others that;
and there are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads.
I must cite one instance, by way of exemplification, for I have plenty to do with these sort of spirits.
There is not one of them that does think himself more learned than Luther;
they all try to win their spurs against me; and would to heaven that they were all such as they think themselves, and that I were nothing!
The one of whom I speak assured me, amongst other things, that lie was sent to me by the God of heaven and earth, and talked most magnificently, but the clown peeped through all.
At last, he ordered me to read the books of Moses. . . .
I have plenty to do in the course of the year with these poor people:
the devil could not have found a better pretext for tormenting me.
As yet the world had been full of those clamorous spirits without bodies, who oppressed the souls of men;
now they have bodies, and give themselves out for living angels . . .
When the pope reigned we heard nothing of these troubles.
The strong one (the devil) was in peace in his fortress; but now that a stronger one than he is come, and prevails against him and drives him out, as the Gospel says, he storms and comes forth with noise and fury.
Dear friends, one of these spirits of disorder has come amongst you in flesh and blood;
he would lead you astray with the inventions of his pride:
beware of him.
First, he tells you that all men have the Holy Ghost.
Secondly, that the Holy Ghost is nothing more than our reason and our understanding.
Thirdly, that all men have faith.
Fourthly, that there is no hell, that at least the flesh only will be damned.
Fifthly, that all souls will enjoy eternal life.
Sixthly, that nature itself teaches us to do to our neighbour what we would he should do to us ;
This he calls faith.
Seventhly, that the law is not violated by concupiscence, so long as we are not consenting to the pleasure.
Eighthly, that he that has not the Holy Ghost, is also without sin, for he is destitute of reason.
All these are audacious propositions, vain imaginations;
If we except the seventh, the others are not worthy of reply. . . .
It is sufficient for us to know that God wills no sin.
As to his sufferance of sin, we ought not to approach the question.
The servant is not to know his master's secrets, simply his master's orders:
How much less should a poor creature attempt to scrutinize or sound the mysteries and the majesty of the Creator? . . .
Dave Armstrong
http://m.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/luthers-disgust-over-protestant-sectarianism-and-radical-heresies
Luther vigorously critiqued many of his fellow Protestants.
This Christian division and sectarianism drove Luther nuts — bothered him to no end —
But Luther never showed how it wasn’t permissible or to be expected based on his own notion of sola Scriptura.
Protestant founder Martin Luther's radical change of the rule of faith from an infallible Bible and Church and tradition to private judgment and sola Scriptura (Scripture as the only infallible authority)
And comments about plowboys being able to interpret Scripture without the checks and balances of that Church and tradition, naturally led to excesses of individuality and sectarianism.
People reasoned (consciously or not) that since Luther felt free to break away from Catholicism and gave the example of an ongoing smear campaign of propaganda and calumny against the existing Church.
That there was little reason why they could not reject both the Catholic Church and him.
In other words, he was naive to think that he could unleash an entirely new principle, yet expect that no one besides him would utilize it, in precisely the way that he had.
Hence, Carlstadt and the Anabaptists and Zwinglians and Calvinists and other groups arose, to his great dismay.
The truth (whatever it was) was not self-evidently clear to all from Scripture alone.
He failed to see any connection whatever between his teachings on authority, and what ensued.
Yet the connection is almost self-evidently obvious.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), in its article on Luther, made the same general point:
Luther by the creation of his “universal priesthood of all Christians”, by delegating the authority “to judge all doctrines” to the “Christian assembly or congregation”.
By empowering it to appoint or dismiss teacher or preacher, sought the overthrow of the old Catholic order.
It did not strike him, that to establish a new Church, to ground an ecclesiastical organization on so precarious and volatile a basis, was in its very nature impossible.
The seeds of inevitable anarchy lay dormant in such principles.
Luther vigorously critiqued many fellow Protestants:
The Anabaptists (who “won't have baptism”) and,
Zwinglians and proto-Calvinists,
or those groups known as “sacramentarians” (those who “deny "the efficacy of the Lord's supper”).
Thus, Luther condemned beliefs that are hardly distinguishable from present-day Baptists, or anyone who holds to adult baptism, non-regenerative baptism, or who denies the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
This would include the vast majority of Protestant evangelicals and Calvinists.
Luther would almost certainly regard them all as damned.
He regarded fellow Protestant “reformers” like Zwingli and Martin Bucer and Oecolampadius as damned.
Thus, he regarded Zwingli's 1531 slaying on the battlefield as evidence of God's judgment for his having forsaken the Christian faith.
The following excerpts of Luther were drawn from his Letter to the Christians of Antwerp (1525); found on pp. 91-92 in Jules Michelet, The Life of Luther Gathered From His Own Writings, (translated by G. H. Smith, London: Whittaker & Co., from the original 1835 work):
The devil seeing that this sort of disturbance could not last, has devised a new one; and begins to rage in his members, I mean in the ungodly, through whom he makes his way in all sorts of chimerical follies and extravagant doctrines.
This won't have baptism, that denies the efficacy of the Lord's supper;
a third, puts a world between this and the last judgment;
others teach that Jesus Christ is not God; some say this, others that;
and there are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads.
I must cite one instance, by way of exemplification, for I have plenty to do with these sort of spirits.
There is not one of them that does think himself more learned than Luther;
they all try to win their spurs against me; and would to heaven that they were all such as they think themselves, and that I were nothing!
The one of whom I speak assured me, amongst other things, that lie was sent to me by the God of heaven and earth, and talked most magnificently, but the clown peeped through all.
At last, he ordered me to read the books of Moses. . . .
I have plenty to do in the course of the year with these poor people:
the devil could not have found a better pretext for tormenting me.
As yet the world had been full of those clamorous spirits without bodies, who oppressed the souls of men;
now they have bodies, and give themselves out for living angels . . .
When the pope reigned we heard nothing of these troubles.
The strong one (the devil) was in peace in his fortress; but now that a stronger one than he is come, and prevails against him and drives him out, as the Gospel says, he storms and comes forth with noise and fury.
Dear friends, one of these spirits of disorder has come amongst you in flesh and blood;
he would lead you astray with the inventions of his pride:
beware of him.
First, he tells you that all men have the Holy Ghost.
Secondly, that the Holy Ghost is nothing more than our reason and our understanding.
Thirdly, that all men have faith.
Fourthly, that there is no hell, that at least the flesh only will be damned.
Fifthly, that all souls will enjoy eternal life.
Sixthly, that nature itself teaches us to do to our neighbour what we would he should do to us ;
This he calls faith.
Seventhly, that the law is not violated by concupiscence, so long as we are not consenting to the pleasure.
Eighthly, that he that has not the Holy Ghost, is also without sin, for he is destitute of reason.
All these are audacious propositions, vain imaginations;
If we except the seventh, the others are not worthy of reply. . . .
It is sufficient for us to know that God wills no sin.
As to his sufferance of sin, we ought not to approach the question.
The servant is not to know his master's secrets, simply his master's orders:
How much less should a poor creature attempt to scrutinize or sound the mysteries and the majesty of the Creator? . . .
Nov 30, 2018 10:35:31 #
Drove him nuts?
It is posts like this and these types of articles that show that in their heart Catholics know much of their doctrine is false.
Praise the Lord that we had men like Martin Luther expose it!
It is posts like this and these types of articles that show that in their heart Catholics know much of their doctrine is false.
Praise the Lord that we had men like Martin Luther expose it!
Nov 30, 2018 11:04:00 #
Rose,
Critique This . . .
C.S. Lewis "The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts"
John Henry Newman,
"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
09/21/2015 50 Heterodox Beliefs of Luther in 1520 (Departures from Church Tradition). (Part 3)
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
Here is what Luther believed contrary to the Church (without even delving too much into the finer points of soteriology):
1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed notion of justification.
3. Fiduciary faith.
4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
5. Tossing out seven books of the Bible.
6. Denial of venial sin.
7. Denial of merit.
8. The damned should be happy that they are damned and accept God’s
will.
9. Jesus offered Himself for damnation and possible hellfire.
10. No good work can be done except by a justified man.
11. All baptized men are priests (denial of the sacrament of ordination).
12. All baptized men can give absolution.
13. Bishops do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
14. Popes do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and
popes; to assert the contrary was a mere presumptuous invention.
17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
18. Denial of papal infallibility.
19. Belief that unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority (contrary to
Augustine’s rationale against the Donatists).
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
22. Denial that the pope has the right to call or confirm a council.
23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain
callings.
24. There is no such vocation as a monk; God has not instituted it.
25. Feast days should be abolished, and all church celebrations confined to
Sundays.
26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
29. Indulgences should be abolished.
30. Dispensations should be abolished.
31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental
influence on Christianity.
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
34. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a good work.
35. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a true sacrifice.
36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato.
37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had “completely abolished” even the
practice of penance.
39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
40. Denial of apostolic succession.
41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
42. Penitential works are worthless.
43. None of what Catholics believe to be the seven sacraments have any
biblical proof.
44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to
determine or grant annulments.
46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
49. The priest’s daily office is “vain repetition.”
50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (there are only two sacraments:
baptism and the Eucharist).
So that is 50 ways in which Luther was a heretic, heterodox, a schismatic, or believed things which were clearly contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching or practice.
Up to and including truly radical departures (even societally radical in some cases).
Is that enough to justify his excommunication from Catholic ranks?
Or was the Church supposed to say, “yeah, Luther, you know, you’re right about these fifty issues.
You know better than the entire Church, the entire history of the Church, and all the wisdom of the saints in past ages who have believed these things.
So we will bow to your heaven-sent wisdom, change all fifty beliefs or practices, so we can proceed in a godly direction.
Thanks so much!
We are forever indebted to you for having informed us of all these errors!!”
Is that not patently ridiculous?
What Church would change 50 things in its doctrines because one person feels himself to be some sort of oracle from God or pseudo-prophet:
God’s man for the age?
Yet we are led to believe that it is self-evident that Luther was a good, obedient Catholic who only wanted to reform the Church, not overturn or leave it, let alone start a new sect.
He may have been naive or silly enough to believe that himself, but objectively-speaking, it is clear and plain to one and all that what he offered – even prior to 1520 –
Was a radical program; a revolution.
This is not reform.
And the so-called “Protestant Reformation” was not that, either (considered as a whole).
It was a Revolt or a Revolution.
I have just shown why that is.
No sane, conscious person who had read any of his three radical treatises of 1520 could doubt that he had already ceased to be an orthodox Catholic.
He did not reluctantly become so because he was unfairly kicked out of the Church by men who would not listen to manifest Scripture and reason (as the Protestant myth and perpetual propaganda would have it) but because he had chosen himself to accept heretical teachings.
By the standard of Catholic orthodoxy, and had become a radical, intent also on spreading his (sincerely and passionately held) errors across the land with slanderous, mocking, propagandistic tracts and even vulgar woodcuts, if needs be.
Therefore, the Church was entirely sensible, reasonable, within her rights, logical, self-consistent, and not hypocritical or “threatened” in the slightest to simply demand Luther’s recantation of his errors at the Diet of Worms in 1521.
And to refuse to argue with him (having already tried on several occasions, anyway), because to do so would have granted his ridiculous presumption.
That he was in a position to singlehandedly dispute and debate what had been the accumulated doctrinal and theological wisdom of the Church for almost 1500 years.
(End Part 3)
Critique This . . .
C.S. Lewis "The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts"
John Henry Newman,
"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
09/21/2015 50 Heterodox Beliefs of Luther in 1520 (Departures from Church Tradition). (Part 3)
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
Here is what Luther believed contrary to the Church (without even delving too much into the finer points of soteriology):
1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed notion of justification.
3. Fiduciary faith.
4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
5. Tossing out seven books of the Bible.
6. Denial of venial sin.
7. Denial of merit.
8. The damned should be happy that they are damned and accept God’s
will.
9. Jesus offered Himself for damnation and possible hellfire.
10. No good work can be done except by a justified man.
11. All baptized men are priests (denial of the sacrament of ordination).
12. All baptized men can give absolution.
13. Bishops do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
14. Popes do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and
popes; to assert the contrary was a mere presumptuous invention.
17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
18. Denial of papal infallibility.
19. Belief that unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority (contrary to
Augustine’s rationale against the Donatists).
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
22. Denial that the pope has the right to call or confirm a council.
23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain
callings.
24. There is no such vocation as a monk; God has not instituted it.
25. Feast days should be abolished, and all church celebrations confined to
Sundays.
26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
29. Indulgences should be abolished.
30. Dispensations should be abolished.
31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental
influence on Christianity.
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
34. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a good work.
35. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a true sacrifice.
36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato.
37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had “completely abolished” even the
practice of penance.
39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
40. Denial of apostolic succession.
41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
42. Penitential works are worthless.
43. None of what Catholics believe to be the seven sacraments have any
biblical proof.
44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to
determine or grant annulments.
46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
49. The priest’s daily office is “vain repetition.”
50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (there are only two sacraments:
baptism and the Eucharist).
So that is 50 ways in which Luther was a heretic, heterodox, a schismatic, or believed things which were clearly contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching or practice.
Up to and including truly radical departures (even societally radical in some cases).
Is that enough to justify his excommunication from Catholic ranks?
Or was the Church supposed to say, “yeah, Luther, you know, you’re right about these fifty issues.
You know better than the entire Church, the entire history of the Church, and all the wisdom of the saints in past ages who have believed these things.
So we will bow to your heaven-sent wisdom, change all fifty beliefs or practices, so we can proceed in a godly direction.
Thanks so much!
We are forever indebted to you for having informed us of all these errors!!”
Is that not patently ridiculous?
What Church would change 50 things in its doctrines because one person feels himself to be some sort of oracle from God or pseudo-prophet:
God’s man for the age?
Yet we are led to believe that it is self-evident that Luther was a good, obedient Catholic who only wanted to reform the Church, not overturn or leave it, let alone start a new sect.
He may have been naive or silly enough to believe that himself, but objectively-speaking, it is clear and plain to one and all that what he offered – even prior to 1520 –
Was a radical program; a revolution.
This is not reform.
And the so-called “Protestant Reformation” was not that, either (considered as a whole).
It was a Revolt or a Revolution.
I have just shown why that is.
No sane, conscious person who had read any of his three radical treatises of 1520 could doubt that he had already ceased to be an orthodox Catholic.
He did not reluctantly become so because he was unfairly kicked out of the Church by men who would not listen to manifest Scripture and reason (as the Protestant myth and perpetual propaganda would have it) but because he had chosen himself to accept heretical teachings.
By the standard of Catholic orthodoxy, and had become a radical, intent also on spreading his (sincerely and passionately held) errors across the land with slanderous, mocking, propagandistic tracts and even vulgar woodcuts, if needs be.
Therefore, the Church was entirely sensible, reasonable, within her rights, logical, self-consistent, and not hypocritical or “threatened” in the slightest to simply demand Luther’s recantation of his errors at the Diet of Worms in 1521.
And to refuse to argue with him (having already tried on several occasions, anyway), because to do so would have granted his ridiculous presumption.
That he was in a position to singlehandedly dispute and debate what had been the accumulated doctrinal and theological wisdom of the Church for almost 1500 years.
(End Part 3)
Rose42 wrote:
Drove him nuts?
It is posts like this and these types of articles that show that in their heart Catholics know much of their doctrine is false.
Praise the Lord that we had men like Martin Luther expose it!
Drove him nuts?
It is posts like this and these types of articles that show that in their heart Catholics know much of their doctrine is false.
Praise the Lord that we had men like Martin Luther expose it!
Nov 30, 2018 11:15:00 #
Doc110 wrote:
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), in its article on Luther, made the same general point:
Luther by the creation of his “universal priesthood of all Christians”, by delegating the authority “to judge all doctrines” to the “Christian assembly or congregation”.
Luther by the creation of his “universal priesthood of all Christians”, by delegating the authority “to judge all doctrines” to the “Christian assembly or congregation”.
"While Martin Luther did not use the exact phrase "priesthood of all believers", he adduces a general priesthood in Christendom in his 1520 To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation in order to dismiss the medieval view that Christians in the present life were to be divided into two classes: "spiritual" and "secular". He put forward the doctrine that all baptized Christians are "priests" and "spiritual" in the sight of God:
'That the pope or bishop anoints, makes tonsures, ordains, consecrates, or dresses differently from the laity, may make a hypocrite or an idolatrous oil-painted icon, but it in no way makes a Christian or spiritual human being."
as St. Peter in 1 Peter 2[:9] says, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom," and Revelation [5:10], "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings."{Martin Luther, Weimar Ausgabe, vol. 6, p. 407, lines 19–25}
These are the words of the Apostle Peter in Holy Scripture, and from John in Revelation; they did not originate from Martin Luther.
Luther did not use the exact phrase "priesthood of all believers". He said that there is a general priesthood in Christendom in his 1520 To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation. In this text, he also dismisses the medieval view that Christians in the present life were to be divided into two classes: "spiritual" and "secular".
Those Roman Catholic officials responsible for writing and editing the Catholic Encyclopedia should know better than to omit the fact that Martin Luther was quoting Holy Scripture. They are being dishonest.
God has indeed declared that there is a "universal priesthood" of all Christians.
Doc110 wrote:
09/08/2017 Luther’s Disgust Over Protestant Sectar... (show quote)
Nov 30, 2018 13:12:08 #
Amen and Amen very good Zemirah thanks for that rebuttal of Doc110 and setting the record straight.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.