Today on Facebook, RC apologist Dave Armstrong sent me this quote from Martin Luther:
“I need not have any title and name to praise highly the word, office, and work which I have from God and which you blind blasphemers defile and persecute beyond measure. I trust my praise will overcome your defiling, just as my justice will overcome your injustice. It does not matter if, with your blasphemy, you are on top for the moment. Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you - or even an angel from heaven - to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world - I Pet. 3:15. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel.For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels' judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved - for it is God's and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God's.” (Luther’s Works, 39:248-249)
I responded by noting the following things:
[1]. The historical context of Luther’s statements here take place in his argumentation against indulgences. He did not necessarily think he was the infallible judge on every matter of doctrine. For example, he believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, but did not think that those who denied it were not true Christians (LW 54:340).
[2]. This is taken out of context in the literary aspect as well. Here is what Luther said later towards the end of the same document quoted by Mr. Armstrong:
"If someone said to me at this point, “Previously you have rejected the pope; will you now also reject bishops and the spiritual estate? Is everything to be turned around?” my answer would be: Judge for yourself and decide whether I turn things around by preferring divine word and order, or whether they turn things around by preferring their order and destroying God’s. " (LW 39:279).
9 comments:
Luther contradicting himself is, of course, a regular occurrence.
The bottom-line problem with Luther and the Protestantism that he founded is this:
If God is God, and is omnipotent and good for His promises, that He can preserve truth in institutional, historical Christian groups and in His Church.
That’s why I think that the fact that most Christians throughout history and at the present time have believed in certain "Catholic" doctrines is supremely important. They believe in it because it’s true, and God has seen to it that it became the position of the most Christians now, and through history.
The factor of God’s guidance introduces a major new causal factor that transcends the ad populum fallacy.
There is a good reason, therefore, that anti-trinitarian so-called Christians are in a small minority. It’s because God has preserved among oh-so-fallible and frail men the crucial truth of the Holy Trinity.
A Protestant friend of mine said: "Truth in spiritual matters must be determined by correspondence with what the Bible itself teaches."
But of course people disagree as to what it teaches, and there is the rub, and the fundamental Protestant difficulty that has never been overcome and never will be.
The fathers and teachers in the Church up until the 16th century did not believe that only Scripture is an infallible authority, for this very reason. They knew that it was also supremely important to trace any true Christian doctrine back through history: ultimately back to the apostles. And consulting the ecumenical councils of the Church was an important part of the rule of faith too.
What was true WOULD be believed by most Christians, because of God’s supernatural guidance and protection.
I always use baptism to illustrate the essential Protestant problem. There are five major views: all held by folks who think the Bible is crystal clear (perspicuous) and supports their position.
Now, if there are five views that contradict each other, massive falsehood and error MUST necessarily be present. And that’s not good. Falsehood and lies are of the devil.
By institutionalizing contradictory disagreements and unbiblical denominationalism, Protestantism directly causes, enables, and in effect espouses what must be error in the thousands of instances of contradictory viewpoints within its domain.
Wanting to trace one's beliefs back to the apostles is certainly a reasonable and proper desire. However, the way one does that is not through Rome's "infallible" magisterium, but rather by reading the writings of the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, which are found in the New Testament, i.e. Scripture.
That gives you first-century Christian belief. Now you want to look at centuries 2-15 to see how God has guided His people through the centuries.
Give me one example in church history of papal universal jurisdiction being exercised in the way Vatican I defines it.
Peter's leadership of the Church in the early chapters of Acts, and his leadership at the council of Jerusalem. St. Clement of Rome . . . When I replied to your article on him you never counter-replied.
But I was talking about the three-legged stool Catholic rule of faith, not the papacy.
Give me one example in the Bible of the full definition of sola Scriptura (the only infallible authority and norm and standard of the Christian faith is the Bible; excluding sacred apostolic tradition and the Church).
If it's not there (and it isn't), why do you believe it and make it the pillar of your faith? You have elevated an unbiblical novelty and mere tradition of men, contrived in the 16th century, to required belief.
The irony of that is endless . . .
2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches that the man of God is fully equipped by Scripture, which implies that nothing else is needed. You may want to claim that all that is teaching is material sufficiency, which would then get us into a discussion of Scripture's perspicuity (which the church fathers affirmed clearly [pun intended] in many of their writings).
You guys are so predictable. This passage is trotted out every time. I've refuted its use at least twice:
Sola Scriptura, 2 Tim 3:16-17, & “Man of God” [1-27-12]
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2012/01/biblical-arguments-against-supposed.html
Answer to Sola Scriptura “Prooftexts” 2 Timothy 3:16-17 & Romans 16:15-16 (vs. David T. King) [6-26-12]
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/01/answer-to-sola-scriptura-prooftexts-2-tim-316-17-rom-1615-16.html
Maybe you can reply for David King. He's never responded to any of my critiques, since the time I absolutely proved that he was misrepresenting Cardinal Newman as a supposed theological liberal, whom Pope St. Pius X supposedly opposed, some 20 years ago.
Post a Comment