Chapter 7 Martin Luther
Hans Hillerbrand, in The Reformation, includes some very interesting insights. One of these is his opening statement: "The Protestant Reformation was no accident. Without going into the intriguing, if insoluble, problem of whether men make history or history makes men, it can be said that the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries were a fertile ground for a religious upheaval. The time was a revolutionary one and those who could see beyond their noses could read this in the sky.
"Unlike earlier movements for ecclesiastical and religious reform, the Protestant Reformation found in its time many elements of support which had been lacking before. Its eventual success - or at least what the Protestant historian is wont to call success, namely no more and no less than the external consolidation of Protestantism in several European countries was greatly aided by these elements. To be sure, the Reformation received its primary impetus from one man: Martin Luther, a religious genius of rare stature. The acknowledgement of Luther's centrality leaves, none the less, the phenomenon of his widespread support altogether unanswered. Certainly not all of his followers supported him for the right theological reason. Likewise the ecclesiastical proceedings against Luther could have been swifter, more effective, and more powerful. That they were not was due to the intricate political situation of the time. Whether Martin Luther was significantly stronger than his reforming predecessors can be debated. His enemies, however, most certainly were weaker. If church history can be written in the subjunctive, then one might say that there would have been a religious upheaval in the sixteenth century even if Martin Luther had died in the cradle."
It is not easy to write objectively about a figure like Martin Luther. Some Catholics call him an arch-heretic; others claim that his objections to church excesses were justified and, had he been alive today, he would have been in the fore-front of the renewal movement. When visiting Scandinavia (which had banned Roman Catholics in 1613 and now has a population of less than 1% Catholic, mostly immigrants), Pope John Paul II praised Martin Luther for his "profound religiousness," and, although he admitted Luther's ex-communication by the Church might seem an obstacle to unity, he did not revoke that discipline. Even Protestants can't agree. Halley calls him, "next to Jesus and Paul, the Greatest Man of all the ages" (capitals his).
A.H. Newman, the great Baptist church historian, writes in A Manual Of Church History, Vol. II, p. 411, "We are prompted to inquire whether (the Thirty Years' War) was a necessity; whether this was the only way in which Protestants and Catholics could be taught to respect each others rights? We cannot answer; but we have grave reason for doubting whether the destroyer (Luther) of old evangelical Christianity and the father of the great politico-ecclesiastical Protestant movement, which called forth the Counter- Reformation and the Jesuits, and which directly and indirectly led to the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), was after all as great a benefactor of the human race and promoter of the kingdom of Christ as has been commonly supposed."
Roman Catholic historian Louis de Wohl writes a great deal about Martin Luther, saying of him that "of all Germans, he and Karl Marx have brought about the greatest changes in the world." He seems to disregard Luther's history and chronology (Luther married, somewhat reluctantly, eight years after nailing his theses to Wittenburg church) when he writes, "(he) found that he could not bear a celibate life and therefore declared that no one else could either" and comes up with a statement like "the only people who still pray for Luther's soul are Catholic priests." It seems to be a case of a small man just not able to comprehend the tremendous complexity of Luther's great soul, and judging him on pure 20th century standards when he was a child of Roman Catholic culture and morality.
For a Jesuit's point of view and a brief history of Luther, we will turn to Priest Markoe. "Lutherans: The name of an heretical sect founded by Martin Luther, who was born at Eisleben, Germany, November 10, 1483; attended a Catholic Latin school at Mansfield, and in 1497, when fourteen years old, entered another Catholic school at Magdeburg. He matriculated at the Catholic University of Erfurt in Thuringia in 1501, where he became a Master of Philosophy at the age of twenty. On July 17, 1505 he entered the Augustinian monastery at Erfurt, and in 1507 was ordained a Catholic priest. In 1508 he was made professor of philosophy at the new Catholic University of Wittenberg, visited Rome in 1510 or 1511 on business of his Order, and sometime after his return began to lecture on the Scriptures. On October 31, 1517 he nailed his 95 theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg. On September 21, 1520, he was excommunicated by Pope Leo X. Later he married an ex-nun, Catherine von Bora, and finally died in 1546."
Before we get to Markoe's recitation of Luther's heresies, which will form the major part of our study, let us go to the other extreme and find some biographical details given to us by two of Luther's fans, Dr. Halley and J.A. Morrison, author of Martin Luther The Lion Hearted Reformer.
Dr. Halley prefixes his historical data with the statement, "He led the world in its break for Freedom from the most Despotic Institution in history." Morrison is slightly less exuberant in his praise. He states simply that "Luther followed Christ", a commendation far weightier than might be received from its brevity.
He was born on November 10, 1483 to Hans and Margaret Luther, humble German peasants. That from such ordinary stock should arise one who literally was used by God to change the world ought to be an encouragement to all of God's "ordinary" saints today.
Martin was his parents' oldest son, so they wanted him to be well educated, and probably, because of the acuteness of his mind, looked forward to the day when he would become rich and famous.
It was during his school years that he made the acquaintance of Conrad and Ursula Cotta, who greatly befriended him during his years of schooling in Eisenach. The unqualified love which they showed him is testified by him as a beautiful dawning in his heart. For the first time in his life, he knew the reality of a love that was freely given with no thought of self. He lived with them for four years.
Then he went to University, and, to the great delight of his father who by hard work had risen to an esteemed position in his home town, Luther took the degree of bachelor of arts in 1502 and master of arts three years later, at the age of 22.
The next years of Martin's life were full of turmoil. Torment about his personal sin bothered him. The plague which broke out in Erfurt took the lives of many students, and others fled in fear. He returned home for a visit, and was on his way back to the University when a fierce thunder storm raged around him. Superstition was rife in those days, and Martin feared the devil was about to get him. Panic-stricken, he fell to the ground and prayed his prayer to St. Anne, promising to become a monk. A few days later he invited his friends to a party, and in the midst of the frivolity, announced his decision; that night be entered the monastery of the Augustinian friars. During his time in the monastery, he was an exemplary monk, practicing all kinds of penances and even inventing new ones. Luther's father was extremely angry at his decision and did all his power to dissuade his son, but to no avail. When Martin offered his first Mass in May, 1507, his father attended and presented his son with a beautiful gift, but still indicated he was not reconciled to Martin's new life.
Halley places Luther's conversion in 1508, which is an earlier date than cited by most. Morrison dates it in 1510 during his visit to Rome, in a nice story that is probably not accurate. It tells of Martin's climbing the sancta scala (holy stairs) on his knees and being reminded by God of a passage he had read, "the just shall live by faith." However, it seems conclusive that it was this passage that led to Martin Luther's trusting Christ, and the legend that he added to this text in his Bible the word "alone" is probably just that. In any case, at some point in his life he truly trusted Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
Still a Roman Catholic priest after the date given for his conversion, the big break started over Tetzel's sale of indulgences. The orthodox Roman Catholic teaching is that an indulgence is a remission of punishment due for sins that have already been forgiven, which punishment would generally take place in Purgatory. The profit obtainable from the sale of indulgences, and the Pope's ambition to build a great basilica in Rome, contributed to the excesses commonly admitted by Roman Catholic scholars today to have existed. From the common ditty, "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from Purgatory springs," the thinking of many degenerated even further into many believing that they were actually buying a privilege to sin. The rank excesses over indulgence sales brought protest from Luther, first from his pulpit and then from the famous 95 theses nailed to the door of Wittenberg church.
Most of the theses related to Indulgences, and they were meant not to start a Protestant Reformation, but to furnish a scholarly base upon which the question of indulgences might be debated. But Germany, now politically ripe for a split with Rome, reacted violently, and the theses proved to be "the spark that set Europe alight."
Within three years the Pope issued a Bull of excommunication, which Luther publicly burned. He was summoned to appear before the Diet of Worms, where it is reported he said (with some variables), "Here I stand; I can do naught else, so help me God."
Luther was condemned by the Diet, but secreted away for about a year in Wartburg Castle, during which time he worked on the German translation of the Bible. Contrary to most Catholic thought, he did not rush into marriage with the ex-nun; it was many years after his ex-communication that, to show a proper example to others in the clerical state who left Rome, he married Catherine von Bora.
Having therefore concluded a very brief look at the enormous life of this great man, even though he did not himself become a martyr for the faith he can well be included in these pages for he was one of the leaders in God's great army of "heretics." We discover that he was a heretic by reading The Triumph Of The Church, not an infallible statement (who can find one of these in this century, except the thoroughly blasphemous statement by Pius XII that Mary was assumed into Heaven to be crowned as "Queen of Heaven"?), but one which should have some scholarly weight, being compiled by a Jesuit priest, published by an orthodox Roman Catholic publisher and given the imprimatur by Archbishop Glennon.
This Jesuit priest, John Markoe, recited a prolonged litany against Luther, which we will catalogue in quotation marks following, with comments which we will insert.
"Luther denied tradition." Note that Markoe mistakingly used a small "t", when Karl Keating, in Catholicism And Fundamentalism (page 138), explicitly states that Roman Catholic Tradition should be spelled with an upper-case "T", "to distinguish it from lower-case human traditions or customs."
When one reads the early encounters Luther had with his opponents as well as the content of the theses posted on the door of Wittenberg Church, one concludes that his thrust was not primarily a denial of tradition (or Tradition), but an elevation of scripture to the point where the position of the Bible would in itself sound the death-knell of human and ecclesiastical traditions. If this be the case, and if this be Markoe's charge, owning the truth of this accusation would place Luther well within the ranks of modern fundamentalists, and, indeed, Martin would have been counted among the martyrs were it not for God's protection which was forthcoming through the earthly means of Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony.
Some Christian theologians, among them Leonard Verduin in The Anatomy of a Hybrid, feel that Martin Luther's reliance on the secular arm was the means of a Constantinian compromise that would forever haunt the Reformation.
"Luther denied the divine authority of the papacy." It becomes extremely apparent to true students of the Reformation that Martin Luther for many years did not consider his mission to be anti-papal. As late as 1520 Luther wrote a very respectful letter to the pope, saying, in part, "I will freely and publicly confess that I am not conscious of anything but that I, whenever I thought of your person, always said the most honourable and best of you. I called you the Daniel in Babylon. So I come, Holy Father Leo, and lie prostrate at your feet." (Sendbrief au den Leo X, 1520. D. Martin Luthers Werke, Weimar, 1883ff.)
Of course, the pope's reply in the form of a bull of condemnation, "Exsurge Domine," (Arise, O Lord), led to Martin's ex-communication and later statements concerning a papal antichrist, but Luther seemed to hold a desire that the pope would right the wrongs committed by the indulgence sellers and other needs of church reformation (which Catholic scholars today generally own as having been necessary).
But perhaps what Markoe is trying to say is that Luther denied the absolute authority of the pope, especially when it transgressed the commands of scripture. That is why he prefaced his dramatic statement of his position at Worms with the understanding that this stand would be continued unless he was showed his error from the Word of God.
Fundamentalism today must stand where Luther stood regarding the uniqueness of revelation in scripture, whether the foe be tradition, papal power or humanism (secular or religious).
The next charge, "Luther denied that councils were infallible,"follows hard on the first two, and needs no further comment. Anyone believing the unique inerrancy of scripture is forced to reject any other source of truth.
"Luther denied that original justice was a supernatural gift." It is impossible to probe the minds of Markoe and Luther on this point and know for sure what each was getting at, but the first thing that comes to mind would certainly contrast "original justice" with "imputed justice", and a fundamentalist would be forced to conclude that the latter, being based upon the merits of Christ, would be far superior to the first, being based merely on the innocency in which man was created. From this premise might well come the next three "errors" with which Markoe accuses Luther, and to also see that the eternal security of the believer would be jeopardized if we merely equated original justice with redemptive justice. For, if original justice could be lost, redemptive justice could not guarantee everlasting life if it were merely its equal; yet, everlasting life is the very term that God delights to use in defining His Gift to mankind.
The statements attributed to Luther were: "(1) human nature did not remain essentially the same in its powers after the fall of Adam; (2) that man, after the fall, cannot produce any good works(3) that man sins in whatever he does."
All of these are addressing the fact of man's depravity, and can be seen to have been a seed from which the Roman Catholic Church can find its basis for today's ecumenical movement. The Roman church had stressed for centuries the unobtainability of salvation outside of its folds, yet today with an apparently straight face can say that men are within its folds without knowing it, that is, by their sincerity being linked to God's Church in varying degrees (Statement on Ecumenism, Vatican II). This stance would only be possible if Luther's denials, as stated above by Markoe, were in error.
No one would deny that an unsaved person could know that two plus two equals four, and that many human achievements can be accounted to those without Christ. The difficulty begins when we are tempted to assign redemptive qualities to these achievements, and in doing so, we fall into a web of ecumenism that is dishonoring to our Saviour.
For example, there was a wonderful humanitarian in Calcutta whose name was Mother Teresa. She had achieved great fame for her efforts, which, on a human level, must be acknowledged. Since we cannot read her heart, we may be generous in saying that these deeds were done unselfishly; only God knows.
I have yet to meet a fundamentalist pastor who would state, from his pulpit, that Mother Teresa was a Christian. I do not think I would be invited back to any fundamentalist church in which I had made that statement. Yet fundamentalists invite Dr. James Dobson into their pulpits and on their literature racks and in their homes via radio and television, and Dr. Dobson has made it clear both on his radio broadcast and in letters received that he believes Mother Teresa was a Christian. But if we realized what Martin Luther was trying to tell us, i.e., that no unsaved person can produce truly good works, we would stop looking at what seem to be good works and extolling them and realize that any person who still adores a piece of bread is not a Bible Christian, and anyone who thinks otherwise is certainly not to be welcomed in person or via radio or film to a fundamentalist platform.
"Luther", according to Markoe, "held that the sins of the just are covered by faith and not done away with." This is an allusion to the premise put forth by many Roman Catholic scholars that Martin Luther equated salvation to a covering of snow on a dung hill.
First, we have to realize that Martin Luther made many statements throughout his life, and to quote an early statement as though it summarized his life's beliefs, where a much later statement would clarify his position would be unfair and foolish. Martin Luther came from a Catholic background, and every converted Catholic knows that it takes some time for all of the past erroneous thinking to be done away with. Some doubt that it is ever completely removed this side of Glory. Also, brief quotes are often given out of context.
Further, converted Catholics of today have the advantage that they can attend Bible-believing churches and learn, in a relatively short time, many basic truths of Christianity. Martin Luther did not have The First Baptist Church of Wittenberg in which to attend Bible studies. Hence his grasp of spiritual truth becomes phenomenal when we see how God led him along.
That Martin Luther made some statements which he would today (being in Heaven) retract is obvious, but which of us has not made similar statements? Martin's understanding of saving grace and sanctifying grace were gradual, as in all of our lives.
Many treat Martin Luther as if he went to Wittenberg Church in 1518 as a Catholic, nailed the theses on the door, and went home a Lutheran. Such is pure folly.
Perhaps it can be inserted here that Martin Luther took a giant step from Rome in his soteriology (basic truths of salvation) as well as his practical life as a Christian. He lived in greater austerity as a monk than he did as a Christian, but that was because he was trying to merit his salvation. A picture of Luther in his later life, many battles past and living in a Christian home context, makes us realize that in every way he did move from Romanism to true Christianity.
It might be countered that he did not step quite far enough, but still held some Romish errors. More correctly it could be stated that many of his followers did not continue in the same direction in which he most nobly started.
Many Catholics love to recite some statements attributed to Luther. You can see them licking their chops when they say reputed statements like, "Love your wife, but cleave to your mistress." It is quite easy to write a biography and include statements that have no historical validity (Historians can do what God cannot do; He cannot change history but they can).
Then we hear of the "saintly" men who came from Protestantism to Romanism, and have to conclude that we gave them all of our good guys, and they gave us all of their bad guys.
Back to Priest Markoe. "Luther denied all the Sacraments except Baptism and the Eucharist." While it is true that Martin Luther continued to hold both of these, the direction in which his teaching was heading would, if followed to its natural end, also bring these two into a position of being understood as Ordinances and not Sacraments. But, instead of getting rid of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Lutherans adopted a theology where they believed in consubstantiation, not as damaging as transubstantiation, but certainly far from scriptural truth. And the insertion of baby baptism into their soteriology has caused confusion over the centuries and is, according to Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the error that sends more people to hell than any other doctrine.
"Luther denied transubstantiation." Indeed he did, as do we, and, continues Markoe, Luther also denied "the Sacrifice of the Mass." This latter position became the question on which the testimony of many martyrs would place them in an anti-Roman Catholic posture. The idolatrous Sacrifice of the Mass is built around the idea of transubstantiation, which simply states that, at his ordination, a priest is given the power to effect the change in substance of the bread (or wafer) so that it (usually spelled It in Catholic books) becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. This is dead central to Roman Catholic theology, and as the book The What And Why Of Roman Catholicism (Imprimatur, Cardinal Spellman) states, "If (the Sacrifice of the Mass) be what Catholics believe it is, here is the most wonderful demonstration of the love of God for man and the most magnificent testimonial to the validity of Catholicism, but if it be false, it is the worst farce and blasphemy ever perpetrated upon God or man, and the Catholic faith collapses into nothingness." And yet Dr. Billy Graham testified to the "true message of the Gospel" being delivered at the Mass where the friendly Roman Catholic cleric helped him by advising him when to kneel, etc.
"Luther denied purgatory." So does every Blood-washed saint, for we can testify, with the Apostle John, "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth from all sin." Having received infinite complete cleansing, to look for any supplementary cleansing would be to malign the One Who has washed us from our sins in His own blood (Rev. 1:4).
"Luther denied the utility of praying to the Saints," and well he might have, for "there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim 2:5). Our Catholic friends will point out to us that we request others to pray for us, and they thereby become our mediators, so it is not wrong to ask our friends in Heaven to likewise become mediators - not primary, as was Christ, but secondary.
To regard others who pray for us as being mediators demonstrates a lack of understanding of the word "mediator". A mediator is one who stands between warring parties; a mediator makes peace between those for whom there is no peace. When my pastor prays for me, he is not making peace between myself and God, for that peace has already been made by Jesus Christ (Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ - Romans 5:1).
The practice of praying to the saints suggests that the saints can obtain something for us that otherwise could not be obtained. We have a loving Saviour Who has assured us that the way into God's presence has now been made open for us, and we are invited to come boldly unto the throne of Grace to find help in time of need. Certainly the excellence of Christian prayer rules out any supposed help that the saints could give us. Why on earth would anyone get right into the very presence of God and then look around for a saint to talk to?
While many fundamentalists would disagree with certain of Martin Luther's beliefs, and others would criticize him as we have noted, we still must stand back and praise God for the way He led this pioneer into situations that were extremely hazardous, and in which God took the current modes of thinking, vitalized them with His Word, and brought about one of the singular events of history - the Protestant Reformation.
The sad thing is that so many of today's Lutherans have not only left the evangelical truth of their founder, they are actively pursuing a path that will ultimately lead to re-union with Rome. The Lutheran Church's unhappiness with the slowness with which this is taking place was echoed by Bishop Andreas Aarflot of Oslo, Norway. "We look forward to the day when Your Holiness clearly and unequivocally expresses the recognition of the ecclesial character of the Lutheran and other Protestant churches," he said.
More recent Lutheran/Catholic talks have found agreement on Justification by Faith, the very doctrine which was the shibboleth of the Reformation.