TurretinFan is much more gracious than I am. He's been going through Steve Ray's 35 loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" (PDF alert). TurretinFan came upon #30:
30) If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that “there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?
TFan did a great job of locating a very similar Luther quote, via a book by Joseph Lortz:
The whole history of philosophy and religion, of Christian heresies, and finally of the Reformation itself, is convincing proof of a statement that Luther himself affirmed in his First Lecture on the Psalms: “Unless doctrine is authoritatively promulgated by a living human being endowed with the authority to teach, there will be as many doctrines as there are heads.” Joseph Lortz, The Reformation: a problem for today (Newman Press, 1964), p. 246
In his lecture on the Psalms (about 1512), he had said: “Unless doctrine can be authoritatively guaranteed by one living man, there will be as many doctrines as there are men.” Joseph Lortz, The Reformation: a problem for today (Newman Press, 1964), p. 149
I say TFan is more gracious, because he says, "I'm quite sure Steve Ray cannot give an accurate citation for that alleged quotation from Luther." I'd go a bit further, and say Steve Ray probably doesn't even know what a "Lortz" is. In fact, I'd speculate that Ray (or David Palm, if it was his question) actually was using a different Luther quote, but cited it incorrectly (see this link also).
As TFan points out, if indeed these men are using the same quote Lortz is referring to, it's a pre-Reformation quote, not a quote from the end of his life, and it has nothing to do with Luther being "frustrated." But if my suspicion is correct, the botched quote they are using is from 1525: not the end of his life either. So, when Ray says,"frustrated at the end of his life," this was just added on for propaganda purposes. Either scenario demonstrates the question is bogus.
It is true that Luther lamented the rise of sects, as well as sects within Romanism. But Luther doesn't blame the perspicuity of Scripture, nor does his blame sola scriptura. He blames Satan and sin. He fully expected the Gospel to cause divisions. He fully expected the preaching of the Scriptures to be attacked by those misusing it.
If any of you haven't read TFan's critique of Ray's 35 Loaded Questions, I strongly suggest you begin doing so. The questions are loaded alright: their loaded with errors, and I doubt we'll see any serious responses by Mr. Ray to TFan's analysis.
One final irony: Steve Ray sells the Collected Works of Martin Luther on his website, I kid you not. I suggest perhaps he buy this product from himself and at least cite things accurately.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
The problem with citing a remark like this by Luther is that usually the person citing it isn't aware of the discipline of rhetoric, which, via humanism, underlay a great deal of what the Reformers wrote. Rhetoric then was not, as the term connotes to us today, mere verbal sophistry, but rather the way that every educated person thought, spoke, and wrote. And as a formal discipline, rhetoric has numerous tropes and figures of speech and deliberate constructions of phraseology that are designed entirely for the purpose of moving the human will to accept or reject a certain proposition being offered to the intellect for consideration. Even when old writers, as in the 16th century, didn't consciously pick their rhetorical tropes and examples, they grabbed them simply by reflex action, from having trained for years and years to think and write in colorful and persuasive ways.
This phraseology of Luther's is probably nothing more fantastic than an ordinary rhetorical use of the formal device of Hyperbole.
Perhaps interestingly, there is a passage in the mid-15th century papalist Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini writing about the chaos in Christendom due to the last phases of the Conciliar Movement. In a letter to a friend, Aeneas writes that because of the extreme controversies between the pope and the emperor, "Christianity has no head whom all wish to obey. Neither the Pope nor the Emperor is rendered his due. There is no reverence, no obedience. Thus we regard the Pope and Emperor as if they bore false titles and were mere painted objects…There are as many princes as there are households.
Any thinking person can tell that this is just rhetorical exaggeration. It isn't literally true; it's a statement made for emotional effect, nothing more.
It's amusing the Leo X tried to stop Luther's work from being sold and Steve Ray actively promotes it - yet claims to be on the "same side" as Leo X.
There were obviously multiple issues which led to the development of the book of Concord, which quite a few of us still stick with half a millenium later.
Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini writing about the chaos in Christendom due to the last phases of the Conciliar Movement.
Likewise, in regards to “sects”- Luther said of the Roman Catholic Church:
“…there is no other place in the world where there are so many sects, schisms, and errors as in the papal church."
It's amusing the Leo X tried to stop Luther's work from being sold and Steve Ray actively promotes it - yet claims to be on the "same side" as Leo X.
Excellent point.
When I pointed out to an RC recently that Ratizinger's interpretation of Luther was not the same destructive interpretation she was putting forth, she replied:
" the pope has his own opinions on Luther, especially since the pope is German. But Catholics are free to disagree with the pope on matters that are not related to faith and morals. For example, I can believe that Luther may have been influenced by the devil--I may be right or wrong; but I'm free to make that assessment."
so perhaps Steve Ray is simply using his Pope-given freedom to make a few bucks selling Luther books.
To Tim Enloe: I quite agree that the Reformers spoke rhetorically. Their Satanic doctrines are full of rhetorical doublespeak. All of Luther's most diabolical remarks, "Sin Boldly," etc. are couched in the rhetorical putrescence of which you speak. This is because that is how the devil communicates -- out of both sides of his mouth. If you follow the manmade religions of Luther, Calvin or Zwingle (or Chuck Smith) to the grave, you will go to hell. Period. The only salvific religion is the one Christ founded, the Catholic religion, of which St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Smyrneans in 107 A.D.
Mr. Carmichael,
Tim has been off the radar for quite a few years. I rather doubt he'll show up to respond to your critique of a comment he made 5 years ago.
Post a Comment