Not surprisingly, the article is barely documented, so it isn't completely clear what sources the Watchtower used. There are a number of quotes throughout the article. Some appear to be spurious (or at least re-written) at worst or from obscure sources at best. The statement that originally led me to this article appears to come from a 1967 Time Magazine article.
Surprisingly, the article is quite favorable to Luther. For example:
"Luther’s words and actions helped give birth to the Reformation—a religious movement described as 'the most significant revolution in the history of mankind.'"
"His translation of the Bible remains by far the most popular in the German language."
"In 1525, Martin Luther married Katharina von Bora, a former nun. Katharina was good at managing household affairs and was equal to the demands of her husband’s generosity. Luther’s household came to include not only a wife and six children but also friends, scholars, and refugees."And they attempt balance by pointing out some of the negatvies of Luther:
His later essays became increasingly severe. According to the Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Luther’s works reveal the “excessiveness of his anger” and a “lack of humility and love,” as well as a “highly developed sense of mission.”
When the Peasants’ War broke out and the principalities were bathed in blood, Luther was asked for his judgment on the uprising. Did the peasants have just cause for complaint against their feudal lords? Luther did not try to secure popular support by giving an answer pleasing to the majority. He believed that God’s servants should obey those in power. (Romans 13:1) In a forthright judgment, Luther said that the revolt should be put down with force. “Let whoever can, stab, strike, kill,” he said. Hanns Lilje remarked that this answer cost Luther “his hitherto unique popularity among the people.” Furthermore, Luther’s later essays on those Jews who refused to convert to Christianity, particularly On the Jews and Their Lies, have caused many to brand the author anti-Semitic.
Martin Luther had a sharp intellect, a prodigious memory, a mastery of words, and a prolific work ethic. He was also impatient and scornful, and he reacted vehemently to what he viewed as hypocrisy.
What I looked for as I read the article was how it gave testimony to the distinctives of the Watchtower. For instance, the Watchtower article mentions justification. Note the following snippets:
Luther considered himself unworthy of God’s favor and was at times driven to despair by a guilty conscience. But Bible study, prayer, and meditation helped him to gain a better understanding of how God views sinners. Luther recognized that God’s favor cannot be earned. Rather, it is granted through undeserved kindness to those exercising faith.—Romans 1:16; 3:23, 24, 28.
The doctrine of justification, or salvation, by faith and not by works, or penance, remained a central pillar of Luther’s teachings.
The Reformation, spurred on by men like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, led to the formation of a new approach to religion called Protestantism. Luther’s major legacy to Protestantism was his central teaching of justification by faith.Someone reading these statements quickly might find them within the realm of orthodoxy. Certainly it's true that Luther thought himself not worthy of God's favor. Certainly it's true that Luther had his evangelical breakthrough by "Bible study, prayer, and meditation." It is true that "Luther recognized that God’s favor cannot be earned." It is true that salvation is "by faith and not by works, or penance." What's missing from these statements is Luther's emphasis on the righteousness of Christ imputed to sinners (alien righteousness), and the word "alone," as in "faith alone." The majority of the article focuses on what Luther did: his works. Without stating it explicitly, the Watchtower has presented its soteriology: having faith in God and doing works.
One of the other implicit features of Watchtower theology is their inclusion of sections on Luther's Bible. his gifts as a translator, and an emphasis on the evils of the Roman church. The Watchtower sees their translation of the Bible as the end result of God's providence in preserving His word. In another Watchtower article you can see how "Jehovah Has Preserved His Word" from the opposition of Rome through such men like Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Luther.
One curious feature of the article is it's unqualified use of the term "Protestant":
The Reformation, spurred on by men like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, led to the formation of a new approach to religion called Protestantism. Luther’s major legacy to Protestantism was his central teaching of justification by faith. Each of the German principalities aligned itself with either the Protestant or the Catholic faith. Protestantism spread and gained popular support in Scandinavia, Switzerland, England, and the Netherlands. Today it has hundreds of millions of adherents.The Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider themselves "Protestants." See their explanation here: Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a Protestant Religion?
Does the Watchtower actually think Luther was a proto-Jehovah's Witness? I don't know. A few years back I posted some comments from an old Watchtower publication in which Luther is cited as one of the "Lord's messengers" along with Charles Taze Russell. On the other hand, this link states
First, although Protestant faiths reject certain features of Catholic worship, Reformation leaders retained certain Catholic dogmas, such as belief in the Trinity, hellfire, and the immortality of the human soul. Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, believe that those doctrines not only contradict the Bible but also promote a distorted view of God.
Addendum for the Defenders of Rome
Does this sound familiar?
Third, unlike the Protestant movement, which has splintered into hundreds of denominations, Jehovah’s Witnesses have maintained a united global brotherhood. When it comes to Bible doctrine, Jehovah’s Witnesses in over 230 countries follow the apostle Paul’s counsel to “speak in agreement.” There are no divisions among them. Instead, they are genuinely “united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.” (1 Corinthians 1:10) They strive within their own ranks “to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace.”—Ephesians 4:3 [source]
A response was offered to this blog entry: Beggars All and the Jehovah's Witnesses position concerning justification—yet another misrepresentation of a non-Reformed soteriology. The response was written by an ex-defender of Rome (if I recall correctly) with whom this blog has interacted with over the years. Of my interactions with this blogger, I've noticed the imprecise defining of theological positions (the very thing I'm being accused of with his latest response). For instance, in our previous interaction, the blogger thinks Luther held the "Roman church" is a true church, but failed to account for Luther's important distinction between the Roman church and the papal church. He used a quote without a context (that when read in context, demonstrates the distinction). Given Trent's later anathema of sola fide and sola scriptura (to name only two distinctives from Trent), it's not much of speculative stretch to say the papal church still lives on to this day.
In my entry on the Watchtower and Luther, I dissected whether or not the Luther being presented was the actual Luther of history. I noted that the Watchtower did present some accurate information. On the other hand, I attempted to demonstrate that Watchtower theological assumptions must be kept in mind when reading who they think Luther was. For instance, when Luther proclaimed justification by faith, does the Watchtower mean the same thing when it stated, "Luther recognized that God’s favor cannot be earned. Rather, it is granted through undeserved kindness to those exercising faith"? I would argue that the Watchtower's view of faith in relation to works, and faith and its relationship to the righteousness of Christ (Luther's "great exchange") are fundamentally different than what Luther held to. So in his present criticism, the blogger equates Luther's view of sola fide and the Watchtower's alleged view of sola fide, without actually presenting Luther's view of sola fide and comparing it to what he purports the Watchtower believes. Nor have I come across anything from the Watchtower in which they actually attempt to explain Luther's view in comparison to their own view. This hearkens back to what Walter Martin said decades ago about the cults- that they redefine the standard terms used to describe biblical truth [See, Martin's Kingdom of the Cults (Minnesota: Bethany House, 1985), chapter 2]. When a Jehovah's Witness rings a doorbell and says "Yes, we believe in justification by faith," I contend they mean something much different than what Luther promulgated.
For instance, the following quote was offered in rebuttal to me:
Finishing his earthly course free from flaw in any sense of the word, Jesus was acknowledged by God as justified. He was thus the only man, who through test, stood firmly and positively just, or righeous before God on his own merit. By this "one act of justification [form of di•kai'o•ma],"that is, by Jesus' proving himself perfectly righteous his entire flawless course, including his sacrifice, he provided the basis for declaring righteous those persons having faith in Christ.—Rom. 5:17-19; 3:25, 26; 4:25. [Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, p. 437.]The Watchtower makes this entire document available on line. There are a number of points made that would stand in opposition to Luther's theology. For instance, after the quote cited above, the Watchtower explains "Christ Jesus’ 'One Act of Justification'." Missing is any discussion of Christ taking upon himself the sin of the world (Luther's "great exchange"). Rather, the Watchtower says, "...[B]y Jesus’ proving himself perfectly righteous through his entire flawless course, including his sacrifice, he provided the basis for declaring righteous those persons having faith in Christ." Then comes the contrary view to Luther's:
Although Jehovah forgives their sins of fleshly weakness and imperfection, nevertheless, a conflict exists in these Christians, as illustrated in Paul’s letter to the Romans (7:21-25). It is between the law of their renewed mind (Ro 12:2; Eph 4:23), or “God’s law,” and “sin’s law” that is in their members. This is because their fleshly bodies are not perfected, even though they are counted righteous and their sins are forgiven. This conflict contributes to the test of their integrity toward God. They can win this conflict by the help of God’s spirit and with the assistance of their merciful High Priest, Christ Jesus. (Ro 7:25; Heb 2:17, 18) To win, however, they must constantly exercise faith in Christ’s ransom sacrifice and follow him, thus maintaining their righteousness in God’s eyes. (Compare Re 22:11.) Thereby they ‘make their calling and choosing sure’ for themselves. (2Pe 1:10; Ro 5:1, 9; 8:23-34; Tit 3:6, 7) If, on the other hand, they take up the practice of sin, falling away from the faith, they lose their favored standing before God as righteous persons because they “impale the Son of God afresh for themselves and expose him to public shame.” (Heb 6:4-8) Such ones face destruction. (Heb 10:26-31, 38, 39) Thus, Jesus spoke of the sin that has no forgiveness, and the apostle John distinguished between the sin that “does not incur death” and the sin that “does incur death.”—Mt 12:31, 32; 1Jo 5:16, 17.Now what's interesting about this quote also is it refers only to those who are "The followers of Jesus Christ who are called to be his spiritual brothers, with the prospect of being joint heirs with him in the heavenly Kingdom." If I recall JW theology, this refers to the original 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses. according to the Watchtower, since this number of people has already been fulfilled, the best today's Jehovah's Witnesses can hope for is to be numbered in the "great multitude." This document goes on to say of them:
The “great crowd,” who survive the “great tribulation,” are not yet declared righteous for life—that is, as worthy of the right to everlasting life on earth. They need to continue partaking of the “fountains of waters of life,” as guided by the Lamb, Christ Jesus. They will need to do this during the Millennial Reign of Christ. (Re 7:17; 22:1, 2) If they prove loyal to Jehovah through a final test at the end of the thousand years, they will have their names permanently retained in God’s book of life, Jehovah thus declaring, or acknowledging, that they finally are righteous in the complete sense.—Re 20:7, 8; see LIFE (Trees of Life).I'm not entirely sure of the motivations of this blogger, but the application of equivocation to distinct theologies leads me to wonder if this particular person has embraced some form of a universal Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man approach to Christian theism (or perhaps theism in general).
"Does this sound familiar?"
ReplyDeleteSure. And false messiahs/prophets made similar claims as genuine prophets and Christ. That doesn't mean the genuine prophets and Christ and the Apostles were making useless claims or their authority was therefore invalidated.
Thanks Cletus. Your comment was a good reminder of how each person must use their private judgment to make their own conclusions as to choosing ultimate authorities.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes: when "genuine" sources make claims, the misinterpretation or misuse of those claims does not invalidate the genuine source.
That some people misinterpret or twist the Bible is not the fault of the Bible, hence not a proof against sola scriptura. In the same way, that I may possibly configure my computer incorrectly is not the fault of the owner’s manual that comes with it. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source.
This same principle applies to Rome. That some Roman Catholics misuse and abuse their source of authority doesn't negate that infallible source of authority.
So to summarize: If the argument you're using works just as well against your own position, it's an invalid argument. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity or authority of that sufficient source.
James,
ReplyDeleteWe don't even need to go the "Protestants disagree" route. We could limit Protestants to just a single person, say yourself. You're not in disagreement with yourself and you're unified. That doesn't actually engage the argument being made regarding private judgment, nor does pointing out we all choose/interpret engage it.
But turning to perspicuity as you did, let's for argument's sake assume Scripture is. What hypothetical scenario would demonstrate to you that it actually wasn't perspicuous?
But Bible study, prayer, and meditation helped him to gain a better understanding of how God views sinners.
ReplyDeleteThe state this in particular because these are basically formal "sacraments" for JWs, while Luther being a dissident (as Christ and the apostles also were) they hope to justify their own dissent.
However, what they will not mention is that Luther did not simply study and meditate what some cult approved, and only that as JWs must, nor rejected worship of Christ, among other things Watchtower disciples .
And His dissent was not in order to create a cult in which souls were to implicitly assent to him and leadership, as JWs must and RCs are supposed to do, versus determining the veracity of Truth claims based on the weight of Scriptural substantiation, as the NT began under.
In contrast, both Rome and cults operate under sola ecclesia.
We don't even need to go the "Protestants disagree" route. We could limit Protestants to just a single person, say yourself. You're not in disagreement with yourself and you're unified. That doesn't actually engage the argument being made regarding private judgment, nor does pointing out we all choose/interpret engage it.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that a SS type Christian judges that Scripture is worthy to be their supreme authority, and while he sees much of it as basically clear, yet much also is subject to varying degrees of interpretation.
To which he can look to pastors and teachers for help in, and is usually subject to correction from leadership and others (and will more likely experience correction in an evangelical church than a RC one).
Yet ultimately he decides what he will believe and obey, though not as possessing ensured formulaic infallibility, like a pope (despite RC charges that Luther or we are).
Likewise, a RC convert judges (based on his fallible human reasoning), that the Roman Catholic church warrants being his supreme earthly authority on faith and morals.
And while he sees much of its teaching as basically clear, yet much also is subject to varying degrees of interpretation, to which he can look to the current pope and prelates and others for help in (and may realize some correction if he is further left than Teddy K. was).
Yet not only can magisterial interpretation vary but ultimately it is the individual that must decide what to believe and obey, even if not presuming what popes do.
As Ratzinger (as Archbishop) taught,
"Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church" Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1.).
“Conscience is the highest norm [italics in original] and ... and one must follow it even against authority. When authority - in this case the Church’s Magisterium - speaks on matters of morality, it supplies the material that helps the conscience form its own judgment, but ultimately it is only conscience that has the last word.” (Cardinal Ratzinger, “Values in a Time of Upheaval,” p. 62)
Of course, that does not make conscience to be determinative of truth, or deliver one from consequences of dissent from authority, and the Catholic is obliged to form conscience according to Catholic teaching. - cf. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html
The key question is, where do we see ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility in Scripture, and as essential for discernment and preservation of Truth?
PBJ,
ReplyDelete"The fact is that a SS type Christian judges that Scripture is worthy to be their supreme authority, and while he sees much of it as basically clear, yet much also is subject to varying degrees of interpretation."
Right, and when there's a dispute between him and others on meaning or clarity, how is such to be adjudicated or definitively settled?
Secondly, what would be a hypothetical scenario that would show Scripture to be non-perspicuous?
"To which he can look to pastors and teachers for help in, and is usually subject to correction from leadership and others"
Suppose said individual judges using Scripture the leadership and others are wrong. Is he licensed to follow his own judgment? Or is he bound to defer and submit?
"Yet ultimately he decides what he will believe and obey"
Right, so you affirm both PJ1 and PJ2.
"though not as possessing ensured formulaic infallibility"
Right which is why you affirm both PJ1 and PJ2. No church or person has divine (i.e. infallible) authority. So no judgment/interpretation/teaching can be normative and binding upon all.
"The key question is, where do we see ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility in Scripture, and as essential for discernment and preservation of Truth?"
First ask yourself if PJ1 is affirmed in Scripture.
"what would be a hypothetical scenario that would show Scripture to be non-perspicuous?"
ReplyDeletePerhaps I am missing something here, but I would say the only scenario would be if the scriptures said as much...but of course this is the issue, since those that hold to the POS typically see it taught in scripture.
In Him,
Joe
Pt. 1.
ReplyDeleteRight, and when there's a dispute between him and others on meaning or clarity, how is such to be adjudicated or definitively settled?
If you read carefully what i wrote, i affirmed being subject to leadership. He goes to the next level, that of leadership, and of their leaders if necessary, which are to judge in a timely matter whether this is an issue that must be definitively settled, and if so, does so to at least a basic degree. And Westminster affirms "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith...and authoritatively to determine the same." And as seen in Scripture, this does not require infallibility (read on).
We can investigate how problematic this has worked in Rome, nonetheless ideally there should be a centralized magisterium of manifest men of God. But one that presumes perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, infallibly defining itself as infallible, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture for discernment and preservation of Truth and for authority, has eliminated itself from being that magisterium.
And her pseudo-successors (in particular) fail of both the qualifications (and credentials for being so. Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12). ]
And it was only under real manifest apostles of God, evidencing themselves "in all things as ministers of God," whose authority was "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power," including a supernatural sword of discipline, that the NT church at large had its limited amount of theological unity, while division soon occurred afterwards, and ultimately unity under Rome was largely thru political power and the use the carnal sword of men.
Having lost that Catholicism exists in schisms and sects, formal and informal, counting and treating as members everyone from both proabortion/sodomite pols to SSPX sects. Which amalgamation RCs require conservative evangelicals should join.
In reality, the unity of Rome is quite limited and largely in paper, while what one does and effects is what testifies to what one really believes, which Rome examples by her implicit affirmation of liberals as members.
In addition, Rome's historical recalcitrant arrogance has evil-affected even the idea of a central magisterium, while for Prots, the division which Scripture requires from error and uncleanness (2Co. 6:14-18) too much became the default means of settling disputes. Even if it overall resulted in an increase in the body of Christ, and for the elect to separate from those who went South.
And rather than the latter indicting SS and SE, the most liberal Protestant denoms tend to be those closest to Rome, while those who hold most strongly to the authority of Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are overall the most committed and unified in core beliefs, far more than the fruit of Rome.
Secondly, what would be a hypothetical scenario that would show Scripture to be non-perspicuous?
Often that which RCs invoke as supporting Rome, such as 1Tim. 3:15. It is amazing what a RC who condemns private interpretation of Prots can extrapolate out of 8 Greek words, which basically only say the church supports the truth, not that it alone is the supreme authority on Truth.
Pt. 2.
ReplyDeleteSuppose said individual judges using Scripture the leadership and others are wrong. Is he licensed to follow his own judgment? Or is he bound to defer and submit?
In such a case he is bound to submit if he will remain a member of that church, or at least enjoy the blessings of full membership, just as one must submit to the laws of this land if he will...
Yet one is also bound to obey his own conscience, even though the consequences can even mean death. (Dt. 17:8-13; Rm. 13:1-7) In the church the only means of discipline other than rebuke and disfellowship is that of punishment by supernatural means, (1Co. 5:4,5,13; 1Tim. 1:20) which testifies of the correct judgment and the authority of the church and leadership. I remember members praying a member out of jail as well as into jail - for his own spiritual good!
But the fundamental difference btwn Scripture and Rome is that the former knows nothing of a perpetual infallible magisterium, and thus the disallowance of any valid dissent from the magisterium in matters of faith of morals.
It seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.
"Yet ultimately he decides what he will believe and obey "
Right, so you affirm both PJ1 and PJ2.
PJ1 and PJ2? You post lacks perspicuity. You mean you see this as denying magisterial authority? That is a superficial reading or understanding of the issue.
"though not as possessing ensured formulaic infallibility "
Right which is why you affirm both PJ1 and PJ2. No church or person has divine (i.e. infallible) authority. So no judgment/interpretation/teaching can be normative and binding upon all.
I am not sure what that refers to, but neither the individual ultimately deciding what he will believe and obey, nor the magisterium not possessing ensured formulaic infallibility, militates against the magisterium issuing normative and binding judgments upon all. Unless you think the OT magisterium was infallible, or had no authority, and that civil powers do not today.
First ask yourself if PJ1 is affirmed in Scripture.
That the individual ultimately decides what he will believe and obey, and the magisterium not possessing ensured formulaic infallibility yet having authority to issue normative and binding judgments upon all.