Kudos to the Three Pillars blog for debunking this Luther quote utilized by Catholic Answers:
Toward the end of his life, Martin Luther would bemoan the religious indifference wrought by the movement he began:
Who among us could have foreseen how much misery, corruption, scandal, blasphemy, ingratitude, and wickedness would have resulted from it? Only see how the nobles, the burghers, and the peasants are trampling religion underfoot! I have had no greater or severer subject of assault than my preaching, when the thought arose in me: thou art the sole author of this movement.
This is another of many quotes typically used by Rome's defenders claiming Luther regretted the Reformation. I don't recall seeing the bulk of this particular quote before. The Three Pillars blog was able to determine that Catholic Answers mined it out of either Warren Carroll's The Cleaving of Christendom or Johannes Janssen, History of the German People 6: 276-277. Janssen was a nineteenth century Roman Catholic historian heavily fueled with anti-Luther sentiment. The quote appears to be a hodgepodge of Luther quotes strung together. Catholic Answers haphazardly cut-and-pasted from one of these sources without checking it first.
It looks to me that the first sentence was not documented by Janssen: "Who among us could have foreseen how much misery, corruption, scandal, blasphemy, ingratitude, and wickedness would have resulted from it?" I suspect this may be from Luther's comments on John 13 which I covered here. The Three Pillars blog was able to determine the origins of the second and third sentences. Sentence #2 was taken from the Table Talk: "Only see how the nobles, the burghers, and the peasants are trampling religion underfoot!" The last sentence then comes from a completely different page in the Table Talk, "I have had no greater or severer subject of assault than my preaching, when the thought arose in me: thou art the sole author of this movement." Janssen presented a cumulative case of Luther quotes from different places, Catholic Answers appears to have simply assumed it was one quote Luther said.... somewhere!
I greatly appreciate the work on this quote done by Scott Cooper, and will add his post to my series, Did Luther Regret the Reformation? Many of Rome's defenders have notoriously used secondary hostile sources without checking the quotes they're utilizing. I concur with Mr. Cooper:
It’s surprising that a non-profit, extremely popular apologetics empire with an annual budget over $10 million doesn’t have basic editorial standards minimally requiring direct quotes to have a citation. What’s more concerning is this doesn’t appear to be a simple oversight on a web page. Catholic Answers is apparently selling a book with this false quote and the author of the article is “a Lecturer in Church History at the Christendom College Graduate School of Theology.”
Posts
6 comments:
1) I am Catholic, but I have never been impressed with Catholic Answers.
2) More to the point: even if what you said above is correct, namely that Catholic Answers misquoted Luther or strung together quotes, etc, is the overarching principle they are getting at incorrect? In other words---was Luther towards the end of his life not bothered by the divisions in Protestantism? Did he have nothing to say on it? My understanding was that Luther WAS, in fact, frustrated by the divisions in Protestantism. Is my understanding wrong?
It would be helpful if you defined "divisions in Protestantism." The "protest" was generally against accretions that had built-up and been added to Apostolic teaching, thus things that did not appear in Scripture, and often not in the early church. There were certainly "divisions" in terms of debates about the particulars. Luther/Zwingli, the rather uniform persecution of the Anabaptists, etc. but the idea that there was this proliferation of new ideas and "interpretations," which is commonly suggested in modern apologetics, is simply false. It was more about taking things away (indulgences, e.g.) than adding things anew. Even doctrinal definitions that emerge like "Sola Scriptura" are just terms to describe an understanding of the nature of Scripture and attitudes towards it, which are very much traceable to the early church (example below). So, what are the specific "divisions in Protestantism" to which you refer?
In addition to mischaracterizations of the "protest" it is very common for people (again, largely due to polished but false narratives in modern apologetics...often from outlets like Catholic Answers) have this idealistic, utopian idea of unity in Roman Catholicism that has never really existed. Here are two examples:
https://catholicherald.co.uk/religious-orders-at-war/
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2238&context=open_access_theses
I mentioned the rather uniform persecution of the Anabaptists, which did get to be extreme but apart from that, I think you'd be unlikely to find much within the "Protestant" umbrella that approaches these "Catholic" divisions. They were vicious and brutal. Even today, the sedevacantist/TLM crowd are so at odds with the others, they won't even attend the same mass. Can you show me a Methodist that has so much distaste for the secondary doctrinal differences or worship practice differences they have with Presbyterians that they refuse to walk into their church or join them at the Lord's table, if presented the opportunity? If a new dogma is defined today in Catholicism, anyone that can't in good conscience believe it, is effectively (in theory) banned from communion. So, when papal infallibility was officially defined and dogmatized in the late 19th century, the "Old Catholic Church" split off...were they the divisive ones for wanting to hold to what they were allowed to believe for over 1800 years prior?
Regarding your question: "was Luther towards the end of his life not bothered by the divisions in Protestantism?" - Visit the page of debunked Luther quotes that James linked above. As you read through them and get the context, you will see a historical picture emerge that is not what modern apologists teach. They don't teach history, they teach a very polished, zealous, religious narrative, much of which has roots in the polemic, anti-Luther literature that is discussed above.
An example of "Sola Scriptura" in principle in the early church:
St. Basil (this is interesting because he's specifically contrasting custom/tradition):
"They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth."
, is the overarching principle they are getting at incorrect? In other words---was Luther towards the end of his life not bothered by the divisions in Protestantism?
The overarching principle is incorrect, and yes, Luther was "bothered" by "divisions," but not in the sense that Catholic Answers (and others) claim (i.e., like... deep regret as in, "what have I done?"
Scott, your whole post is my whole problem with Protestantism. You seem to want to rationalize and excuse away the serious divisions that exist in Protestantism as though they are not relevant, not important, or do not affect substantive doctrine.
The divisions that exist in Protestantism ARE important because they are substantive. For example: if TULIP is correct, then that means Reformed Protestantism is what is biblical. Sects that do not subscribe to TULIP are not biblical. Not wanting to speak for James Swan, I think he would recognize non-TULIP professing Christians as Christians--he just respectfully disagrees with.
What is the nature of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Ask a Lutheran, get told one thing. Ask a Presbyterian, get told something else. Ask a Baptist, get told something else still. How about infant Baptism? Ask a Lutheran, get told one thing, ask a Baptist, get told something else. Ask a Presbyterian, get told something else still. What about how the doctrine of Sola Scriptura should be defined? Ask James Swan, get told one thing. (Sola Scriptura) Ask a fundamentalist Baptist, get told something else. (Solo Scriptura) I could go on and on. You just want to dismiss and rationalize all of those divisions and disagreements away as irrelevant. They are not irrelevant. God desired that the Faith His Church professes be one, not many. You would think the Christian Church would be able to agree on what God has revealed, yet it isn't; not in Protestantism.
As for the ECF, sure they taught that Scripture is the supreme authority in the Church. Sure they recognized Scripture as the highest, even the ultimate authority on the Church. But there is one main difference between the ECF and modern Protestants: the ECF didn't divorce Scripture from its context within the Church or Tradition. For the ECF, the Church was a Communion of believers united to their bishop, the bishop who was united to the world-wide bishops and the Bishop of Rome. Within this context, Sola Scriptura makes perfect sense. However, in the modern context of Protestantism, the Church is many, not one as I have shown above. The Church is not a union of believers united to their bishop, who in turn is the point of unity with the world-wide bishops and the Bishop of Rome. The Church is--the Presbyterians doing their thing, Lutherans doing their thing, Baptists doing their thing, Methodists doing their thing. Even within those sects---there is not a union of believers. There are many sects of Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Baptist, etc.
So look at the Church of the ECF and look at the modern Protestant CHurch. There simply is no comparison.
Anonymous, you said: "The divisions that exist in Protestantism ARE important because they are substantive. For example: if TULIP is correct, then that means Reformed Protestantism is what is biblical. Sects that do not subscribe to TULIP are not biblical. Not wanting to speak for James Swan, I think he would recognize non-TULIP professing Christians as Christians--he just respectfully disagrees with."
You're making false and unwarranted assumptions. Lookup Turretinfan's YouTube channel and the "Conversations in Calvinism" series and you'll see two believers with opposing views on TULIP, that have the same Gospel, agree on the authority of Scripture, and are great friends having very productive discussions about their disagreements. Look into the Whitefield/Weseley debates and disagreements and you'll find the same. Lookup Whitefields eulogy from Wesley's funeral. Look at the relationship and friendship of John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul and you'll see very similar disagreements that were nowhere near as "divisive" or "substantive" as you say.
Regarding "xyz doing their thing," indeed, they are all generally upholding the Word of God and preaching the same Gospel, in spite of their disagreements. Where does Scripture tell us we are known for complete doctrinal uniformity, outside of the Gospel message of "Jesus Christ and Him crucified"? What you won't see in your examples is people from the various persuasions claiming those they disagree with on the points you mention are "not Christians" or have a "false Gospel." Compare that to a sedvancantist that thinks Francis is the antichrist, or at best an idolatress non-Christian who has "infiltrated" the church. Compare it to "wars" between orders, like those described here: https://catholicherald.co.uk/religious-orders-at-war/
Scott:
In other words:
What makes someone a real Christian is only that they profess 1) Justification by Faith alone and 2) Scripture alone.
Everything else is irrelevant.
Question: what difference does belief in Justification by Faith alone make if one is not a Calvinist? If Calvinism is true, then anyone who rejects Calvinism---could not be justified by Faith alone could they? If Calvinism is true, would not a person who is truly justified by Faith alone believe it? Does not the Holy Spirit lead one into all truth? If Calvinism is true, it would seem to follow that anyone who is truly justified by Faith alone would believe it.
Where am I going wrong?
Post a Comment