Through a Facebook discussion comes this shocking Martin Luther quote:
Do Protestants believe in the Papacy? They sure do; they just don't believe in the Catholic Papacy! Ken Hensley as a Protestant writes, Luther wrote, "to be sure, each Christian is for himself Pope and church" (Wierke, Weimar: 1898, 5:407, p. 35). This, in part is why Ken isn’t Protestant anymore!
This is a standard pop-apologetic Roman Catholic argument: without Rome's infallible interpreter governing the meaning of Scripture, each person functions as their own interpreter of Scripture. This Facebook post goes on to say, "As one Protestant minister convert put it, when he became Catholic, 'I am glad I don’t have to be the Pope anymore.' I must admit, there are some honest Protestants out there!" This is old-school Roman Catholic apologetics in which a seemingly outrageous quote from Luther is utilized (along with a reference to an obscure source) to justify Roman Catholicism. Why would Luther say or write such a thing? Why would he affirm that without the Roman Catholic papacy, each person becomes a Pope? It seems like a bizarre admission from the Reformer.
We'll see from the context, Luther was not saying what this argument purports.
Documentation
The documentation offered is first to Roman convert Ken Hensley's article, Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? Mr. Hensley writes,
We’ve been talking about the “foundation” upon which Protestantism as a worldview is built: sola Scriptura. What is involved in a commitment to sola Scriptura? It’s often summarized simply as the belief that the inspired Scriptures are to function as the “sole infallible rule of faith and practice for the individual Christian and for the Christian Church.” But actually, sola Scriptura includes within it another key commitment: the right of each Christian to study the Bible and decide for himself what it is teaching. Protestants commonly refer to this as the “right of private judgment,” and it’s understood as following inescapably from a belief in sola Scriptura. “In these matters of faith,” Luther wrote, “to be sure, each Christian is for himself pope and church” (Werke, Weimar: 1898, 5:407, p. 35).
Mr. Hensley presents a Luther quote in English, but if the documentation is checked, the source is in Latin. This is standard pop-apologetic Roman Catholic methodology: give off the appearance of credible scholarship by using obscure sources. Luther said x, here is a reference to a source that casual English readers will not know how to look up, and even if they do know how to look it up, they will only understand the source if they can read German or Latin!
I suspect Mr. Hensley actually did not translate Latin into English, nor did he actually utilize "Werke, Weimar: 1898, 5:407, p. 35." It is more likely he cut-and-pasted this quote from elsewhere. Perhaps he used the Robert Sungenis driven anthology, Not By Scripture Alone. This book uses the same English rendering and documentation:
Luther, the grand champion of sola scriptura, ultimately was forced to set his own authority above Scripture when the Bible contradicted his own position...This appeal to his own authority was consistent with his conviction that "in these matters of faith, to be sure, each Christian is for himself Pope and Church" (in his enim, quae sunt fidei, quilibet Christianus est sibi Papa et Ecclesia). [D Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: 1898; 5:407, 35].
The primary source cited by Mr. Hensely is "WA 5:407, p. 35." Someone trying to figure out this reference first needs to figure out why Mr. Hensley presented two different page numbers: 407 and 35. Maybe whatever secondary source he utilized added the "p," or perhaps if the Sungenis anthology was used, he added the "p" himself. The page is 407. "35" refers to the line being cited on the page:
This volume contains Luther's comments on Psalms 1-22,1519-1521. The comment comes from Luther's insights into Psalm 14. This text has been translated into English, Martin Luther's complete commentary on the first Twenty-Two Psalms (vol. 2). The quote can be found on page 64.
Context
And to this we ought to be moved by the consideration, that this knowledge of ours renders us safe, so that the works of ceremonies cannot hurt us when we know that we are justified by faith. And again, we ought to be moved to this, by the knowing that we have good things in Christ, and have no longer to labour under considerations and thoughts about the manner in which we may be justified. And therefore, all our life from henceforth should be lived to the benefit of our neighbour: as Christ lived for us; and, as we do all other things for their good, much more should we attend to these indifferent ceremonies for their good. And therefore, we owe no man any thing but to love one another: and by this love it comes to pass that all things whatsoever we do are good; and yet, we seek not to be justified by our works; and this is to be a Christian.
I will now only add one thing, and bring these observations to an end. — If any one shall perceive that he has a confidence or trust in the works of ceremonies, let him be bold, and at length cast them off: and in this let him not wait for any dispensation or power from the Pope: for in these matters every Christian is a pope and a church to himself: nor should any thing be decreed concerning him, nor should he abide by any thing that is decreed, which can in any way lead his faith into peril. But if he shall wish to communicate with his neighbour upon this matter, in order that he may be rendered the more certain by his word, (according to that scripture, "If any two of you shall agree upon earth concerning any thing," &c. Matt, xviii.) he does well.
Conclusion
The above context is a conclusion to a lengthy argument Luther was making in regard to justification by faith alone and justification by works, with a discission on the role of church ceremonies. Do church ceremonies play a part in justification before a holy God? Does going to or participating in a church ceremony have any effect on one's standing before God? In Luther's day, a church ceremony was a "good work" that could play a part in a person's justification. Therefore, one could place their confidence in the work of a ceremony. for Luther, this would be a denial of faith alone and would be placing one's confidence in something other than the work of Christ. In context, Luther says to cast off placing confidence in the work of a church ceremony. Cast away any infallible declarations of the church in regard to justification. The pope and church does not justify a person before God, the work of Christ does.
It's also obvious from the context that sola scriptura was not being discussed. Rome's defenders have created a context and placed a Luther quote in that created context... this is a pure example of taking something out of context! Over the years, I've been chastised by Rome's defenders for being "anti-Catholic." What they fail to realize is that their blatant carelessness with the details of their arguments demonstrates to me they are the true anti-catholics. The goal of going through particular quotes is not to defend Luther as a Protestant saint. I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do I love my neighbor in the study of church history? If I bear false witness against my neighbor, even if he's been dead for hundreds of years, I am not loving him.
10 comments:
Dear James,
Since you seem to me to be an expert on all things Martin Luther, I was wondering whether you thought this volume to be a worthwhile read?:
https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Alone-Daily-Devotional-Zondervan/dp/0310265363#:~:text=It%20is%20faith%2D%2D%2Dwithout,remain%20powerful%20and%20richly%20relevant.
Hi Anonymous,
If I recall, that's an anthology that's been around for a while... I think I had a copy many years back.
If it's the same one, I recall it being readable and thoughtful as a devotional.
In order to really know how faithful of an English translation it is, one would have to dig a bit deeper into other translations and primary sources.
Without having the volume, I suspect a lot of the material is taken from Luther's sermons.
James, keep up the good work. We have the English translations of Sermons with Baker (Lenker Edition) and Concordia/St Louis of Luther's works (1963). They admit to editing some, etc. Sometimes, there are writings that seem odd and contradictory. I realize Luther wrote odd at times, but some things seem to water down his theology somewhat. Wish we knew German and or Latin to make translation comparisons. Do you know of any way to make comparisons online? Thanks again. Tommy
Hi TommyK,
That's a meaningful observation. What I've come to realize more and more over the years is that there are different levels of authenticity of Luther's writings. This is a textual criticism approach.
There are writings from Luther that are genuinely from his own pen. On the other hand, there are some writings that are from his pen as well as editors or contributors. Then there are writings that are transcriptions put together by those who heard him either preach or lecture. Then there are anecdotal sayings he purportedly said. Then there are Latin and German primary source versions of the same writings! Then there are transcriptions of his sermons either in Latin or German, or a mixture of both! It really is a textual-critical nightmare.
The safest position in determining exactly what Luther held on something is to stick to those things that come up more than once, particularly from things he actually wrote himself. His sermons are generally accurate I think, but I've learned to use more caution. For instance, right now I'm looking at someone quoting a Luther sermon, now discovering a large portion of the sermon may not actually be from Luther, but rather from someone who claims to have heard the sermon and transcribed it. This particular transcription does not match a more reliable transcription, but appears to have a lot of additional material added in.
Wow! We have to stick to where Luther continues to keep Christ Sovereign - be it with the gift of faith, sanctification, etc. It seems at times Luther has no regard for the Law which I think is a translation/editorial issues. Most of the time, Luther continues to keep the Law in its proper place/usage. He was NOT an antinomian like some folks claim. I do think that Luther's spiritual warfare seems authentic for the most part. Thanks for responding and for defending the Reformer from all the attacks. The site is a wealth of information.
In your "Context" section, why didn't you translate "fidei" in "quae sunt fidei"? You make a fairly good case that the context is ceremonies rather than doctrines. But you undermine your own case and credibility when you neglect to translate "fidei".
Hi Tony-
Interesting observation. Two points:
1. I did not do the translation. If you look carefully above, I stated: "This text has been translated into English, Martin Luther's complete commentary on the first Twenty-Two Psalms (vol. 2). The quote can be found on page 64." I provided a direct link to the page in that source. I then cited the text from this stated source. I assumed it was clear that the translation being offered was from this source. I would be undermining my credibility if I did not cite the source or claimed I made the translation. I did neither. I try to be as careful and as forthright as possible about sources... some of Rome's defenders have nitpicked my scrutiny about sources over the years.
2. The omission of "For in the things which are of faith" does not make a significant change in meaning in light of the preceding context. Read the context yourself. Of course, it's best to read the whole discourse, but for brevity, start on page 59. If you think the addition of the phrase changes the meaning of the context as I've outlined it above (or substantiates Mr. Hensley's argument about the quote being in regard to sola scriptura), I'd be interested in seeing that analysis.
JS
Dude you read Books??? How many books do you own???
actually, sola Scriptura includes within it another key commitment: the right of each Christian to study the Bible and decide for himself what it is teaching. Protestants commonly refer to this as the “right of private judgment,” and it’s understood as following inescapably from a belief in sola Scriptura. “In these matters of faith,” Luther wrote, “to be sure, each Christian is for himself pope and church” (Werke, Weimar: 1898, 5:407, p. 35).
Actually, TradCaths practice this as a foundation for their movement, for they make the veracity and authority of modern RC teaching subject to their judgment as to whether it conforms to the selective sources they cite from in past. RC teaching.
The difference btwn them is that the faithful SS believer is that for the latter, past. church teaching is that of the NT church, as revealed in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
In which distinctive distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest , in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
Tony said...It seems at times Luther has no regard for the Law which I think is a translation/editorial issues. Most of the time, Luther continues to keep the Law in its proper place/usage. He was NOT an antinomian like some folks claim
I am not expert at all on Luther, but do have a page of quotes by him on this subject (usually to direct Catholics to who charge Luther with teaching salvation by inert faith). And as a compilation, what Luther also said includes:
faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit... Faith cannot help doing good works constantly... if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit... where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith.. where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both. if obedience and God's commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil's own doings, although it were even so great a work as to raise the dead... if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, "the kingdom of God is not in word but in power." It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk. Works are necessary for salvation, but they do not cause salvation... “This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.” - http://peacebyjesus.net/Reformation_faith_works.html
Post a Comment