Luther: Whoever rejects my doctrine cannot be saved

I was sent a link to a website "exposing" Calvinism because it contained a bunch of Luther quotes. Many of the quotes I've gone over already, but there were a few that I've never examined. Here's one in particular found in a pdf e-book (pictured left) from this site:

“Whoever rejects my doctrine cannot be saved.” [5]
[5] History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages - Page 96 by Johannes Janssen, A. M 

Documentation
The documentation "History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages - Page 96 by Johannes Janssen, A. M" is a reference to a work by a 19th Century Roman Catholic historian. Janssesn can be classified with the genre of anti-Luther Roman Catholic writers (a genre that is no longer the opinion of modern Roman Catholic scholarship). The page in question can be found here. Janssen states,

Luther's conviction that he was called by God to proclaim anew the fundamental truths of Christianity, which had been falsified and distorted since the days of the Apostles, led him to declare that he would have his teaching amended by no one, not even by angels. Whoever rejects my doctrine,' he said, ' cannot be saved.' It also led him to the opinion, long held by the Hussites and other heretical teachers of the fifteenth century, that the Pope was Antichrist, and that the Church was languishing in Babylonish captivity. And these two fixed ideas that he was a divinely inspired teacher and that the Pope was Antichrist dominated his whole life and work.   

This particular section lacks documentation, though this paragraph is placed in the context of the year 1518. The website using this quote probably didn't get the quote from Janssen, but rather Peter Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor. Wiener states (also without proper documentation):

“When I am angry, I am not expressing my own wrath, but the wrath of God”. Luther knew that he was superior to any man or saint. “St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.” “They shall respect our teaching which is the word of God, spoken by the Holy Ghost, through our lips”. “Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He as on me” (E61, 422). “God has appointed me for the whole German land, and I boldly vouch and declare that when you obey me you are without a doubt obeying not me but Christ” (W15, 27). “Whoever obeys me not, despises not me but Christ.” “I believe that we are the last trump that sounds before Christ is coming”. “What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it.” (W18, 401). “Whoever rejects my doctrine cannot be saved.” “Nobody should rise up against me.”  

Without any sort of helpful reference or meaningful clues from these writers, one can only speculate as to the correct primary source.  It's quite possible the source is Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, July 1522. There Luther says something almost exact to the quote in question.  This writing is highly polemical. The editors of Luther's Works describe it as Luther's  "...own 'bull' against the Roman heresy, he laid bare the many weaknesses and immoralities of the spiritual estate such as celibacy, political tyranny, and financial greed" (LW 39: Introduction). The issue provoking this treatise was renewed indulgence traffic. The editors of the treatise state, "Luther’s highly polemical and satirical language, more evident in this treatise than in others, was prompted by the recurrence of the indulgence traffic in the territory of Albrecht of Mainz" (LW 39:244). In particular:

On September 15, 1521, Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz celebrated the annual festival of relics at his newly built cathedral, the Church of St. Moritz and Mary Magdalene in Halle, with the official announcement that indulgences would be granted to all visitors to the exhibition of relics. Anyone who prayed at a shrine and gave alms was promised an indulgence of four thousand years; anyone who confessed his sins to one of the priests hearing confessions in the cathedral during the ten days of the celebration would receive a plenary indulgence. Pope Leo X had issued a bull in 1519 granting the cathedral of Halle the same privileges granted to the Church of St. Peter in Rome: its confessors were authorized to absolve cases usually absolved only by the apostolic see in Rome; in addition, they could convert vows into financial contributions for the completion of the Halle cathedral—privileges not unusual in the Luther, M. (1999, c1970). Vol. 39: Luther's works, vol. 39 : Church and Ministry I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (39:241). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Keeping this background in mind, the obscure Luther quote in question comes from the very beginning of this treatise. If the "gospel" the romanists were putting forth was fraught with indulgence traffic, one wonders really how far off base Luther was from his polemical comment, "whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved."

Context

Martin Luther, ecclesiastic in Wittenberg by the grace of God: To the papal bishops [I offer] my service and self-understanding in Christ. 

Although I might be regarded as a fool by you, dear lords, because of the haughty title I call myself, an ecclesiastic by the grace of God, you should know that I am not at all surprised by this. You curse, slander, condemn, persecute, and possibly even burn me as a heretic for the sake of a high and noble cause. In this you act as you please, according to the pleasure of your idol. As a result of God’s disfavor you have the virtue that you do not want to listen. Neither do you want to give an answer. Instead, like the hardened Jews you blasphemously and stubbornly want to condemn me without a hearing, without investigating the cause, without overcoming me. You are not even ashamed of letting a man defy you so frequently with such good reason. Very well then, since it is a question of lowering the horns and acting with brute force, I too have to lower my horns and risk my head for my Lord. In order to get things started, I call myself an ecclesiastic by the grace of God in defiance of you and the devil, although you call me a heretic with an abundance of slander. And even if I called myself an evangelist by the grace of God, I would still be more confident of proving it than that any one of you could prove his episcopal title or name. I am certain that Christ himself, who is the master of my teaching, gives me this title and regards me as one. Moreover, he will be my witness on the Last Day that it is not my pure gospel but his. Thus your raging and raving is not going to help you at all. Rather, the more you rage and rave, the haughtier we shall be toward you, with God’s help, and [the more we] shall despise your disgrace. Even though you might take my life, since you are murderers, you will annihilate neither my name nor my teaching. For you too will have to die at last and put an end to murder. 

Now that I am deprived of my titles through papal and imperial disfavor and my bestial character is washed away with so many bulls that I need never be called either Doctor of Holy Scripture or some kind of papal creature, I am almost as shocked as an ass who has lost its bag. For these masks were my greatest shame before God. I too was once in error (which I learned from your crowd at great price and with great effort), a liar, a cheater, a seducer, and a blasphemer against God’s pure teaching, as you are now. But the Father of all mercy did not look at my vice, blasphemy, and my very sinful, evil life; instead, out of the infinite richness of his grace, he permitted me to know his Son, Jesus Christ, and to teach [him] to others, until we were certain of his truth. However, I need not have any title and name to praise highly the word, office, and work which I have from God and which you blind blasphemers defile and persecute beyond measure. I trust my praise will overcome your defiling, just as my justice will overcome your injustice. It does not matter if, with your blasphemy, you are on top for the moment. 

Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you—or even an angel from heaven—to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world [I Pet. 3:15]. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved—for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s.

Finally, dear lords, let this be the conclusion: If I live you shall have no peace from me, and if you kill me you shall have ten times less peace, for I shall be, as Hosea says, a bear on the road and a lion in the street [Hos. 13:8]. No matter how you handle me, you shall not have your will until your iron head and stiff neck are broken with either grace or disgrace. If you do not improve as I would like to see you do, then it is agreed that you threaten with hostility and I do not care. May God grant that you know yourselves. Amen. Luther, M. (1999, c1970). Vol. 39: Luther's works, vol. 39 : Church and Ministry I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (39:247). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Using a gun to stop evil - "I did it to save lives" - Sgt. York

From one of my favorite movies:  Sgt. York, staring Gary Cooper, based on the true life story of Alvin York.  The end of the first clip shows Sgt. York using his excellent sniper skills,  to pick off Germans one by one in World War I.



The reason why we can be against murder and yet also be for self-defense of the helpless, a just war and capital punishment (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:1-8), the second Amendment, and understand the need for the proper use of guns - to kill the bad guys.

Catholic Answers Succumbs to the Protestant Practice of the "Cruise"

The 2013 Catholic Answers Cruise: http://www.catholicanswerscruise.com/

The 2012 Roman Catholic Dissenter: Why "Catholic Cruises" are not a good idea.

Music Therapy

This is probably viral, but worth a look if you haven't seen it:

Lutherans vs. the Reformed

This is typically how it goes:

Lutherans (at least the ones who care), try painstakingly to distance themselves from anything that smells Reformed. Example: http://cyberbrethren.com/2012/12/12/brace-yourselves-grace-is-not-irresistible/

The Reformed (at least the ones who care), try painstakingly to show how much we have in common in Lutherans, and how we need to better understand each other: http://heidelblog.net/2012/12/resources-on-understanding-the-differences-between-the-lutheran-and-reformed-traditions/

This sort of reminds me of my first Rubik's Cube. I think I eventually gave up trying to make it the same color on each side. Once I would get one side to be all the same color, the other sides would cease being all the same color.

Luther: Whoever obeys me not, despises not me, but Christ

I was sent a link to a website "exposing" Calvinism because it contained a bunch of Luther quotes. Many of the quotes I've gone over already, but there were a few that I've never examined. Here's one in particular found in a pdf e-book from this site:

“Whoever obeys me not, despises not me, but Christ.”[4] 

 [4] The Failure of Individualism: A Documented Essay - Page 29 by Richard S. Devane http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html

Documentation
 The Failure of Individualism refers to an out-of-print book from 1948. It's fairly likely that Devane took the quote from Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor, published a few years earlier. The link above to tentmaker.org is in fact this earlier book. The problem with this earlier book (by Peter Wiener) is the documentation is atrocious. On page 28, it states:

Luther knew that he was superior to any man or saint. “St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.” “They shall respect our teaching which is the word of God, spoken by the Holy Ghost, through our lips”. “Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He as on me” (E61, 422). “God has appointed me for the whole German land, and I boldly vouch and declare that when you obey me you are without a doubt obeying not me but Christ” (W15, 27). “Whoever obeys me not, despises not me but Christ.” “I believe that we are the last trump that sounds before Christ is coming”. “What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it.” (W18, 401). “Whoever rejects my doctrine cannot be saved.” “Nobody should rise up against me”.

It's highly probable Wiener never read this quote in context and simply snatched it from Hartmann Grisar, Luther IV, p. 333 (based on the similarities of the quotes between the two books, and Wiener's explicit citations from Grisar). There Grisar quotes Luther stating:

"God has appointed me for the whole of the German land," Luther continues, " and I boldly vouch and declare that when you obey me in this [the founding of Evangelical schools] you are without a doubt obeying not me but Christ, and that, whoever obeys me not, despises, not me, but Christ [Luke xx. 16]. For I know well and am certain of what and whereto I speak and teach."1
1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 15, p. 27 f. ; Erl. ed., 22, p. 171. " An die Radherrn," etc., 1524.

Weim. ed, 15: 27 can be found here. This is the first page in Luther's writing, An die Ratherren aller Städte deutsches Lands, daß sie christliche Schulen aufrichten und halten sollen (To the councilmen of all cities in Germany that they establish and maintain Christian schools), 1524. This writing has been translated into in English and can be found in LW 45: 339 - 378). The quote in question is found on page 347, in the very beginning of the treatise in question.


Context

Grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Honorable, wise, and dear sirs: Had I feared the command of men more than God I should have remained silent on this subject, for it is now some three years since I was put under the ban and declared an outlaw, and there are in Germany many of both high and low degree who on that account attack whatever I say and write, and shed much blood over it. But God has opened my mouth and bidden me speak, and he supports me mightily. The more they rage against me, the more he strengthens and extends my cause—without any help or advice from me—as if he were laughing and holding their rage in derision, as it says in Psalm 2[:4]. By this fact alone anyone whose mind is not hardened can see that this cause must be God’s own, for it plainly bears the mark of a divine word and work; they always thrive best when men are most determined to persecute and suppress them.

Therefore, I will speak and (as Isaiah says) not keep silent as long as I live, until Christ’s righteousness goes forth as brightness, and his saving grace is lighted as a lamp [Isa. 62:1]. I beg of you now, all my dear sirs and friends, to receive this letter kindly and take to heart my admonition. For no matter what I may be personally, still I can boast before God with a good conscience that in this matter I am not seeking my own advantage—which I could more read fly attain by keeping silent—but am dealing sincerely and faithfully with you, and with the whole German nation into which God has placed me, whether men believe it or not. And I wish to assure you and declare to you frankly and openly that he who heeds me in this matter is most certainly heeding not me, but Christ; and he who gives me no heed is despising not me, but Christ [Luke 10:16]. For I know very well and am quite certain of the content and thrust of what I say and teach; and anyone who will rightly consider my teaching will also discover it for himself. [LW 45: 347-348]

Luther, M. (1999, c1962). Vol. 45: Luther's works, vol. 45 : The Christian in Society II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (45:347). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Analysis
This quote is one of a number (used particularly by Roman polemicists) attempting to paint Luther as claiming to be an infallible despot interpreting of Scripture. The shock value in posting such quotes without any sort of context paints Luther similar to a wacky cult leader claiming either direct extra-biblical messages from God, or an infallible authority from God.

Grisar uses the quote (along with many other quotes) to prove Luther had an inflated image of himself ("...his egotism destroys any good impulse and drives him in the opposite direction" [Grisar, 327]. "No mortal ever spoke of himself as Luther did" [Grisar, 340]. Grisar then rightly explains Luther's use of rhetoric in many of his grandiose statements about himself, and then chastises him over it (Grisar, 344-345]!  But poor Luther, according to Grisar, his "overestimation of himself was partly due to the seductive effect of the exaggerated praise and admiration of his friends" [Grisar, 348] and his incompetent Roman Catholic literary opponents didn't do much to help the situation [Grisar, 349].

Certainly I would agree with Grisar that Luther used rhetoric in describing himself and his beliefs at times. Certainly Luther believed though that when he spoke truth based on the Scriptures, he spoke the word of God. Even I believe that about my minister, and also myself. It's also the case that Luther's writings and opinions were very influential, and Luther sought to use his influence as a minster of the Gospel to implement societal change. This treatise though is what it says it is: To the councilmen of all cities in Germany that they establish and maintain Christian schools. The entire concept of education was in flux during the Reformation period. Education was largely connected to the Roman church, and as Luther spoke out against this connection, some concluded that education wasn't needed (see the introduction to the treatise, LW 45:341-343]. Luther's treatise is a response and offers advise to the authorities on education.

"He maintains that education is necessary for the spiritual growth of both boys and girls, and equally essential if they are to become useful citizens. To the argument that parents cannot spare their children from domestic duties, he suggests that they attend school an hour a day. On the matter of languages he becomes positively eloquent in his argument that they are essential for the study and exposition of Scripture, and also for the training of good citizens." [LW 45:343-344].

One thing I've yet to find: any of Luther's detractors that have read An die Ratherren aller Städte deutsches Lands, daß sie christliche Schulen aufrichten und halten sollen and shown that Luther's recommendations contained therein are contrary to Christ. That is, if Luther's treatise is grounded in the Christian faith and based on Christian principles,  well, it's not that far of a stretch to say that despising his recommendations is despising Christ. Here are a few excerpts from this treatise:

"Therefore, I beg all of you, my dear sirs and friends, for the sake of God and our poor young people, not to treat this matter as lightly as many do, who fail to realize what the ruler of this world [John 14:30] is up to. For it is a grave and important matter, and one which is of vital concern both to Christ and the world at large, that we take steps to help the youth. By so doing we will be taking steps to help also ourselves and everybody else. Bear in mind that such insidious, subtle, and crafty attacks of the devil must be met with great Christian determination. My dear sirs, if we have to spend such large sums every year on guns, roads, bridges, dams, and countless similar items to insure the temporal peace and prosperity of a city, why should not much more be devoted to the poor neglected youth—at least enough to engage one or two competent men to teach school?" [LW 45:350]

"It is a sin and a shame that matters have come to such a pass that we have to urge and be urged to educate our children and young people and to seek their best interests, when nature itself should drive us to do this and even the heathen afford us abundant examples of it. There is not a dumb animal which fails to care for its young and teach them what they need to know; the only exception is the ostrich, of which God says in Job 31 [39:16, 14] that she deals cruelly with her young as if they were not hers, and leaves her eggs upon the ground. What would it profit us to possess and perform everything else and be like pure saints, if we meanwhile neglected our chief purpose in life, namely, the care of the young? I also think that in the sight of God none among the outward sins so heavily burdens the world and merits such severe punishment as this very sin which we commit against the children by not educating them." [LW 45:353]

"It therefore behooves the council and the authorities to devote the greatest care and attention to the young. Since the property, honor, and life of the whole city have been committed to their faithful keeping, they would be remiss in their duty before God and man if they did not seek its welfare and improvement day and night with all the means at their command. Now the welfare of a city does not consist solely in accumulating vast treasures, building mighty walls and magnificent buildings, and producing a goodly supply of guns and armor. Indeed, where such things are plentiful, and reckless fools get control of them, it is so much the worse and the city suffers even greater loss. A city’s best and greatest welfare, safety, and strength consist rather in its having many able, learned, wise, honorable, and well-educated citizens. They can then readily gather, protect, and properly use treasure and all manner of property." [LW 45:355-356]

A simple but helpful diagram

John Gertsner, in an appendix ("Rome NOT Home: A Response to Scott and Kimberly Hahn's Rome Sweet Home"),  in the excellent book, Justification by Faith Alone, edited by Don Kistler, on pages 172-173, has a very helpful but simple diagram that lets us see the issue of the doctrine of justification by faith alone clearly.

The book has good chapters by John McArthur, R. C. Sproul, Joel Beeke, John Gertsner, and John Armstrong.





1.  Biblical/Protestant View:

Faith  =  Justification + works


2.  Roman Catholic View:

Faith + works  =  Justification


3.  Antinomian / Easy Believe -ism View  (what Trent and RCC mis-understood and thought Luther and Reformers were saying)

Faith  =   Justification  - works

(Note: in the book, the diagrams have arrows, but I could not figure out how to make arrows, so I had to use the equal (=) sign.)  The arrow seems to communicate, "leads to".  So true faith in Christ alone for salvation leads to justification, resulting also in good works.  And the Roman Catholic view is that one must have faith as an adult, and that includes that one must believe in the 1854, 1870, and 1950 dogmas, since they are "de fide" (part of the doctrines of the faith that one must believe .  If one is an infant with RC parents, one must be baptized as a baby and that is called "initial justification", but that can be lost, so there must be good works of penance, indulgences, confession to the priest, giving alms, being a good Roman Catholic, going to mass, etc. and keeping it up and loosing it and gaining it back (the treadmill of sacramentalism) until, maybe, Lord willing, one dies in a "state of grace", but even then, every R.C.  has to go through Purgatory, since nobody is sinless.  No R.C. ever knows if he is justified or not or if they can have peace or assurance of his/her salvation.  According to one article I read a while back, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and other RCs since Trent have said that the greatest Protestant heresy was "assurance"!!  The Antinomian view means that faith leads to justification with no works or fruit as a necessary result. John McArthur's 2 books, The Gospel according to Jesus and  The Gospel according to the apostles  (originally it was titled, "Faith Works:  The Gospel according to the Apostles") are two excellent works that refute the antinomian or "easy believism" view.

"Genius" by Ray Comfort

It seems every year since John Lennon was shot and killed by Mark David Chapman on December 8, 1980; there is either a new release of his songs or a new release of Beatles records, or a new documentary or film, in time for the commercial business of the Christmas season.  I have often thought that it seems like many non-Christians/secularists/atheists replace Christ at the Christmas season with the Beatles.

It is also a good opportunity to start with a pop culture phenomenon like John Lennon,  or the Beatles to get people's attention in conversation about deeper issues.

Here is a gospel presentation using John Lennon as a springboard/attention getter to talk about sin, the law, the human heart, people making false confessions of faith - false converts; true repentance and true faith in Christ  - very well done.  One of the best points that Ray Comfort makes is that if you come to Christ for "happiness" / solving your personal problems rather than understanding and seeing your sin as against God and that you are in need of a Savior from sin, and there is no hope of salvation from sin/guilt and hell apart from Jesus Christ Himself, then, that is the wrong reason for "accepting Christ" and probably indicates a false conversion.

But, I do think that many times, the Lord uses the emptiness and felt needs at the beginning to then get to our real need.  Jesus did that with the woman at the well in John 4, by starting with where she was in her life and the need for water and Jesus even appeals to her as having something He needs - "please give me water" - let me drink from your cup".  It is indeed tragic that John Lennon didn't see his real need for Christ and his own sins as condemning him; and that Yoko turned him away from investigating Christianity.

According to Steve Turner, in The Gospel According to the Beatles, John Lennon wrote letters to Oral Roberts and Rex Humbard (and called Pat Robertson’s 700 club) and watched them on TV a lot during those 5 years where he went into a "self-imposed in house exile" and was watching TV, cooking, and spending time with his son, Sean. (and doing Primal Scream therapy) He didn't want to make the same mistake he made with his first son Julian, (in not spending much time with him).

It seems his "Christian phrase" was just that; a phase he went through that Yoko eventually talked him out of. Obviously not a real seeking and not repentance or true faith.
Yoko did get upset and has TRIED to kept that phase of John Lennon's out of the public knowledge. 
According to Steve Turner, John wrote to and asked Oral Roberts and Rex Humbard, "will it work for me?" Can Jesus love me?" etc. 

But according to others, Yoko got so upset she turned him against that "search" and eventually Lennon did turn away, and Lennon actually made fun of Bob Dylan's "You Gotta Serve Somebody", with "serve yourself". 

The details have been coming out over the years, especially in the book, 

The Gospel According to the Beatles by Steve Turner.

Alistar Begg, a few years ago, did an interesting 4 part radio/web show with Dick Staub on the Beatles and made some application for how the church should have responded to their “cries for Help” and “search for something more”.  George Harrison admitted he was searching for something more than money and fame, and, sadly went to a form of Hinduism and Hare Krishna.  (But Harrison's other behavior seemed contradictory to a lot of those philosophies.)  

Alistar Begg's interview show with Dick Staub on the Kindling’s Muse.  Part 1, look around for parts 2-4.

He was looking for “happiness” and some way to solve his personal problems and addictions to drugs.  But Lennon also seemed to admit that he knew he was angry and that he could be real mean to people sometimes.   This “phase” was not repentance or truly seeking Christ for Himself.

John Lennon was abandoned by his father, and his mother was killed by an off-duty policeman around the time he was starting the Beatles; so John was probably the most angry at God of the four Beatles, and the one most messed up with drugs (His song, Cold Turkey, written and performed while coming off a heroine high, contains some graphic lyrics about his experience and some really scary screaming and should be enough to scare anyone from ever even trying using heroine.); but in some ways more honest and open than Paul. Paul is now really into vegetarianism and seems to think animals have souls.

I don't think John Lennon was a "genius" - he was just really gifted with a cool voice, creativity, and naturally gifted at witty lyrics and turning a phrase, and then that gift got expanded upon by his experimentation with LSD.  And teaming up with Paul McCartney also helped.  

Another Ironic thing about Jason Stellman's conversion testimony to Roman Catholicism

Jason Stellman, in the interview at Called to Communion, in his testimony about how he converted to Roman Catholicism, basically asserted that we should be able to find the Protestant paradigm for Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and church authority in the early church.  He claims that there is no positive case for the Protestant paradigm in the early church after the apostle John died.  Yet, it seems that one of the earliest writings, 1 Clement, if not the earliest, (after the NT books) does indeed have the 3 principles that are closer to the Protestant paradigm than a Roman Catholic one.  I am not saying the early church is or was "Protestant"; that would be anachronistic.  It was neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant; but these three principles found in 1 Clement are closer to the Protestant way of doing things than any Roman Catholic paradigm.  We Protestants can "let the early be the early church" (Dr. White) and when they made mistakes, we confess that they are fallible men and not inspired apostles and their writings are not inspired, and yet, we have an infallible rule - the Scriptures, by which to judge them.  

See Part 3 of Dr. White's response.

At one point, Jason said basically something like, "Jesus would not have set it up with Sola Scriptura as a guiding principle, because Jesus is not stupid."  Yet, as Dr. White pointed out, it is ironic that he has already said that Professors Michael Horton and Steve Baugh were very smart; smarter than he is; and they knew their theology and church history and Greek and exegesis much better than he did.  Jason admitted this; but says that for Jesus to set up Sola Scriptura as a guide for the church is "stupid".  So how does Jason know whether he is being smart enough to know that he understands Jesus properly?  How does he know that Horton, Baugh, White are not correct, since they all believe that Jesus and the apostles did teach that principle.  Jesus' teaches principles in the Gospels of saying things like "thus it is written" and "you make the word of God void by your traditions", and "search the Scriptures" and "have you not read what God said to you?".   How does Jason know that his decision to rely upon his own mind and judgment and call Jesus and the apostles constantly pointing back to the Scriptures as something that is "stupid"? Jason also kept saying things like "He (Jesus) just woudda", "he just woudda" set it up the way that Roman Catholicism says.  "Just woulda" is not good enough; that is just Jason's own subjective personal decision.  He is using his own judgment and understanding of what "should be".   Jason gives no evidence of what he was arguing for, just his own decision, his own opinion - "It should have been this way".  Instead, something closer to the Protestant paradigm is there in the earliest times. 

Well, let's see - 

Earliest writing after the New Testament writings:  I Clement  (96 AD)  

1.  Each Local Church has a college of elders (presbyters)  (No Pope, not even a mono-episcopate yet)  1 Clement 42, 44 - elders and bishops are the same office.

Clement of Rome ( 96 AD) - Presbyters and Bishops are the same office – I Clement 44, confirming Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5-7; I Peter 5:1-4. Clement, with the Biblical passages, along with Philippians 1:1 (bishops and deacons), along with the Didache (15) (bishops and deacons), and with Jerome’s statement that a “A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop” and that the bishops being appointed above the presbyters was “a custom, not by divine appointment” (Jerome, Commentary on Titus, PL 26:562-563, cited by James White in Perspectives on Church Government, Five Views of Church Polity, Broadman and Holman, 2004, p. 251-252) shows that the deepest and oldest history is that local churches had two offices 1. elders (overseers, who teach and shepherd the flock or do the work of pastors) and 2. deacons (servants, ministers); and that it was later that the office of bishop (episcopos/overseer) was separated out from and made above the college of plurality of elders for each church.

In I Clement 42, he shows that there are only 2 church offices, bishops (elders) and deacons.

In I Clement 44, he clearly shows that the bishop/overseer/episcopos is the same office as elder/presbyter.

The evidence in I Clement is that Clement himself is not a “pope”, as the Roman Catholics claim, but the moderator or secretary spokesman or “president”, in the words of Justin Martyr for the college of elders from the church at Rome. This is one church writing to another church.

“The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.” ( I Clement preface before paragraph 1)

I Clement rebukes the Corinthian church for deposing the elders there who have served faithfully. (42-44, 47, 54) He calls what the Corinthians have done, by getting rid of the presbyters, “a detestable and unholy schism, so alien and strange to those chosen by God” (paragraph 1) The Corinthians got rid of their elders out of jealousy and arrogance, as the rebuke of jealousy and pride is a major theme of this letter: (paragraphs 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 9; 16; 43-44; 46; 54 ) He exhorts the Corinthians to humility and repentance. (1: 7-8 and 1:13; 48, 57)

“Therefore it is right and holy, brothers, that we should be obedient to God rather than follow those who in arrogance and unruliness have set themselves up as leaders in abominable jealousy.” (1:14 – Michael Holmes’ translation. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their writings. Second Edition. J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, editors and translators. Micheal Holmes, editor and reviser. Baker Books, 1992, p. 43.)

“It is disgraceful, dear friends, yes, utterly disgraceful and unworthy of your conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the well-established and ancient church of the Corinthians, because of one or two persons, is rebelling against its presbyters.” (I Clement 47:6)

“Only let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters.” ( I Clement 54)

These are principles that Protestants would agree with - local church authority of a plurality or college of elders and another church encouraging them to follow that pattern and the Scriptures.

2.  Sola Scriptura in principle

Clement also exhorted the church of the Corinthians to go back to the Scriptures:

“Let us study the records of the things that have happened from the beginning. Why was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he attained righteousness and truth through faith?” (I Clement, 31)

He quotes from the epistle to the Hebrews in I Clement 36, several times, which shows the early church affirmed it as Scripture very early on; even though some others in other places struggled with accepting it as canonical.

In I Clement 45, he gives a good description of inspiration and inerrancy – “You have searched the Scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; you know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them. You will not find that righteous people have ever been thrust out by holy men.”

In I Clement 47, he again points them back to the Scriptures and says, “Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle. What did he write to you in the beginning of the gospel?  Truly he wrote to you in the Spirit about himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then you had split into factions.”  If Peter was the first Pope, or if the illustration of Jason's about siding with Peter if there was a tie in voting with 6 apostles vs. 6 apostles on an issue, "they would side with Peter (Cephas)".  Well, if there was any truth to that "Peter principle" - why didn't Paul use it in 1 Corinthians to solve the disunity problem?  Instead Paul said, "do not go beyond what is written".  If that "Peter principle" was true, why didn't Clement use it in 1 Clement?  He didn't, instead he wrote, "Take up the epistle of Paul that he wrote to you, O Corinthians!"  Go back to the Scriptures  "do not go beyond what is written" - 1 Cor. 4:6 - that would solve the issue of the party spirit and schisms and splits and personality cults.  No pope or bishop or bishop of bishops or council is appealed to. 

When we read the Scriptures on this issue and indeed, when we take up the letter of I Corinthians, we find the solution to the problem there. Paul wrote in I Corinthians 4:6, in the same context of the divisions and disunity and factions (1 Corinthians 1:10-11; 3:1-10; 4:1-6), “Do not go beyond what is written.” Paul gives them the Scriptural solution and Clement points them back to the bible. No papal encyclical here. Here in 1 Corinthians, Paul actually uses a general principle of a kind of early form of Sola Scriptura, even though all the Scriptures have not been written yet. “Do not go beyond what is written” surely refers to his exhortations and instructions in the letter itself, in dealing with the factions in the church, since he says, “I have applied these things figuratively to Apollos and myself.” It shows that the final authority is Scripture, not what a bishop or future pope or council says.

Added later Tuesday morning (10:00am), Dec. 11: 

1 Corinthians 4:6 - after saying "do not exceed what is written", the inspired apostle gives the reason and purpose for the command to not go beyond Scripture:  "so that no one of you may become arrogant in behalf of one against another."  There it is.  Too bad Stephen, bishop of Rome in 258 AD did not read nor obey the Scriptures here.  Cyprian, Firmillian and 85 other bishops from all over had to rebuke Stephen for his arrogance in claiming to be "bishop of bishops".   This is something very clear in early church history that proves that the Papal doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is wrong and Jason Stellman should have known this.  Too bad Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 did not read nor obey 1 Corinthians 4:6 when he said "It is necessary for every human creature to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved."  (Papal encyclical "Unam Sanctum") 

Many other times Clement says, "thus it is written" and quotes from the OT extensively (all of Psalm 51 and Isaiah 53), and some from the NT and has many allusions from the NT.  

There are a couple of unknown quotes(23:4 and 46:2), and a couple that seem to be from the Apocrypha book of Wisdom of Solomon, but even those 2 are similar to canonical passages (one (Wisdom of Solomon 2:24 at 1 Clement 3:4) is close to Romans 5:12 and the other (Wisdom of Solomon 12:12 at 1 Clement 27:5).  Even so, Clement is not infallible and so we don't have to justify the mistakes that early church fathers and writers made.  1 Clement 25 and the use of the legend of the Phoenix bird is indeed strange, but all this proves that 1 Clement is not canonical Scripture, and shows how the early church has mixtures of false ideas within it.   Clement is not infallible nor a Pope (there was no such office or idea in the early centuries); and it also shows the important of using Scripture to judge the early church writers and never accept them as infallible; as only the Scriptures are infallible. 

3.  Justification by Faith Alone

Clement also has an early statement on justification by faith apart from good works wrought by us within us. Mediate on these beautiful biblically based words - 

“All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” I Clement 32

It is clear that one of the earliest, if not the earliest non-canonical early church writings, 1 Clement, has 3 principles that are closer to the Protestant paradigm of "doing church" than the Roman Catholic paradigm. 

Why the Reformation Was Necessary - Mary Apparition Reported in Malaysia

http://lutherantheologystudygroup.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-reformation-is-necessary-mary.html

The Pope Tweets.....

http://cyberbrethren.com/2012/12/03/the-pope-is-now-twittering-pontifex/

Surprised By C.S. Lewis... ?

http://biologos.org/blog/surprised-by-jack-cs-lewis-part-1

"To be frank, American Evangelicalism’s infatuation with Lewis is in many respects somewhat odd. For here is a pathologically populist movement with a penchant for Big Tent Revivalism, an obsession with liturgical innovation, a deep-seated suspicion of ecclesiastical tradition, and a raw nerve about the doctrine of justification, falling head-over-heels for a tweed-jacketed, Anglo-Catholic Oxford don—a curmudgeonly liturgical traditionalist who was fuzzy on the atonement, a believer in purgatory, and, as we shall see, whose views on Scripture, Genesis, and evolution position him well outside of American Evangelicalism’s standard theological paradigms. All of that is to say that Lewis was not “just like us”—any of us—and if we would do him justice, we must be prepared to be surprised by Jack."

The irony of Jason Stellman’s conversion to Roman Catholicism

It is ironic that Jason claims he was more into "systematics" and exegesis and systematic theology than church history; yet does not seem to use the principles of systematic theology, exegesis, and progressive revelation very well.  It is possible that Jason discussed Luke 1:67-79, Galatians 2:21; 3:21 somewhere else, but I did not find any evidence of that at the things I have read and listened to that relate to these issues.

I was following some of the com box discussions that Jason participated in at the Called to Communion web-site over the past couple of years.  I have taken the time to read Jason Stellman’s “I fought the Church, and the Church won” and listen to his testimony of why he became Roman Catholic and also listen to responses from Dr. White and Turrretinfan and also a Lutheran response here.   

(linked to by a comment in the com box at John Bugay's article here.)

Bryan Cross interviews Jason Stellman’s conversion to Roman Catholicism at “Called to Communion”.

Dr. White and Turretinfan are going through significant portions of his podcast: (Part 1)

Part 2.

I am looking forward to more of Dr. White and Turretinfan’s response.

Stellman basically says that Roman Catholicism is “biblically obvious, and historically compelling, and philosophically necessary”.  Personally, I don’t see anything Biblically obvious about Roman Catholicism at all; and it is not very compelling historically, if one takes the time to examine all the relevant data of church history. Notice I wrote “relevant data” – this means I am not claiming one has to know all the details of church history, but there is a certain minimum of basic overview and flow of early church history and relevant passages in the early church fathers that one should be familiar with.  It appears that Jason slept through church history or daydreamed or was blinded by his dismissal of church history when he should have been paying more attention.  It seems to me that when Jason admitted that he thought church history was boring in seminary; and he thought that the early church fathers were “stupid”, well, now we understand why he fell for the Roman Catholic argument for itself using history and philosophy.  

Stellman also claims Roman Catholicism is “philosophically necessary”.  This seems to be the starting point of all Roman Catholic apologetics that is winning Protestants and evangelicals, even though they will not always admit this. 

Philosophy is what Bryan Cross always seems to start with and he uses philosophy more than exegesis in his arguments for Rome.  It is only philosophically necessary, it seems, in their minds, if one puts that particular philosophy and presupposition first – that there is this compelling need for an infallible interpreter on this earth to solve all disunity and interpretive struggles that the church has all through history. (which even that presupposition and dogma does not accomplish anyway either.) 

They accuse us Protestants and evangelicals of “drawing a bulls eye target and then drawing a circle around it”, but that is exactly what they do in their defense of Rome.  That is not a “tu quoque”  argument because I don’t think Biblical Protestants do that anyway.  But Roman Catholic apologists do just that.

 That idea today in Roman Catholic apologetic methodology is first drawn as a target on paper and then the Roman Catholic apologist draws his circle around that presupposition and interprets everything in the past, both Biblically and in church history, in the light of that philosophy and dogma, which only appeared in the Middle ages and was only dogmatically declared by the Roman Catholic Church in the year 1870. 

I am amazed that Jason Stellman tossed and turned and lost sleep over Luke 1:6 about Zacharias and Elizabeth’s righteousness and that he claimed to be more into systematics than church history, when he doesn’t seem to apply principles of progressive revelation and systematics to Luke 1:6.  Did Jason also loose sleep over Noah in Genesis 6:8-9 or Job in Job 1:1 or Abraham in Genesis 26:5 ?

Or is the description of their righteousness the result of grace and faith in God and in His coming Messiah? (which is what doing systematics - putting Genesis 15:1-6 together with John 8:56-58, Romans 4:1-16, and Galatians chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 would reasonably cause us to do.)

The statement about Abraham in Genesis 26:5 is the result of his faith in the Lord and the promised Messiah to come from his own seed, explicated for us in Genesis 15:1-6.  This faith comes before his good deeds in circumcision in Genesis 17 (and clearly explained by Paul in Romans 4) and before his obedience in Genesis 22 (which is what James means in James 2:14-26).  As the reformers said, “we are justified by faith alone, but that faith does not stay alone” – it results in good works and fruit and change and deeper levels of repentance.  But as Turretinfan and Dr. White pointed out, all this righteousness is still a relative righteousness – it means basically that “they were true believers, and their faith was demonstrated by their righteous lifestyle”.  Noah was righteous, but he was only righteous because he first received grace. (Genesis 6:8-9 – notice he first gets grace, then is able to walk before God in righteousness.)  Later, Noah gets drunk (Genesis 9:20-21), so even the OT is showing us that no one is righteous, not even one.”  (Psalm 14:1-3, Romans 3:9-23)  Lot is saved from Sodom and Gomorrah and is called “righteous” in 2 Peter 2:7-8; yet his daughter’s get him drunk and commit incest and fornication with him, gross sins.  So, even though they were relatively righteous compared to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, they were not perfectly righteous in order to merit salvation.  Rather, Lot was a true believer, saved by grace, and justified by faith in the Lord.  (from 2 Peter 2:7-9, it seems that Lot was a true believer; but there is no evidence that his daughters were, given their behavior; but Scripture is otherwise silent about them, as far as I can tell.)  The Old testament constantly shows us that no one is perfectly righteous and that the sin nature is still deep within the heart, and comes out in sinful behavior even after God judges the world and wipes out the evil people in the flood; and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. 

Job is also called “blameless” and “walking in the fear of God”.  (Job 1:1)  Does that mean he was justified by his own righteousness and goodness?  No, obviously – because the rest of Job is showing that he had an unrighteous attitude (showing he was not blamelessly righteous in that sense) in demanding that God has to come down and explain to him why he was made to suffer.  Job’s attitude was refined through suffering – that is sanctification.  The book of Job shows us that Job’s own righteousness did not justify him, but his faith in God and the hope of the resurrection seems to point to the Messiah to come, in Job 19:25-26; and his repentance in Job 42:1-6 was because he already was a true believer.      

Jason Stellman claims to have been more of a systematic theologian kind of guy; yet he gives no hint of actually doing systematics in the way he treats Luke 1:6, at least in the interview on the Called to Communion Podcast. 

Systematic theology is looking at the other relevant passages that would explain Luke 1:6 –

Does not proper systematic theology immediately bring to mind these very clear verses from Paul in teaching contexts about the nature of grace alone for salvation and faith alone for justification?

“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

Galatians 2:21

This verse clearly shows us that Luke 1:6 does not mean that Zacharias and Elizabeth were righteous in themselves by keeping the law blamelessly and that that goodness would be counted as merit in order to get them into heaven.  The coming of the Messiah and His redemption was what all OT saints were looking forward to.  (Genesis 15:1-6; 12:3; 22:18; Galatians 3:6-8; 14-16)

“Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”  Galatians 3:21-22

Galatians 3:21 shows us that the law was never given in order to give us life – that we could attain eternal life by obeying it’s commands. 

Why doesn’t Jason Stellman keep reading in Luke?  Why doesn’t he look at the context of Luke chapter 1 and follow the Scripture passage to Luke 1:67-79 and see that more is said about Zacharias’ faith, and his faith is clearly related to his son John the baptizer and his ministry to pointing to salvation, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins, and the ministry of pointing to the Messiah – to prepare the way of the Lord.  Notice the repetition of the word salvation and the whole Messianic implications of his prophesy.

Zacharias’ faith was in the Messiah to come:

Luke 1:67-79
And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:  “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
For He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people,
And has raised up a horn of salvation for us ;  

In the house of David His servant— 

As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old—

Salvation from our enemies,
 And from the hand of all who hate us;
To show mercy toward our fathers,
 And to remember His holy covenant, 

[see Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-6; 22:18 and Galatians 3:6-8, 14-16]

          The oath which He swore to Abraham our father,

To grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies,
Might serve Him without fear,
In holiness and righteousness before Him all our days.
“And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
 

For you will go on before the Lord to prepare His ways; [allusion to Isaiah 40:3-5] 

To give to His people the knowledge of salvation
;   

By the forgiveness of their sins,

Because of the tender mercy of our God,
 With which the Sunrise from on high will visit us, 

[Jesus as the light of the world who would settle in Galilee of the Gentiles - see Isaiah 9:1, John 7:52 and John 8:12; see also Matthew 4:12-17 as to why Jesus settled in Nazareth]  

To shine upon those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death,
 

[quoting Isaiah 9:2, which points to the Messiah being the light of the world and the son who is given to us, the Mighty God, the prince of peace, the wonderful counselor.  See Isaiah 9:1-7. ]

To guide our feet into the way of peace.”  

[this alludes to the “prince of peace” in verse 6 of Isaiah 9 and Micah 5:2-5.] 

(Luke 1:67-79 with my emphasis and comments)

That Zacharias mentions salvation so much, and that John the baptizer’s ministry would give the people the knowledge of salvation, by the forgiveness of their sins, shows that in some way, Zacharias was the blessed man of Romans 4:7-8 and Psalm 32, being justified by faith alone, and that his deeds of obedience were the result of his faith. 

Isn't that a better example of understanding progressive revelation, the NT fulfillment of the OT, exegesis, and systematic theology?