In the comment section of the post Catholic Fallacies: Private Interpretation, John (jswranch) made the following comment:
We Catholics are not the only ones claiming this chaos in Sola Scriptura. Just look at the words of Luther:
“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”
I wasn’t buying John’s use of this quote so I searched around for the original quote in context but was unsuccessful. I asked James Swan of Beggars All Reformation, who is the online Luther expert, if he was familiar with the quote.
With his usual excellence in getting quotes and context correct, James has posted an in-depth look at this quote. I am including just some excerpts here, you really must read James’ post in it’s entirety:
“When checking these obscure Luther quotes used by Roman Catholics, the first thing to remember, most often, they didn’t get them by reading Luther in context. Often, they’ve pulled these quotes from secondary sources.”
James was able to track down the actual quote in context in a letter by Luther:
“We believed, during the reign of the pope, that the spirits which make a noise and disturbance in the night, were those of the souls of men, who after death, return and wander about in expiation of their sins. This error, thank God, has been discovered by the Gospel, and it is known at present, that they are not the souls of men, but nothing else than those malicious devils who used to deceive men by false answers. It is they that have brought so much idolatry into the world.
The devil seeing that this sort of disturbance could not last, has devised a new one; and begins to rage in his members, I mean in the ungodly, through whom he makes his way in all sorts of chimerical follies and extravagant doctrines. This won't have baptism, that denies the efficacy of the Lord's supper; a third, puts a world between this and the last judgment ; others teach that Jesus Christ is not God ; some say this, others that ; and there are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads.” - Letter of doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp.
Finally, James notes:
“First, it should be obvious the quote is being used out of context. Luther isn’t talking about the devastating effect of sola scriptura. He’s talking about the devastating effect of the devil, who, Luther says, was at peace in his papal fortress, but now with the gospel being loudly proclaimed, must find a different way to keep men enslaved to sin and darkness.”
The rest of James' article goes on to make some excellent points about the need for an infallible interpreter of scripture (as Catholics claim). As this topic was also brought up in the comment section of the post on private revelation, I hope to address this topic more thoroughly in a future post. Again, make sure you read James' full post as he has alot of interesting information there.
John (jswranch), I know how much you love to quote Luther but unfortunately you will have to cross this particular quote out of your play book. And while you are updating your playbook, you may also want to check out James’ “Luther Myths” posts listed in my sidebar.
9 comments:
I already commented on this at James' site. But good info to have--and it fits in with the first new post for this incarnation as well. I look forward to seeing what you post later.
Carrie,
The quote is good (Letter to Antwerp 1525), and I disagree with James' explanation of the context,
"First, it should be obvious the quote is being used out of context. Luther isn’t talking about the devastating effect of sola scriptura. He’s talking about the devastating effect of the devil, who, Luther says, was at peace in his papal fortress, but now with the gospel being loudly proclaimed, must find a different way to keep men enslaved to sin and darkness.
Hmmm.... According to the context James sites, how was the devil now keeping men enslaved to sin and darkness? Could it be that the Devil was inspiring some to interpret the Gospel incorrectly?
Who and how was it that the devil inspired to come up with:
-chimerical follies
-extravagant doctrines
-will not recognize each other's baptisms
-denies power of the Lord's Supper
-Incorrectly places us between life and judgement
- That Jesus is not fully God.
Could Luther be referring to Catholics? Nope, that makes no sense. Could he be referring to annabaptists and other groups? I say yes. As soon as Sola Scriptura emerged, such things (non-recognition of baptisms, etc.) began to happen. Sorry, but James Swan's explanation doesn't fit and it isn't obvious that Luther isn't discussing Sola Scriptura in an indirect manner. Luther is referring to Non-Catholic 'Christians' who have come up with another intepretation of the Word of God.
When Luther's Sola Scriptura went forth, there became an immediate free for all on the Gospel. This is what Luther is complaining about. This theological free for all came through sola scriptura where each individual was given the correct intepretation from the H.S. directly for him or herself.
In the entire post, Swan gives 2 sentences to explain what Luther's quote means.
Saddly, the rest of Swan's post is an attempt to change the subject and attack converts like Steve Ray without answering the question.
Carrie,
If you really want me to "cross this particular quote out of your play book" you need to show me that:
a. Who Luther was talking about.
b. How they were coming up with such beliefs.
c. Prove a & b were not other Protestants/Baptists.
John
The context of Luther’s quote is not sola scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy. You won’t find this in this particular Luther quote. Anyone attempting to say something like We Catholics are not the only ones claiming this chaos in Sola Scriptura and then post this particular Luther quote, is engaging in polemical sophistry. This is obvious with many of the defenders of Rome- they have used this quote often without ever bothering to look up the context.
According to the context James sites, how was the devil now keeping men enslaved to sin and darkness? Could it be that the Devil was inspiring some to interpret the Gospel incorrectly?
That some people misinterpret or twist the Bible is not the fault of the Bible, hence not a proof against sola scriptura. Catholics and Protestants agree that Peter, Paul, and the apostolic teaching previous to New Testament inscripturation was an infallible, sufficient source for doctrine. But yet we find that those who heard the teaching of Peter, Paul, and the apostolic teaching previous to New Testament inscripturation disagreed among themselves on the teaching they heard at times. In other words, there was error present in the early church while the apostles were teaching. Because those who directly heard the apostles teaching got it wrong and disagreed among themselves at times, does this mean that Peter, Paul, and the apostles were insufficient sources as an infallible authority for the early church? those who heard the very voices of infallibility in the first century made errors, but it does not follow that the apostles were insufficient as authorities. Similarly, 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.
The context of Luther’s letter to Antwerp shows Luther was not blaming the ultimate authority of the scriptures for those who used the Scriptures for the purpose of anarchy (the Peasants Revolt).
Could Luther be referring to Catholics? Nope, that makes no sense. Could he be referring to annabaptists and other groups? I say yes. As soon as Sola Scriptura emerged, such things (non-recognition of baptisms, etc.) began to happen.
I guess you either never my read my entry, or you did not read it in its entirety. Here are a few more Luther quotes for you:
“I do not read the scholastics blindfolded, as they do, but ponder them. The apostle told us to prove all things, and hold to that which is good. I do not despise all theirs, neither consider it all good. But these creatures generally kindle a fire out of a spark, and make an elephant out of a flea. When it was permitted to a Thomas to stand out against the whole world, and a Scotus, Gabriel, and others to contradict him, and when, even among the scholastics, there are as many sects as there are heads, or rather every single head daily builds up a new system of divinity, why should I not have the same liberty? But when God lifts up His hand no one can stay it, and when He rests no one can arouse Him.”
“…there is no other place in the world where there are so many sects, schisms, and errors as in the papal church. For the papacy, because it builds the church upon a city and person, has become the head and fountain of all sects which have followed it and have characterized Christian life in terms of eating and drinking, clothes and shoes, tonsures and hair, city and place, day and hour. For the spirituality and holiness of the papal church lives by such things, as was said above. This order fasts at this time, another order fasts at another time; this one does not eat meat, the other one does not eat eggs; this one wears black, the other one white; this one is Carthusian, the other Benedictine; and so they continue to create innumerable sects and habits, while faith and true Christian life go to pieces. All this is the result of the blindness which desires to see rather than believe the Christian church and to seek devout Christian life not in faith but in works, of which St. Paul writes so much in Colossians [2]. These things have invaded the church and blindness has confirmed the government of the pope.”
(With both of these quotes, I can provide contexts, something it appears you ignore doing when you cite Luther).
The point should be obvious: Luther saw sects and schisms within the Roman Church, and anyone with even a basic church history text knows that previous to the Reformation such was the case as well. It’s pure sophistry to posit otherwise.
Sorry, but James Swan's explanation doesn't fit and it isn't obvious that Luther isn't discussing Sola Scriptura in an indirect manner. Luther is referring to Non-Catholic 'Christians' who have come up with another intepretation of the Word of God.
One should not approach historical documents with the notion, “This is what I want this document to say” which is exactly what you are doing. Behind the civil anarchy of the peasants revolt, Luther saw the Devil at work, not sola scriptura. To my knowledge, I think I’m the first person to provide this context in the realm of pop-Catholic apologetics. I look forward to providing this context for others like yourself, who use quotes and citations out of context to promote a worldview opposed to the God breathed Scriptures.
When Luther's Sola Scriptura went forth, there became an immediate free for all on the Gospel. This is what Luther is complaining about.
Luther is not complaining against sola scriptura. He’s complaining against those who misuse the Scripture to promote societal anarchy, in the same way the New Testament Apostles warn and write against those who misuse their teaching and the Gospel. Luther says in the context I provided, "The devil seeing that this sort of disturbance could not last, has devised a new one; and begins to rage in his members, I mean in the ungodly, through whom he makes his way in all sorts of chimerical follies and extravagant doctrines."
Saddly, the rest of Swan's post is an attempt to change the subject and attack converts like Steve Ray without answering the question.
Perhaps other will have the patience to dialog with you further on this quote. I do not. Truth is truth. There comes a point to “shake the dust” so to speak.
James Swan
Thanks James for answering John.
John,
Did you even read the quote in full context? There is absolutley no way to twist that quote the way you continue to do.
James was kind enough to give you a much larger response than I would have. His last quote from Luther sets the context - the devil was working amongst HIS members, the UNGODLY.
OK, the principle of "Bible alone" isn't responsible for a plurality of Christian convictions, the devil is. Now we're getting somewhere ... we've gone from the sovereignty of God to dualism for the sake of our principle.
If anything, the evangelical presupposition of the perspicuity ("clarity") of Scripture is at stake here, not sola scriptura. Admit it, folks, this is the issue and we disagree about it.
Moonshadow,
Certainly you understand that not all professing Christians are true Christians. Note Luther’s use of the “ungodly” – professing Christians at best.
The point here is that Luther's quote did not deal with the topic of sola scriptura as John asserted.
Hi Carrie,
Forgive my intrusion, but what's hap'nin?
http://gojiras-stomping-ground.blogspot.com/2007/07/hey-carrie-whats-happnin.html
Well ok then, i'll just shut the light off and venture back to my corner of cyber space.
Post a Comment