MARTIN LUTHER AND HIS ENEMIES #4

 MARTIN  LUTHER  AND  HIS  OPPONENTS  #4

From  the  lectures  by  Philip  Cary

Luther  continued  with  his  rebuttal  against  Swingly.  

"To  give  up his  diabolical  back-talk  against  God,  that  would  require  a  conversion,  and  God  can  do  a  miracle  like  that,  but  we  don't  have  much  record  of  God  doing  it,  of  leaders  of  great  heresies  who  convert  and  return  to  the  faith."

So  Luther  pretty  well  gives up  hope  on  Swingly,  and  when  writing  against  Swingly  he's  not  tying  to  persuade  Swingly  or  his followers.  Luther  is  trying  to  persuade  his  own  followers.  He  is  basically  trying  to  say,  stay  away  from  this  stuff,  don't  believe  Swingly.  Or  don't  believe  it  when  Swingly  says,  "Oh,  Luther  if  you  would  be  just  a  little  more  consistent  you  would  be  with  me.  I  Swingly  know  what  your  deepest  thought  is,  the  spirit  of  Luther  is  heading  in  my  direction,  so  if  Luther  was  only  a  bit  more  clear-headed  about  what  his  own  thought  was,  he'd  be  with  me."

Luther's  response  is,  "NO  WAY,  I  do  not  want  to  be  ANYWHERE  NEAR  YOU!."

AND  that's  where  the  HARSH  language  functions  so  powerfully.  He's  FLINGING  FILTH  at  people  like  Swingly.  It  HITS  and  STICKS!  And  Luther's  followers,  the  Lutheran  Germans,  say,  "Oh,  Yuck,  that  STINKS,  we  don't  want  anything  to  do  with  that  guy."

And  in  fact  it  succeeds  in  its  aim.  He  makes sure  nobody  who  is  Lutheran  wants  anything  to  do with  the  Swinglian's  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper.

To  this  day  the  Lutherans  will  use  the  word  Swinglian  as  a  bad  word,  we  don't  want  to  be  anything  like  THAT!

SO  THE  HARSH  RHETORIC  DOES  WHAT  IT'S  SUPPOSED  TO  DO!

It's  not  just  an  accident  of  Luther  loosing  control,  or  expressing  himself  and  blurting  out  nasty  stuff.  He's  deliberately  using  this  litorical  strategy  to  achieve  a  litorical  purpose.  He's  solidifying  the  Lutheran  opposition  to  this  devilish  rejection  of  the  Lord's  Supper  by  Swingly.

But  of  course  there's  a  lot  of  unintentional  consequences  of  this  hard  and  nasty  rhetoric.  It  leaves  a  hard  feeling  between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed.  In  Zurich  they  hated  the  name  of  Luther  for  a  long  time  to  come,  and  you  can't  blame  them.  It  left  a  legacy  of  kind  of  contentiousness  among  theologians  in  the  next  generation  or  two.

....................

Poor  Philip  Melanchthon  (1497-1560),  who  outlived  Luther  by  a  decade  and  a  half,  had  to  live  in  the  middle  of  swirling  controversy.  Poor  Philip,  is  a  man  who  liked  to  compromise;  he  likes  to  come  to  agreement  with  his  opponents.  He's  willing  to  give  a  little  to  make  peace  with  his  theological  opponents,  and  the  authentic  Lutherans  as  they  call  themselves  say,  "Oh,  those  Melanchthonians  they  are  crypto  Calvanists."  Because  Melanchthon  was  in  correspondence  with  Calvin.  And  they  agreed  about  a  lot  of  things.  So  the  true,  the  authentic  Lutherans  just  attacked  poor  Philip,  because  he  was  willing  to  compromise,  willing  to  make  peace.

When  Philip  Melanchthon  died  as  matter  of  fact,  he left  a  scrap  of  paper  by  his  death  bed,  with  a  list  of  why  you  shouldn't  be  afraid  to  die.  You  get  to  escape  all  kinds  of  evils  by  dying,  like:  you  no  longer  have  to  sin,  and  you  escape  the  rabid  fury  of  the  theologians.  Isn't  it  nice  you  are  no  longer  involved  with  these  controversies,  people  ripping  each  other  to  shreds,  attacking  each  other's  conscience.

It's  a  terrible  legacy.  Let  me  give  you  an  example  of  this.

Luther  attacks  one  person:  the  man  writes  a  conciliatory  treatise:  “Mr.  Luther,  don't  you  mean  it's  a  more  spiritual  view  than  what  you  said  before.  You  really  want  to  be  more  spiritual.  I'm  sure  the  Lord's  supper  is  more  a  spiritual  event;  isn't  that  really  your  intent?"

And  of  course  that's  the  thing  that will really  get  Luther  off.

“Don't  tell  me  that  I  agree  with  you.  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  you! “ Attitude  of  mind.

So  Luther's  reply  by  the  messenger  to  this  man  is:

"Dear  Sir  messenger,  tell  your  man  I  have  received  from  you  the  booklet  and  letter.  I  wish  to  God  he  would  be  silent!  That  mad  fool  processed  by  the  Devil,  does  not  understand  anything.  Does  not  know  what  he's  babbling!  If  he  doesn't  stop  it  let  him  at  least  stop  bothering  me  with  these  books  the  devil  spits  and  blurts  out  of  him.  And  give  him  this  as  my  final  judgment  and  answer:  THE  LORD  REBUKE  YOU  SATAN  and  the  spirit  that  called  and  the  course  your  taking!"

Getting  into  a  theological  argument  with  Luther  left  WOUNDS;  you  talk  about  ABRASIVE!

In  his  eulogy  for  Luther,  Melanchthon  said  this: 

"Some  people,  and  by  no  means  evil  minded  ones,  have  complained  that  Luther  had  displayed  too  much  severity.  I  will  not  deny  this." 

This  is  Luther's  best  friend  at  his  funeral  in  1546.

"But  my  answer  in  the  language  of  Erasmus:  Because  of  the  magnitude  of  the  disorders,  God  gave  a  violent  physician.  When  God  raised  up  this  instrument  of  Martin  Luther  against  the  arrogant  enemies  of  the  truth,  he  spoke  as  he  did  to  Jeremiah  -  Behold  I  place  my  words  in  your  mouth  -  destroy  and  build  -  OVER  AGAINST  THESE  ENEMIES,  GOD  HAS  SET  THIS  MIGHTY  DESTROYER  -  MARTIN  LUTHER  -  IN  VAIN  DO  THEY  FIND  FAULT  WITH  GOD."

THAT'S  QUITE  THE  EULOGY  ISN'T  IT!!

Luther  is  HARSH  -  TOO  SEVERE  -  but  He's  God's  instrument  -  we  can't  find  fault  with  God.  

That's  Luther's  best  friend  speaking  at  his  funeral.

[Of  course  Luther  was  NOT  God's  instrument.  He  was  a  man  who  found  SOME  truths  only,  and  could  see  the  corruptions  in  his  Roman  Catholic  church.  He  remained  for  the  most  part  a  Roman  Catholic  -  he  called  the  book  of  James  "an  epistle  of  straw"!  He  remained  totally  blinded  to  the  4th  commandment  and  the  true  weekly  Sabbath.  Luther  was  just  a  man  used  by  Satan  the  Devil  to  fulfil  prophecy,  whereby  the  Mother  church  would  bring  forth  daughters  -  various  daughters  but  keeping  various  beliefs,  practices,  and  customs  and  traditions,  from  their  mother.  God  was  standing  by  watching  what  He  had  said  would  come  to  pass  in  prophetic  history  -  Keith Hunt]

WELLLL.......  I  don't  know  if  it's  finding  fault  with  God.  There  IS  something  to  find  fault  with  here!

Let  me  try  to  zero  in  on  what’s  going  wrong  with  Luther's  polemics.  Because  this will  be  important  when  we  talk  about  Luther  and  the  Jews  in  our  next  lecture.

I  would  suggest,  what  drives  the  most  destructive  aspect  of  Luther's  rhetoric  against  his  theological  opponents,  is  the  desire  for  CERTAINTY!

Not  just  the  desire  for  TRUTH,  but  for  CERTAINTY!

There's  nothing  wrong  with  thinking  your  beliefs  are  true,  the  logic   of  belief  is  to  believe  something  is  true.  So  everyone  believes  their  beliefs  are  true.  But  CERTAINTY  is  different!

CERTAINTY  is  STRONGER!  AND  MUCH  MORE  DANGEROUS!

IT'S  RELATED  TO  THE  DESIRE  THAT  IT'S  RIGHT!

DESIRE  TO  BE  RIGHT  IS  VERY  MUCH  DIFFERENT  FROM  THE  DESIRE  FOR  TRUTH!

Because  if  what  you  DESIRE  is  TRUTH,  you'll  be  glad  to  learn  WHEN  YOU  ARE  WRONG!

Because  that  gets  you  closer  to  TRUTH.  SO  SOMEONE  WHO  DESIRE  TRUTH  IS  NOT  AFRAID  TO  BE  WRONG!

But  someone  who  wants  to  be  RIGHT,  is  someone  who  NEVER  WANTS  TO  BE  WRONG!

Someone  who  wants  to  be  right  is  someone  who  never  wants  to  be  wrong.

Therefore  someone  who  wants  to  be  right  all  the  time,  is  someone  who  wants  to  be  CERTAIN!

If  you  are  CERTAIN,  then  you  don't  have  to  consider  the  possibility  you  are  EVER  WRONG!

AND  THAT  I  THINK  IS  PROFOUNDLY  DESTRUCTIVE!!

THE  ONLY  WAY  YOU  DON'T  HAVE  TO  CONSIDER  YOUR  EVER  WRONG,  IS  TO  KILL  ALL  YOUR  OPPONENTS!

WE  SHOULDN'T  WANT  THAT,  IT  SEEMS  TO  ME.

CERTAINTY  IS  NOT  WHAT  WE  SHOULD  BE  AIMING  AT.

BUT  CERTAINTY  WAS  WHAT  LUTHER  WAS  AIMING  AT.

His  impatience  with  his  opponents,  that  they  have  no  right  to  be  saying  what  they  are  saying,  that  flow  out  of  his  sense  that  you've  got  to  be  basing  this  on  certainty.  If  your  opponent  is  wrong,  if  YOUR  telling  the  truth,  and  they  have  it  wrong,  then  you  just  argue  with  them:  you  say:  "I  don't  think  that  is  true."  But  if  your  certain,  and  it’s  obvious,  it's  clear  what  is  truth,  and  your  opponent  doesn't  get  it,  then  your  opponent  is  being  STUPID,  or  DISHONEST,  or  SPEAKING  FOR  THE  DEVIL!

………………………………….

I  THINK  CARY  IS  RIGHT  ON  THE  BULLS  EYE  IN  SHOWING  THE  DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  BEING  CERTAIN,  AND  DESIRING  THE  TRUTH.

IN  DESIRING  TRUTH  YOU  LISTEN,  YOU  READ,  WHAT  OTHERS  SAY.  YOU  STUDY  IT  ALL  TO  DESIRE  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  MATTER.  IF  YOUR  ALREADY  CERTAIN,  AND  YOUR  OPPONENT  DOES  NOT  SEE  IT  YOUR  WAY,  THEN  YOU  DO  NOT  ENGAGE  IN  THE  ARGUMENT,  FOR  TRUTH,  BUT  YOUR  OPPONENT  IS  STUPID,  AND  SPEAKING  FOR  THE  DEVIL.

IN  THIS  ATTITUDE  YOU  CAN  EASILY  BE  A  TOOL  FOR  SATAN  THE  DEVIL  TO  USE  FOR  HIS  DECEPTIVE  WORK  ON  EARTH.

MARTIN  LUTHER  WAS  INDEED  A  TOOL  FOR  THE  ADVERSARY,  AS  WERE  OTHERS  AT  THE  SO-CALLED  REFORMATION  -  THEY  ONLY  REFORMED  IN  CERTAIN  AREAS  OF  THEOLOGY  AND  PRACTICES.  SO  THE  DAUGHTERS  OF  BABYLON  MYSTERY  RELIGION  CAME  INTO  BEING.  NONE  OF  THEM  WERE  A  PART  OF  THE  TRUE  CHURCH  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.

Keith Hunt 

MARTIN  LUTHER  AND  HIS  ENEMIES

from  the  lectures  by  Professor  Phillip  Cary

This "certain" for Christianity, this is especially on interpretation of Scripture. You have to base theology, the teaching of the faith, on a clear text of Scripture, what later is called proof-text. Protestants love to talk about a clear text of Scripture. Which means you can be certain as to what it means. Not just certain that God will keep his promises. Seems to me this is what every Protestant needs to keep hold of, certain that God keeps his promises. But being certain of our interpretation of God's promises is a different thing. It is being certain of something you have done, as your own achievement  as an interpreter; but it also means you end up disguising your achievement as an interpreter, because human interpretation is fallible. Therefore your going to have to disguise the fact that your interpreting the text, saying: "Oh the other guy is interpreting the text. I'm just reading the text. It's clear what God's word says." 

So it's their human interpretation against God's word.  My act of interpretation sort of just disappears; I'm no longer interpreting at all. They are the ones interpreting, because interpreting after all is uncertain.

This puts all kinds of pressure on the Protestant doctrine of the Scriptures. The clarity of Scripture which Luther insists upon.

Originally the doctrine of interpretation became the doctrine that denies we're interpreting. That's the actual effect of it in later Protestant doctrines of Scripture.

It makes it difficult for Protestants to admit that their interpretive judgments come from a distinctive theological tradition. Because traditions are also human. Traditions don't come straight out of the Scripture; they are a human thing. And if your tradition comes from a human thing, then it must be uncertain. Which is very true.

The clarity of Scripture, a good way of getting at this issue, the clarity of Scripture, is in a way obvious. That does happen, there are many texts which are obvious in meaning, for anyone who knows the language. But obvious I think is relative to tradition. What I'm getting at is this: what is obvious to one person it not obvious to another person. And that depends on what you know, your skills, your training. It's obvious to someone who reads Hebrew, to open a book written in Hebrew, and be obvious; but for me I can't understand it at all. If you know the language, have the skill, it's obvious. 

There are things obvious to an expert and not to a novice. Like: the example I gave earlier of the car mechanic listening to my car and knowing what is wrong, but to me I have no clue.  It's obvious to him but not to me.

So what's obvious to you in the interpretation of Scripture depends what tradition your from. Some things will be obvious to Catholics, and some things obvious to Protestants. Some things are obvious to academic experts in Biblical studies. Rival traditions produce rival senses in what is obvious and clear. 

Protestants do not always know that they are part of "tradition." Catholics know they have tradition, but Protestants often do not know they are part of traditions. 

Modernity often does not know they are part of traditions. Modernity itself is part of a tradition it does not recognize is part of a tradition. Protestantism is first in modernity that does not know it is part of tradition. Therefore can not recognize the argument about interpretation in an intelligent way, it seems to me.

What Protestants will tend to do in response to 19th century critical movement is "Well that's all human interpretation, but I'm just reading the obvious sense of Scripture." And that's the move that gets you fundamentalism. The 19th century critical movement is still with us. It pushes some Protestants into a very individualistic direction. Like: "Oh well, I don't need scholarship. Just my heart, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit, and can be certain as to what God is speaking to my heart."

That means from a LUTHERAN PERSPECTIVE your going into a "spiritualistic route" - where it's spirit and not word.

THAT'S A RESOLVE LUTHER DID NOT INTEND!

To get an intelligent theological argument about tradition you need to recognize it's one tradition arguing with another tradition. There is no certainty here. You don't get certainty by going deep into your heart. 

There is just God's word and you are going to have to argue about it.

That argument is on going.  We'll talk about that in the next lecture also.

....................

THE NEXT LECTURE FROM PROFESSOR CARY IS  LUTHER AND THE JEWS,  ALREADY  POSTED  ON  THIS  BLOG.