Was
the Protestant movement a sincere attempt to restore New Testament
Christianity? Do the "fruits"
show that it was motivated and guided by God's Spirit? Read the startling TRUTH
in this fifth installment of the series of articles based on Mr. Meredith's
eye-opening book!
By Roderick C. Meredith
WE HAVE already discussed the great apostasy, which
swept over the professing Christian Church after the days of the Apostles. Paganism — its ceremonies, traditions, and philosophies — was quickly
introduced into the early Catholic Church.
The documented story of utter corruption and debauchery
in professing "Christendom" presents a startling contrast to the beliefs, customs, and way of
life of the true Church in Apostolic
days. We found that men like Wyclif, Huss, and Savonarola were martyred in trying to purge this
wickedness from the Catholic Church.
Millions
of the common people cried out for relief from the political and financial
tyranny of Rome. Last month, we discussed Luther's unique identification with
these fervent hopes of the masses.
We
have presented the documented evidence that Luther was oppressed with a sense
of guilt in being unable to obey what
he thought was God's will. This led him to the point of adding a word to Romans
1:17 and teaching: "The just shall live by faith alone.”
Besides
revolting against the Catholic doctrine of indulgences, Luther rebelled against
the need of any definite obedience to the commands of God — relying now
on "faith alone” for salvation.
And in his rebellion against Rome, he made a political appeal to the
German nobles for their backing, writing: "We were born to be masters. . .
. It is time the glorious Teutonic people should cease to be the puppet of the
Roman pontiff" (Bettenson, Documents
of the Christian Church, p. 278).
After
his final break with Rome, Luther began to cultivate a number of the leading
nobles and princes to support his cause. Without proper protection, he was a dead man
— under the ban of the emperor and the pope.
During
his disputes with John Eck, and in his preaching, writing, and other
reformatory labors, Luther had won the respect of a number of young humanists
of Germany. Among these were Ulrich von Hutten and Francis von Sickingen.
Hutten seconded Luther's religious appeals by writing caustic pamphlets against
the pope and higher clergy. And his friend, Sickingen, offered his castle to
Luther as a place of refuge in case of emergency.
Two
other men were aids of Luther's work and were associated with him at the
University of Wittenberg. The first was Andrew Carlstadt, Luther's senior in
the divinity school, who had conferred on him the doctor's degree. He was an
able theologian for those times, but lacked Luther's personality and popular
eloquence. He was regarded as somewhat impetuous and often wished to bring
about a more complete reformation than did Luther. To Luther's dismay, he
sometimes put into practice what Luther
merely talked about.
The
other man who became absorbed in Luther's teaching was Philip Melanchthon, the
professor of Greek in the university. He was only twenty-one years old at the
time, but was scholarly, sensitive, and brilliant — already possessing a wide
reputation for his ability. His conversion to Luther's teaching was not because
of any travail of spirit, but as a result of his enthusiastic agreement with
Luther's interpretation of the writings of Paul.
These
humanists, these theologians, the elector, Frederick the Wise, and many other
princes, nobles, and scholars — all began to ally themselves with Luther and
his teachings. To most of the princes and nobility, the motives were purely political and financial. They were tired of the domination and intrusion of the
Italian papacy. Luther had become a concrete symbol of this long-felt
rebellion. Under his leadership, they were united in a common bond of hatred
against the material power of the Roman Catholic Church (Alzog, p. 202).
To
the humanists, Luther became a champion who expressed in popular eloquence what
they had written about in witty, erudite books and pamphlets, which were above
the understanding of the average man. And his religious appeal gave depth and a
positive meaning to the attacks on the hierarchy, which their satirical
writings had lacked. Though many did not understand his doctrine of grace, his spirit of rebellion against Rome
quickly spread.
Thus,
Luther became overnight a champion of all
Germany in their various grievances
against the papacy. A real movement
had now begun, and the pope and new emperor, Charles the Fifth, were to find
that it was to grow into a conflagration with which they could not ful!y cope.
Luther's
treatise entitled, "To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,”
issued in 1520, had made him very popular with the German nobility, local
authorities, and peasantry. His practical proposals in it are briefly
summarized by Walker: "Papal misgovernment, appointments, and taxation are
to be curbed; burdensome offices abolished; German ecclesiastical interests
should be placed under a 'Primate of Germany'; clerical marriage
permitted, the far-too-numerous holy days reduced in the interest of industry
and sobriety; beggary, including that of the mendicant orders, forbidden;
brothels closed; luxury curbed; and theological education in the universities
reformed. No wonder the effect of Luther's work was profound. He had voiced
what earnest men had long been thinking" (A History of the
Christian Church, p. 345).
Later
the same year, in his "Babylonian Captivity of the Church," Luther
attacked the sacramental practices of the Roman Church. He denied the doctrine
of transubstantiation, and said there are only two real sacraments — baptism,
and the Lord's Supper. He denied the scriptural validity of the other Roman
sacraments — confirmation, matrimony, orders, and extreme unction, though he
did say that penance has a certain sacramental value as a return to the purity
of baptism.
It
is remarkable that in rejecting transubstantiation, Luther declares the absolute authority of Scripture in matters of faith and practice. He states:
"For that which is asserted without the authority of Scripture or of
proven revelation may be held as an opinion, but there is no obligation to
believe it . . . Transubstantiation . . . must be considered as an invention of
human reason, since it is based neither on Scripture nor sound reasoning . . .”
(Bettenson, Documents, p. 280).
If
Luther had only applied this type of scriptural test to all of his doctrines, the world today might be a different type of
place! For when he was charged with inserting the word "sola" (alone) into Romans 3:28, he
haughtily replied: "Should your Pope give himself any useless annoyance
about the word sola, you may promptly reply: It is the will of Dr. Martin
Luther that it should be so" (Alzog,
p. 199). And, we may add on good authority,
no other reason for such unscriptural changes as these was ever given. When it
came to Luther's own personal doctrinal convictions, Martin Luther was truly a self-willed
man.
The
essence of the gospel to Luther was forgiveness
of sins through a personal, transforming faith in Jesus Christ. He
regarded this as the sole type of true religion (Walker, p. 346).
But
Luther totally neglected the Bible teaching on the kind of absolute repentance that must precede any forgiveness of sins. And his
mind continued to rebel against the necessity of obedience to any kind of authority or law after one was forgiven by
faith in Christ. He wrote: " As many as believe in Christ, be they as numerous and wicked as may be, will
be neither responsible for their works nor condemned on account of them."
And again: "Unbelief is the only
sin man can be guilty of; whenever the name is applied to other acts, it is a
misnomer. . . ." (Alzog, p
199).
His
third tractate of 1520, "On Christian Liberty," asserts that a
Christian man is spiritually subject to no
man or to any law.
He contended that since we are justified by faith
alone, we are no longer under
obligation to keep the law of God.
Here
we see that Luther continued to stress this personal, emotional, and
psychological experience of free forgiveness
as the central tenet of all his teaching. He had himself felt so oppressed by a
sense of guilt while in the Roman
church, that he now felt compelled to cast aside all sense of law and a need for obedience. We will compare this teaching with Scripture in another
place.
Thus,
Luther's doctrine was now complete in its main outlines. Although he would
later clarify himself on many smaller points, the basic principles of Luther's
theological system had now been established (Walker, p. 346).
In
1521, Luther was summoned to appear before the Diet of Worms, and his friends
warned him of his mortal danger. But the emperor had given him promise of a
safe conduct, and he was determined to go even "if there were as many
devils in that city as there were tiles on its houses."
Before
the Diet, Luther was immediately confronted with a row of his books and asked
whether he would recant them or not. After a recess for consideration, he
admitted that he might have spoken too strongly against persons, but would not
recant any of the substance of what he had written, unless it could be
disproved by Scripture, or reason. He is reported to have closed with the
words: "Here I stand; I can do naught else. God help me. Amen"
(Hurlbut, p. 153).
Returning
home from Worms, Luther was seized by friendly hands and taken to Wartburg
Castle, near Eisenach, where he was to remain in hiding for nearly a year. He
had been put under the ban of the empire, and had Germany been ruled by a
strong central authority, Luther's career would have soon ended in martyrdom.
But his vigorous and friendly territorial ruler, Frederick the Wise, time and
again proved to be Luther's salvation. From his secret retreat at the Wartburg,
Luther made his continuing activity felt by writing many letters and pamphlets
in favor of his cause which were sent all over Germany. But the most lasting
fruit of the period was his translation of the New Testament. This translation
from the Greek text of Erasmus into German was a work of high literary value,
and is regarded as the foundation of the German written language (Hauser, p.
60-61).
"Few
services greater than this translation have ever been rendered to the
development of the religious life of a nation. Nor, with all his deference to
the Word of God, was Luther without his own canons of criticism. These were the
relative clearness with which his interpretation of the work of Christ and
the method of salvation by faith is taught. Judged by these standards, he felt
that Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were of inferior worth. Even in
Scripture itself there were differences
in value" (Walker, p. 349).
Thus
we find that although Luther taught that all true doctrine should be based on
Scripture, when it came to interpreting
Scripture he had his own pet theories even as to the relative worth of entire books of the Bible! And, as we shall see, he violently denounced
those who did not agree with his doctrinal theories.
While
Luther remained in seclusion at Wartburg, several of his associates continued
the ecclesiastical revolution in Wittenberg. In many cases they carried out the
very reforms that Luther had talked
about — but had not yet acted on.
By October 1521, Luther's fellow monk,
Gabriel Zwilling, was denouncing the mass and urging the abandonment of
clerical vows. Many of the inmates of the Augustinian monastery of Wittenberg
soon renounced their profession, and Zwilling was soon attacking the use of
images.
At
Christmas, 1521, Carlstadt summoned the city to a celebration of the Lord's
Supper after the new fashion. He officiated in plain clothes,
omitted all reference to sacrifice in the liturgy, offered both the bread and wine to the laity, and used the German language
in conducting the sacrament (Bainton, The
Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, p. 64).
Auricular
confession and the fasts were soon abandoned. Carlstadt taught that all
ministers should marry and later, in 1522, took to himself a wife.
The
general excitement was increased by the arrival, in December of 1521, of
several radical "prophets” from Zwickau. They claimed immediate divine
inspiration, taught against infant baptism, and prophesied the speedy end of
the world (Walker, p. 350). Melanchthon was upset by all these events, and was
too unsure of himself to affirm or deny these new teachings.
Carlstadt,
however, was only trying to follow through on Luther's appeal to return
to Scriptural practices. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the arrival of the
Zwickau "prophets" tainted the movement with radicalism for a time.
These incidents were highly displeasing to the elector, Frederick the Wise, and
drew forth warning protests from other German princes. It is important to realize that Luther had to walk a
narrow line to keep with the pleasure of these German princes who gave
political, military, and financial backing.
And
so, partly to avoid any further censure for radicalism from the German princes,
and partly because of an evident jealousy
of Carlstadt (Orchard, p 339), Luther
was determined to return to Wittenberg and again take charge of the reformatory
movement.
But let us first notice some of the changes
Carlstadt was bringing about: "Carlstadt renounced all clerical garb and,
though a minister, dressed in a great gray cloak as a peasant. A second
principle re-enforced this position, namely social equalitarianism. The
doctrine of the priesthood of all believers was taken so seriously that
Catlstadt would not be called Doctor but only ‘Brother Andreas.’ The desire,
which also actuated Luther to restore the pattern of early
Christianity, was carried farther to
include many Old Testament practices. The destruction of images was based on
the Mosaic injunction, as was also the introduction of a strict sabbatarianism.
The entire program was alien to the spirit of Luther, who believed
that the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, and any portion may be
used in the interests of religion" (Bainton, The Reformation of the
Sixteenth Century, p. 65-66). Upon
hearing of this new program, Luther immediately returned to Wittenberg, gained
the favor of the Elector and the town council, and banished Carlstadt from the city.
The
startling fact is here disclosed that Carlstadt, although he misunderstood some points, was
attempting to reinstate many of the practices of Christ and the Apostles.
Luther would have none of
this. He would sometimes talk about returning to Biblical
Christianity, but he always rejected any real attempt to actually do so.
After
Luther's return from Wittenberg, he showed a decidedly conservative attitude in
all things and regained his influence with the German princes. He was forced to
play politics much of the time because the success of the Lutheran
movement was wholly dependent on their favor.
The
emperor was now kept busy by a great war with France for the control of Italy.
Pope Leo X had died in December 1521, and his successor was not yet influential
enough to curb Luther's activities. Under these favorable circumstances, it
looked as if the Reformation might win the entire German nation to its cause
(Hausser, p. 68-69).
Many
Lutheran congregations were now forming in various regions of Germany, and the
problem of church organization and government was presented. Without consulting the Bible to find out what type of church
government Christ had instituted in
His Church, Luther thought out a system
of his own. "Luther now
was convinced that such associations of believers had full power to appoint and
depose their pastors. He held, also, however, that the temporal rulers, as in
the positions of chief power and responsibility in the Christian community, had
a prime duty to further the Gospel. The experiences of the immediate future,
and the necessities of actual church organization within extensive territories,
were to turn Luther from whatever sympathy he now had with this free-churchism
to a strict dependence on the state" (Walker, p. 351).
Because
of this very type of man-devised church government, we
find that the Lutheran Church has been politically
controlled and almost wholly dependent
on the state down to recent times. But Luther's efforts to keep the favor of the
German princes, and his tendency to retain
countless ideas and customs
brought over from the pagan Roman Church — all this caused him to be considered
very "conservative." In fact, he did not depart from the Roman
Catholic traditions in many ways.
Luther
decided that great freedom was permissible in the details of worship, as long
as the 'Word of God' was kept central. The different Lutheran congregations
soon developed a wide variety of usages in their services.
Instead of Latin, the German language was increasingly used. Luther retained
much of the Catholic form of the Mass,
and issued one in German in 1526. He also retained the Catholic practice of confession, though not as obligatory.
"Judged by the development of the Reformation elsewhere, Luther's attitude
in manners of worship was strongly conservative, his principle being that 'what is not contrary to Scripture is for
Scripture and Scripture for it.' He therefore retained much of Roman
usage, such as the use of candles, the crucifix, and the illustrative employment of pictures" (Walker, p. 352).
At
this time, the first serious rifts among Luther's followers began to appear. The
first disaffection arose among the humanists, whose leader, Erasmus, had very
little sympathy with Luther’s doctrine of “justification by faith alone." He feared the results of a
teaching, which practically denied the moral
responsibility of man. And the stormy
writings of Luther, coupled with tumultuous outbreaks in several places, made
him increasingly alarmed.
In
the autumn of 1524, he began to challenge Luther's denial of free will. This
doctrine, which we will discuss more fully in a later section, asserted that in
the fall of Adam, man's nature had become so radically corrupted that he was incapable of obeying God or of doing any truly good thing.
Realizing
the gross error of this doctrine and others held by Luther, and fearful of the
increasing decline of interest in education and in public morals which seemed
to accompany Luther's teaching, Erasmus formally broke with Luther (Alzog, p. 226-227).
Another
rift in the movement occurred because of the dissatisfaction of some with the
halfway measures Luther was taking as a reformer. Many sincerely wanted to get
back to the pattern of New Testament Christianity. But Luther now seemed determined to preserve as many
of the Romish practices and doctrines as he could without overthrowing his
basic doctrines of justification by faith alone, and rejection of the papal
hierarchy and sacramental system. He, no doubt, felt he must do this to keep
the political backing of the German princes.
It
is true that the leaders of some of these movements became radicals. An example is Thomas Munzer, who attacked Romanists and
Lutherans alike for their doctrines, claiming himself to be directly inspired, and leading his followers in ransacking and destroying
monasteries and breaking all images in the churches (Walker, p. 353).
Yet
it seems certain that if Luther had
been willing to trust in God alone for his protection, instead of courting the
favor of the human princes, he could have led the people to a complete break with the pagan Catholic system, doctrines, and customs. He
would have found many thousands of sincere men and women in
Germany alone who would have gladly
followed. For the masses were already fed up with the Roman and feudal system
and were ripe for a change.
Here
was a grand opportunity to effect a genuine restoration of Apostolic Christianity.
If Luther and his associates had surrendered their wills completely to God,
asked His guidance in every phase of this restoration, and honestly followed the plain literal word of the teachings and practices
instituted by Christ and His Apostles, much of Germany would probably have
followed.
But
such was not to be the case. Luther's refusal to carry through a
complete reformation left many sincere, but uneducated, peasants, and townsmen
to be the prey of unbalanced leaders who in many cases restored some of the true Apostolic practices Luther
had willingly ignored, but who, all too often, mingled these with strange excesses of their own devising.
The
situation just described brought on the now infamous revolt of the German
peasants. The way Luther blundered in handling this situation caused by far the
most serious separation from his movement.
The
German peasantry had been oppressed for generations and their state was one of
increasing misery. The preaching and religious excitement of Luther's reform
movement acted as a spark to goad them into the long-delayed action of rising
against their masters.
"In
March 1525, the peasants put forth twelve articles, demanding the right of each
community to choose and depose its pastor, that the great tithes (or grain) be
used for the support of the pastor and other community expenses, and the small
tithes abolished that serfdom be done away, reservations for hunting
restricted, the use of the forests allowed to the poor, forced labor be
regulated and duly paid, just rents fixed, new laws no longer enacted, common
lands restored to communities from which they had been taken, and payments for
inheritance to their masters abolished. To modern thinking these were moderate
and reasonable requests. To that age they seemed revolutionary"
(Walker, p. 354).
Although
many Protestant historians maintain that Luther had no part in the peasant
uprising, it is a perversion of truth
to deny the fact that the peasants were simply putting into practice some of
the principles of freedom contained in Luther's
own writings. And there is no denying the fact that if Luther had not
turned against them in their hour of need, countless thousands of lives would
have been spared — and the economic slavery of the German peasantry would not
have been prolonged (Hausser, p. 102).
But
Luther was suspicious of the uneducated peasant class — in spite of the fact
that his own family had belonged to it. And, more important, Luther had put his
trust in the backing of the princes,
and was ever careful not to offend them — although he did send them a tempered
warning and a reminder of their responsibility in the expected outbreak
(Hausser, p. 103).
Although
Luther had long advocated the counsel of love and restraint, and knew well
Christ's injunction to "love your enemies,” his about-face in the matter
of the peasant revolt is no less than astonishing. Furthermore, the situation did not
call for such violence as he advocated — even had such
a course been consistent with Christian principles.
Unquestionably,
there were faults on both sides. But Luther's ranting appeal to the princes to mercilessly destroy the peasants reveals a spirit as far remote from the Spirit
that directed Jesus Christ, as it would seem possible to imagine.
Henry
C. Vedder paints an accurate picture of the ugly situation:
"Though
the peasants had a good cause, they had not always adopted good methods. Most
of them were ignorant, all were exasperated, and some were maddened by their
wrongs. In their uprising some outrages were committed; castles had been burned
and plundered and ruthless oppressors had been slain. These deeds were now made
the pretext for a retaliation whose cruelty has rarely been surpassed in
history. It is computed by
historians, who have no motive to
exaggerate, that fully a hundred
thousand were killed before the
fury of the princes and the knights was appeased.
"Foremost
among those who urged them on was Luther.
It would seem that he had become alarmed by the persistence of those who had
sought to make him and his teachings responsible for the peasant war. His hope
was in the protection and patronage of the
princes, to whom the plain words he
had spoken must have given deep offense. So in the midst of the uproar he sent
to the press a second pamphlet, in which he
turned completely about, and denounced the peasants as
violently as he had before rebuked the princes.
"They
cause uproar, outrageously rob and pillage monasteries and castles not
belonging to them. For this alone, as public highwaymen and murderers, they deserve
a twofold
death of body and soul. It is right and lawful to slay at the first opportunity a
rebellious person, known as such, already under God and the emperor's ban. For
a public rebel, every man is both judge and executioner. Just as, when a fire
starts, he who can extinguish it first is the best fellow. Rebellion is not a
vile murder, but like a great fire that kindles and devastates a country; hence
uproar carries with it a land full of murder, bloodshed, makes widows and
orphans, and destroys everything, like the greatest calamity. Therefore whosoever can should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is
nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man. Just as
when one must slay a mad dog; fight him not and he will fight you, and a whole
country with you.
"Let
the civil power press on confidently and strike as long as it can move a
muscle. For here is the advantage: the peasants have bad consciences and
unlawful goods, and whenever a peasant
is killed therefore he has lost
body and soul, and goes forever to the devil. Civil authority, however, has a
clean conscience and lawful goods, and can say to God with all security of
heart: 'Behold, my God, thou hast appointed me prince or lord, of that I cannot
doubt, and has entrusted me with the sword against evil doers (Rom. 13:1-4)
. . . Therefore I will punish and smite as long as I can move a muscle; thou
wilt judge and approve.' . . . Such wonderful times are these that a prince can more easily win heaven by shedding
blood than others with prayer"
(Vedder, A Short History of the Baptists,
p. 173-174).
Well
may we ask ourselves, "If these are the words of a reformer sent from God,
then what is the measure of true religion?"
Are these the words of a man directed by the Holy Spirit of God? Was the risen
Christ using this man to purify His
"little flock"?
By
this cruel act of turning so bitterly against the peasants, Luther had gained
greater esteem with the protecting princes. But, even humanly speaking, the
cost was great. From this time forth,
popular sympathy for his cause among the peasants of southern Germany was
alienated.
Erasmus
rebuked Luther for his hypocritical conduct in this sordid affair. He wrote:
"We are now gathering the fruits of your teaching. You say indeed that the
Word of God should, of its nature, bear very different fruit. Well, in my
opinion that greatly depends on the manner in which it is preached. You
disclaim any connection with the insurgents, while they regard you as their parent, and the author and
expounder of their principles” (Alzog, p, 223).
After
this, it is easy to understand the peasants’ lack of sympathy for the man who
urged the princes to "smite, strangle, and stab" them and their loved ones.
The
bloody suppression of the peasant uprising now left the princes and the cities in
complete control of Germany. Political alliances were now formed for or against
the Reformation. A league of Catholics was organized by Duke George of Saxony
and other Catholic princes, who met at Dessau in July 1525. An opposing
Lutheran league was formed at Torgau. A renewal of the emperor's struggles —
this time against an alliance of the pope and the French king — kept Charles V
too occupied to interfere with the religious struggles in Germany (Walker, p. 356).
At
the Diet of Spires, in 1526, a decree was made giving each German prince the right to handle religious matters in his
own territory — for the time being — as he felt responsible to God. This act
gave the Lutheran movement its first legal existence, and was regarded as a
triumph for the German reformers. However, from this time forth Luther was tied
to the apron strings of his princely protectors. As we shall see, he was forced
to employ compromise and deceit in order to continue in their
good graces. Because of his own system, he was not allowed to preach the
Word of God “without fear or favor." He and the Protestant cause were
inextricably bound up with the politics
of this world.
But
the emperor was soon victorious over all his enemies, and the princes were
summoned to the Diet of Spires in 1529. The Catholic party was now in the
majority, and issued an edict which forbade the progress of the Reformation in
the states which had not accepted it, and granted full liberties in the
reformed territories to all who remained Catholics.
To
this unequal ruling the Elector of Saxony and several other princes made a
formal protest. From that time the term Protestant
was applied to the Lutheran party and to their doctrines (Fisher, The History
of the Christian Church,
p. 304).
From
this time the development of territorial
churches became an established
policy. Germany was to be divided between the Catholic territories in the
south, and the Protestants in the north.
Now
where a man lived often determined his religion. And the spread of Lutheranism
depended more on politics than on
prophets.
In
the next installment, we will discuss the outcome — the "fruit" — of
this religio-political movement. Then
we will proceed with the exciting events in other phases of the Reformation. To
keep our perspective, we must always bear in mind these questions: Was this
movement motivated and guided by God's Holy Spirit? Was it a genuine return to
the "faith once delivered to the saints"?
For
more of the answers, don't miss next month's gripping installment in this
important series!