I am having a great discussion with a non-Catholic friend of mine where we are examining the reasons why Martin Luther was excommunicated by the Catholic Church. My friend believes that Luther was excommunicated because he was pointing out the sins of the Church, namely Pope Leo X. I believe that Luther was excommunicated based on the doctrine that he was preaching that was contrary to what divine revelation had revealed thus far.
Although I have studied the Protestant Revolt in the past, I have not studied Martin Luther, the man. Outside of watching Luther, the movie, I have not gone into much depth regarding who this man was, what it was that he taught and the response he received from the Catholic Church. Everyone knows that the Catholic Church excommunicated him, but based off of what? Was he teaching Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, before or after his excommunication? Was his 95 Theses, completely erroneous and without foundation? Was the Catholic Church justified in their actions to excommunicate him?
These are some of the questions that I am pondering and researching currently. Feel free to chime in and share your thoughts. I am interested in historical facts as well as theological, so please, if you are going to share information, support it with evidence. Unsupported accusations and unfounded beliefs, doesn't help facilitate discussion and diminishes opportunity for learning.
God bless...
19 comments:
"I believe that Luther was excommunicated based on the doctrine that he was preaching that was contrary to what divine revelation had revealed thus far."
Martin Luther protested against much that was non-scriptural and stood FOR Scripture alone! Justification by faith alone is only contrary to 'Catholic'revealed docrtine.
I forgot to mention that you claim to be interested inactual historical fact. Your past posts as well as this one demonstrate that you are interested mostly in 'evangelizing' for Catholocism and trying to prop up the your beloved "only true church".
On January 3, 1521, Pope Leo X issues the papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem, which excommunicates Martin Luther from the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther, the chief catalyst of Protestantism, was a professor of biblical interpretation at the University of Wittenberg in Germany when he drew up his 95 theses condemning the Catholic Church for its corrupt practice of selling indulgences, or the forgiveness of sins. He followed up the revolutionary work with equally controversial and groundbreaking theological works, and his fiery words set off religious reformers all across Europe.
In January 1521, Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther. Three months later, Luther was called to defend his beliefs before Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms, where he was famously defiant. For his refusal to recant his writings, the emperor declared him an outlaw and a heretic. Luther was protected by powerful German princes, however, and by his death in 1546, the course of Western civilization had been significantly altered.
In brief, Luther was excommunicated from the Roman Church because he disagreed with the Pope and held Scripture alone to a higher authority than the Pope. then there was justification by faith alone.
Luther's beliefs threatened the very power structure of the Catholic Church! the only thing that has changed about the Catholic Church since the Reformation is the manner in which Catholic believers are in bondage to the "Holy Mother Church".
Anonymous,
My friend said:
that Luther was excommunicated because he was pointing out the sins of the Church, namely Pope Leo X.
I said:
I believe that Luther was excommunicated based on the doctrine that he was preaching
You, Anonymous said:
Martin Luther protested against much that was non-scriptural and stood FOR Scripture alone!
So it would seem that you and I do agree. Martin Luther was preaching something contrary to what the Catholic Church taught and was therefore excommunicated. It was not because of the sins of a Pope or a political issue. It was a doctrinal issue.
Of course, you believe that Martin Luther was right, and I believe that he was wrong. That is not what I am discussing at this point. I am interested in the circumstances of his excommunication. Was it a reaction to the sins of a pope or a political issue, versus a doctrinal one. I think we agree it was a doctrinal issue.
Anonymous,
I forgot to mention that you claim to be interested inactual historical fact. Your past posts as well as this one demonstrate that you are interested mostly in 'evangelizing' for Catholocism and trying to prop up the your beloved "only true church".
Please be mindful of what I mentioned in my original post:
Unsupported accusations and unfounded beliefs, doesn't help facilitate discussion and diminishes opportunity for learning.
Anonymous,
You said:
He followed up the revolutionary work with equally controversial and groundbreaking theological works, and his fiery words set off religious reformers all across Europe.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. It would seem that we share the same view as for the reason to why Luther was excommunicated. We both agree it was because of the doctrine that he preached which was contrary to that of the Catholic Church.
God bless...
I do think the comments thus far raise an interesting point: I wonder how much of Scriptura Sola was a reaction to the corruption that had tainted the Church at the highest level for hundreds of years. That is, the popes had so damaged their authority through various scandals (including the Western Schism and then selling indulgences to support extravagant lifestyles) that people went from:
"I accept and believe what the Pope tells me, without question, because he is speaking from divine revelation."
To:
"Hmm, we have two Popes excommunicating each other... clearly one must be wrong so maybe the Pope isn't as dialed into God as I thought."
To:
"OK Pope, I hear what you're telling me, but I've been burned in the past so you're going to have to back that up with Scripture."
To:
"Wow, I can't believe the Pope is still pulling that crap! Screw it! Scripture only!"
It seems to me that Luther was at the "you'll need to back that up with Scripture" point when he was excommunicated and subsequent Reformers (including perhaps Luther at a later time) ended up at the last point shortly thereafter (but alas, before the Counter Reformation).
Kyle,
Welcome to the electronic side of the discussion ;)
So, finally, was the Excommunication of Martin Luther by the Catholic Church based on new doctrine that he was promoting which was contrary to what God had revealed thus far, or was it something else? Why did the Catholic Church excommunicate him?
I don't think my previous comment added much to our conversation :-) It was more fleshing out my side of the offline discussion for the "electronic side" of things. That is, I'm not certain Luther was in full-fledged Sola Scriptura mode when he was excommunicated, which seems to be what you (and most Protestants) believe.
I think most Protestants would be surprised by just how Catholic some of his 95 theses were:
"Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the pope, manifests grace to us..."
"There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and assurance." (Which means that Luther still believes in purgatory, a notion that most Protestants would find very Catholic.)
With that said, I got impatient... rather than reading through all 95 theses to see if there was any hint of Sola Scriptura, I just did a Google search for "where did sola scriptura originate", which lead me to The Origin of Sola Scriptura.
The Origin is a very biased source, clearly on the Catholic side of the debate, though Protestants would do well to recognize the truths spoken about the danger of individualism. With that said, it did lay out a timeline for the development of Sola Scriptura by Luther:
1518 - Synod of Augsburg : Luther places his interpretation of the Bible higher than the Pope, though still admits the authority of the Synod and the Bible were equal.
1519 - Leipzig Disputation : Luther goes a step further and declared the Bible ranked above a Church Council, and that Ecumenical Councils had already erred in faith. He is branded a heretic.
1520 - Exsurge Domine : Luther is officially warned and given a chance to retract 41 of his teachings that the Church, via the Pope, found in error.
1521 - Excommunicated : Luther's excommunication is formalized via the Papal Bull Decet Romanum Pontificem.
Several notes: Sola Scriptura, in my opinion, does not teach that scripture is the only authority on spirtual matters, but rather that it is the highest authority. That is, if the pastor says something that doesn't jive with Scripture, then Scripture wins.
My understanding of Catholicism is that ya'll (I love using "ya'll" in a theological discussion, but I digress) would rather put Scripture and the Church on equal footing - that is, one isn't more or less important than the other.
Those are the foundation for what follows; if you don't agree, don't bother reading the rest of this comment :-)
Assuming the timeline above is correct, it seems to me that Luther first took a Sola Scriptura stance in 1519, meaning his excommunication was in part due to teaching a new doctrine.
With that said, I plan on digging into that timeline a bit more, since it did come from a very biased source. Fortunately said source did provide some references.
That Luther was excommunicated because he stood up to the Pope and the Catholic church is without question. He was not however, preaching nothing new. He only preached what had always been in scripture, and what was held to by the early church fathers, distorted later by the "Church" so that they could maintain their "power" over those they held in bohdage. It is a bondage that holds to this day.
His intent was to restore the church. The sins of the "Popes" also figured into what he disliked about the church, but was not the main issue.
Perhaps the most hated part of the Reformation was the Bible being placed in the hands of commen men and women. It is in reading scripture for what is on it's pages that infuriates. The doctrine that the Church has to interpret scripture in for for us regular folks to understand it seems to have kept many in bondage, however.
Anonymous,
You said:
He was not however, preaching nothing new. He only preached what had always been in scripture, and what was held to by the early church fathers, distorted later by the "Church"
What proof do you have that what he was preaching was not new, but instead held by the early church fathers? Which Early Church Fathers? What evidence is there to suggest that they held to those ideas? Once again, you have not provided any evidence to support your claim.
His intent was to restore the church.
Restore the Church to what? What is the state of the Church that Luther was trying to restore it to? What point? What timeframe? What are the conditions of the Early Church that he was trying to get back to?
Help me understand your position. The claims that you are making are great, indeed, but you are going to have to provide more meat in your responses in order for me to take them seriously.
Thanks and God bless...
Others have gone into great detail, with gentleness and respect, concerning the dotrinal issues at hand. You have continually only defended Catholic positions. So why bother?
I will, however pray mightily.
Anonymous,
You have continually only defended Catholic positions. So why bother?
Yet you continue to want to talk and continue the conversation. If you want the conversation to go anywhere, you are going to have to do more than provide accusations without evidence to back it up. Or else, as you said, why bother?
I will, however pray mightily.
Please do, and thank you in advance. I will continue to pray for you as well...
God bless...
Anonymous,
>>distorted later by the "Church" so that they could maintain their "power" over those they held in bohdage. It is a bondage that holds to this day.<<
and...
>>Perhaps the most hated part of the Reformation was the Bible being placed in the hands of commen men and women. It is in reading scripture for what is on it's pages that infuriates.<<
Using assumed motives as the basis for proving someone wrong is an equal opportunity game.
I could just as easily assume your motive for posting here is to disrupt constructive conversation or simply to annoy others. Using your logic, there's no basis for refuting me, because the core of my position is the assumption of your motive.
So...
What evidence is there that the church wanted to keep the Bible out of Christians hands so she could hold on to power?
Let's have something more substantial than preaching and passion.
Back to the real topic - Martin Luther.
The "revealed truth" you say he "revolted" against was the Church's distortion of truths found explicitly in scripture. Ho only wanted to reform the church, not ravolt against it. That's history, my friend.
""Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen." - Martin Luther
"What evidence is there that the church wanted to keep the Bible out of Christians hands so she could hold on to power?"
That would be the historical record - similar to the Catholic Church condemning as hertics those who did not agree with every point of Catholic doctrine, although there is no Papal decree that "We will now initiate the Inquisition in order to torture and kill pesky Protestants who do not accept our doctrine."
"Let's have something more substantial than preaching and passion."
Let's do. Here is a good summary concerning the scriptural validity of a lot of Catholic doctrine.Provided for your edification are passages from Scripture concerning each point that seem to refute specific Catholic positions/doctrine. Over the years I have found that this is a very good and valid summary.My own position concerning these, nearly in every point, came from reading scripture for myself, and not the result of others' writings. Scripture is, aftr all the final authority.
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices Biblical?"
Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be “Is this Biblical?” If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus’ apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid…there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God?
Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).
Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.
Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).
Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.
Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).
Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people,” whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).
Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.
Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).
Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.
Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: “What does Scripture say?” (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Recommended Resource: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes.
Anonymous,
I do not have the time to respond to all of these at this time. I do want to commend you for supporting your beliefs with tangible evidence that is useful for discussion. Great work!!!
Since you brought up so many different items in this post, I think that it would be best if we took each item one by one, and devoted it to a post of their own.
Thanks and God bless...
I'm curious, anonymous, about your use of Scriptural references to refute the teaching of the Catholic Church in your summary. What was used before the canon of scripture was decided upon to refute false doctrine?
You made reference to the historical record. It would seem to me that the Scriptures are not group of books isolated from their time. There must be other writings, not necessarily inspired, by holy men and women of early Christianity, that can help us to know what was believed before the canon was established.
And your last reference from 2 Tim is clearly about the OT since their was no NT at the time. Not really helpful to validate the NT.
Oh I'll take some of those Carlus, if you don't mind!!!! (But I can't do all at once.)
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices Biblical?"
Yes. "Biblical" should mean that a church teaches nothing that is contrary to the Bible. In fact that is the standard by which all Tradition is measured. How do we know that is the correct standard? Because the Bible says in John 21:25 "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." So any Church that teaches the only true beliefs are those specifically spelled out in the scripture, and everything else is false, is - unbiblical. So let's hit some of your details:
Salvation, Good Works, Baptism and Sacraments. Too big to fully address, but your understanding of Catholicism is wrong. We teach that we are saved by Grace unearned but born out of Faith. God chooses to transmit that Grace initially through the sacrament of Baptism. Because we have the free will to walk away from that grace there are other sacraments God chooses to use to restore that state of Grace. If that's wrong, then why did Luther and every other Reformer agree with the sacrament of Baptism? More importantly why did Jesus say you MUST be baptized? Is baptism, repentance or even faith a "good work" now? Interesting. How about "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord is Savior"? How can you claim that you were saved on a specific date - but saying those words (internally or out loud)was not an an act that could equally be called a "work"? In reality God invites us, out of love, to paricipate in our own salvation by asking for it. James says that "Faith without works is dead." But really, if you never "do" anything, can you claim to have faith at all? If I never dribble a basketball can I claim to be a basketball player?
Prayer. Again you're a little off on your Bible knowledge. Matt 6 is the Our Father and Luke 17 is a parable about persistance in prayer. They teach us HOW to pray to the Father - neither one says "only" (unless you would like to agrue that we ahould only say the words of the Our Father and nothing elase when we pray - you're not saying that are you?). So again you want to say that only stuff in the Bible can be true. Yet all Christian Faiths believe in the Trinity - not in the Bible and yet completely true.
Priesthood. The Rite of Baptism annoints every believer "priest, prophet and king" (you really should learn more about us - call me - we'll have a coffee). Of course the Bible also says "call no man 'father'" yet what do you call your mother's husband? By the way, what is a "minister", how is that different than a "priest", and where is that phrase found in the Bible (used as a noun)?
Confession: The Bible, and therefore also the Catholic Church, teach that only God can forgive sins. Until he comes again, he does this through the Church. That is because Jesus told the Apostles, after the resurrection, that what they bound and loosed would be boun and loosed in Heaven. But if you's like more clarification I can recommend a great podcast at http://podcast.ihmparish.com/index.php?id=2
Mary. That can be a whole day's discussion. Let's get to the point. I'll act like a rabbi and teach with questions. Did Jesus honor his mother? Should we act like Jesus? Does Jesus have the authority to make Mary queen of Heaven and Earth? Does the Bible say he didn't?
Now we can agree that no one has ever been redeemed by Mary (really, let's have a coffee). We are redeemed by Jesus' death and resurrection, right? Couldn't have happened without God becoming man, right? God could have done that a million different ways, right? Yet he chose to give the option to a 14 year old virgin as to whether she would allow him to become man in her womb. When she said yes, she became an integral part of our redemption. Through Eve we all got sin. Through Mary, in the sense of her "yes", we all got salvation. The title co-redemptrix means nothing more than that.
I would love to go on. Did I mention we could get coffee some time???
Post a Comment