I come from a German family. The main religion of the German people is Lutheranism and that is what my family is. Both of my grandparents died as practicing Lutherans. Although I inherited the Catholicism of my Ukrainian mother, I grew up around Lutheranism.
Now, Luther is the founder of Protestantism. However, in terms of theology, Protestants only accept scripture as an authority. Views on Luther among Protestants can vary from hero to crypto-Catholic heretic or anywhere in between. Last year, Protestant James White gave a talk about how Luther’s followers persecuted the German Baptist Fritz Erbe. It’s amazing to look at how James White seems to romanticize the reformation less and less as his career goes on, though he remains firmly convinced of its theology.
Now, almost every Protestant I know of has a less than favourable view of Luther now than when they first heard about him. This is because when someone learns about Luther, they only hear about two episodes. The first is when he hammers his complaints on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. The other one is where he bravely stands before the Emperor and gives his famous line “Here I stand, I can do no other.”
Those two episodes are the first two that anyone learns about Luther. They’re the two best episodes. The more you learn, the less glamorous it gets. There is the peasants revolt, his feuds with other Protestants like Zwingli, him trying to remove the book of James from the Bible, his awful writings on the Jews, and other things. My cousin who was raised Lutheran but now goes to an Evangelical Church once told me: “The more I learn about Luther, the less I admire him.”
However, like I mentioned, a Protestant is free to dislike Martin Luther. A Protestant only needs to trust the scriptures as his only authority as per Sola Scriptura. I would like to contrast the Protestant view of Martin Luther with the medieval Church. When I say medieval Church I refer to 500 to 1,500 AD. To people like James White and other devout Protestants the medieval Church represents an ocean of spiritual darkness. To a Protestant, this period is full of superstition, tradition, ecumenical councils, papal bulls, monasticism, relics, scholasticism, inquisitions, and most importantly a lack of focus on scripture.
While many Protestants will admire parts of the early church, there is little for them to admire in this medieval period. There are a few beacons of light such as Huss, Wycliffe, Gottschalk, and maybe a couple others but those few exceptions are just that. Most Protestants have a John Foxe view of this period, whether they’ve actually read John Foxe or not.
I have an appeal to my Protestant friends: Explore the medieval Church. When you do you’ll have an elevated view of this period. It’s the opposite of the Martin Luther experience. For him it’s the good parts first then the ugly episodes later on. The medieval Church has the ugly episodes out of the way already and has nowhere to go but up. I think that Protestants will find a love for scripture and the Gospel in this period.
There is a saying Proverbs that I quite like.
The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.
– Proverbs 18:17
The same is true with the medieval Church. The examination can be done by the Protestants themselves and the John Foxe influence will be debunked.
I do admire Protestants in their love for our Lord and for the scriptures. I just think that they can take this period in history and have the opposite experience than what they had when learning about Luther. This will happen if they stick to primary sources. How about it Protestants? Give it a try? I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.
Ecumenical Allan in action!!!
Oh come on.
This will happen if they stick to primary sources.
Give some suggestions on primary sources, please.
Hi Ken,
By primary sources, I meant not like John Foxe or anything. I recommend just reading the greats who lived then, Pope Gregory the Great, Bede the Venerable, Germanus of Constantinople, St. John of Damascus, St. Bernard of Clairveaux, Pope Gregory VII, St. Thomas Aquinas, just to name a few. Basically read anyone from that period. If you want more recommendations let me know. I’ve actually been reading a lot of medieval monks from England lately.
Ken, I must ask. Was what I said about Luther true for you? Do you respect him less now than back in the day when you first learned about him?
Allan,
Good question. Luther’s re-discovery of so vital issues and doctrines like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and the priesthood of the believer are so massive, that his views on baptismal regeneration (which is hard to understand, and is not like the RC view), and especially his harshness with Zwingli was shocking when I first discovered that. His rant at the end of his life against the Jewish people was very shocking; but some have put that in a theological context rather than as a racial thing, but that is not excuse. Those evil and hurtful words put into print were used later in history and he did not realize how terribly and horribly that they would be used by others.
John Piper’s book, “The Legacy of Sovereign Grace” – about Augustine, Luther, and Calvin – was helpful – as he mentioned their good contributions and their warts and all.
I have been reading the book of Numbers recently and was reminded in Numbers 20 that Moses got angry toward the end of his life and hit the rock twice and did not give glory and honor to the Lord; and the Lord punished Moses by not letting him enter into the promised land. “because you did not believe Me to uphold Me as holy in the eyes of the people . . . “you did not treat Me as holy” – it is possible for true believers to sin like that after conversion, but not loose their salvation. (Numbers 20:10-13; see also Deut. 32:51) This is why we need to pray “Lord, may Your name be treated as holy” (hollowed be Your name), in my heart first and among all the nations – May Your kingdom come and Your will be done . . . ” Matthew 6:9-13, etc.
The things that Luther held onto that were wrong – were more of the mistakes of Roman Catholicism – infant baptismal regeneration and his dogmatism on the Lord’s supper vs. Zwingli; and his rant against the Jews was fostered by centuries of feelings of the whole of European RC culture.
I still respect him greatly for his positive contributions of beginning the Protestant Reformation, but that he was just a man, a sinner, and made other mistakes. I appreciate Dr. White bringing out that reality, although I had heard about some of these general things before. (that even the Reformers held onto infant baptism and had some who had rebaptized themselves drowned as penalty – (like Felix Manz under Zwingli’s area – by the Zurich city council – that was a shocker when I first heard about that many years ago – so the Luther stuff like what Dr. White talks about was not a surprise, since I learned about Felix Manz’s drowning about 25 years ago or more.
This was good also, by Dr. White and Dr. Michael Brown. Dr. White points out that Luther’s rant against the Jews was also common by the whole European culture and even words of past Popes.
Okay, I’m one minute in and Dr. White(his clip) is already wrong. Luther didn’t hold the Catholic or Papal view of the Jews. This might come as a shock but the medieval church can barely be called anti-semitic. Let me give you three examples.
When the crusaders massacred Jews in Germany(which Pope Urban never told them to do) the bishops protected the Jews in their castles. I’ve read the Jewish sources that report this.
When the black plague happened, many commoners blamed the Jews for poisoning wells. Pope Clement VI issued a Papal bull saying Jews aren’t to be blamed since the plague was equally bad in areas where Jews didn’t live.
Now, the infamous blood liberal was always condemned by Popes. Pope Innocent IV condemned it in 1247. In 1272, Pope Gregory X wrote the following:
And most falsely do these Christians claim that the Jews have secretly and furtively carried away these children and killed them, and that the Jews offer sacrifices from the heart and the blood of these children, since their law in this matter precisely and expressly forbids Jews to sacrifice, eat, or drink the blood, or to eat the flesh of animals having claws. This has been demonstrated many times at our court by Jews converted to the Christian faith: nevertheless very many Jews are often seized and detained unjustly because of this.
We decree, therefore, that Christians need not be obeyed against Jews in a case or situation of this type, and we order that Jews seized under such a silly pretext be freed from imprisonment, and that they shall not be arrested henceforth on such a miserable pretext, unless — which we do not believe — they be caught in the commission of the crime. We decree that no Christian shall stir up anything new against them, but that they should be maintained in that status and position in which they were in the time of our predecessors, from antiquity till now.
This was the medieval church’s attitude to the Jews. This actually proves my point. If you look at primary sources, the medieval church isn’t what its reputation shows it to be. As I’ve typed this, I’ve listened to more. Interesting stuff. Brown is certainly taking issue with what White is saying.
Ken, story here. Growing up, even though I was Catholic I bought into the lie that the Catholic Church has a cancerous history since Jesus died to the last 50 years. I used to say: “But we aren’t like that anymore…and Jesus was a good guy.” This was what I learned at a Catholic school and what my mom told me(because she’d been brainwashed as well). Then I started to read primary sources and the narrative changed. The Catholic Church has a very glorious history. It has flaws no doubt but overall it’s been pretty good, despite what you think of certain Catholic doctrines.
I’ll look into the Felix Manz episode. Not familiar with him. For some reason he’s not as famous as Servetus. I think he’s famous because John Calvin gets a lot of hate, lol.
God bless,
Allan
The first part of this DL (Dr. White’s Dividing Line program) deals with a lot more issue than Dr. Brown covered in his “Line of Fire” – at least in that You Tube clip. (maybe Dr. Brown covered more)