ReGrace Read online

  On this point, theologian Roger Olson writes,

  Edwards argued that God’s sovereignty requires that he create the entire universe and everything in it ex nihilo at every moment. That goes far beyond garden variety creation ex nihilo or continuous creation. It is speculative and dangerous. He also asserted that God is space itself. And he came very close to denying that God’s creation of the world was free in any libertarian sense as if God could have done otherwise. (He said that God always does what is most wise, something with which few Christians would argue, but somehow one must admit the possibility that God might not have created at all. Otherwise the world becomes necessary even for God which undermines grace.)17

  8. Edwards believed that Arminianism was a slippery slope toward atheism.

  Throughout my life, I’ve met a handful of Christians who believed that Arminians shouldn’t be allowed near small children or pets. Edwards may not have held that view, but he did believe that Arminianism was not only false, but dangerous. On this point Roger Olson states,

  Edwards considered Arminianism of any kind—even Wesley’s warm-hearted, evangelical Arminian theology—an implicit denial of God’s greatness and a step down the slippery slope toward atheism.18

  In closing, did I tell you that I believe Jonathan Edwards was a great man whom God greatly used?

  Let’s regrace!

  In the next chapter, we’ll examine the shocking beliefs of the individual who is credited with founding Protestant Christianity.

  8

  The Shocking Beliefs of Martin Luther

  The knowledge that God has loved me beyond all limits will compel me to go into the world to love others in the same way. I may get irritated because I have to live with an unusually difficult person. But just think how disagreeable I have been with God! Am I prepared to be identified so closely with the Lord Jesus that His life and His sweetness will be continually poured out through Me?

  ~ Oswald Chambers

  For many Christians, Martin Luther is a household name. He was a monumental reformer—touted as the father of the Protestant Reformation.

  Almost three hundred years after Luther’s passing, Ralph Waldo Emerson said of him, “Martin Luther the reformer is one of the most extraordinary persons in history and has left a deeper impression of his presence in the modern world than any other except Columbus.”1

  While in his early twenties, Luther became an Augustinian monk. But he wore himself out with prayer, fasting, and excessive confessions, trying to earn God’s favor.

  Later, he had a revelation of God’s grace and justification by faith (alone) while reading the book of Romans. (His revelation is alleged to have come to him while he was sitting on the toilet. But this story has been debunked.)2

  Luther’s reformation began when he started opposing a man named John Tetzel who was selling indulgences to raise money to finance the building of St. Peter’s Cathedral. Luther was against the abuse of indulgences, believing it to be a perversion of the gospel. So in reaction, he wrote his famed Ninety-Five Theses.

  It’s commonly held that Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the castle church in Wittenberg, inviting scholars to debate the issue. But some historians doubt that he actually posted the theses on the door at all.3

  Nevertheless, with the advent of the printing press, Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses were printed and distributed widely.

  Luther was rebuked by the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church and given space to recant and repent. Luther refused, however. As a result, he was condemned by the Church, branded a heretic, excommunicated, banished, and condemned by the emperor.

  He was to be captured and killed on sight. But Luther survived because he was kidnapped and protected by Frederick III, Elector of Saxony (“Frederick the Wise”).

  Luther translated the New Testament into German so that the common people could understand it. There are approximately 60,000 pages of text attributed to Luther. Yet he apparently wished “all my books would disappear and the Holy Scriptures alone would be read.”4

  During much of his life, Luther was subjected to a barrage of slander and rumor. One of these rumors was that he was the offspring of his mother and the devil.5

  Cartoons were made of him, shaming, blaming, and condemning him. One of them depicted him as a seven-headed monster. His response to it was, “A cartoon has appeared of me as a monster with seven heads. I must be invincible, because they cannot overcome me when I only have one.”6

  In 1525, Luther married a runaway nun who was sixteen years his junior. Her name was Katharina von Bora.

  Luther felt that beer and wine were God’s gifts. He possessed a mug with three rings on it—the first ring represented the Ten Commandments, the second represented the Apostles’ Creed, and the third represented the Lord’s Prayer.7

  There’s no doubt that Luther recovered some wonderful truths that were lost to the body of Christ. He stood as a prophet against a corrupt Church. He restored the great doctrine of justification by faith, freeing God’s people from legalism and the need to go through human mediators to get to God. He gave the Bible back to God’s people. He also had a strong hand in restoring music and singing to the body of Christ.8

  Before you read on, keep the following in mind:

  Luther lived in the sixteenth century. Life was cruel and harsh, and people were generally violent. To bring this point home, imagine this scenario. Suppose that Christians two hundred years from now discover that some of the items we use on a daily basis were destroying the planet. So they may think, How could those Christians in the twenty-first century be so selfish and sinful!? Again, we have to understand Luther, Calvin, and others against the times in which they lived.

  Repeat: The point of this chapter—and this book—is not for you to conclude, “Oh my, these guys were horrible. Put them on the chopping block!” It’s the opposite. If the great theologians who shaped evangelical Christianity could be so right on some things, and so off on others, then certainly we need to be more tolerant, civil, and gracious with our fellow brethren today when we disagree.

  With that said, what follows are some of the shocking beliefs of the great Protestant Reformer, Martin Luther.

  1. Luther despised Jewish people, believing that they deserved persecution.

  At first, Luther was sympathetic to the Jews and critical of Roman Catholics for their mistreatment of the Jews, for “treating them like dogs” and thus making it difficult for them to come to Jesus Christ.9

  But fifteen years later, he changed his tune entirely and began to excoriate the Jewish people in his writings.10

  Despite the fact that Luther’s best friends disapproved of his contra-Jewish attacks, he wouldn’t relent. In fact, shortly before his death, Luther wrote, “We are at fault for not slaying them!”11

  Church historian Roland Bainton wrote that it would probably have been better if Luther had died before he wrote his onslaught against the Jews.12

  In his On the Jews and Their Lies, Luther stated,

  I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed, . . . I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. . . . I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. . . . I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. . . . I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. . . . If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God’s wrath and be damned with them.13

  And again,

  In sum, they are the Devil’s children, damned to hell. If there is anything human left in them, for that one this treatise might be useful. One can hope for the whole bunch as one wills, but I have no hope. I also know no biblical text [that supports such hope].14
/>
  Note that Luther’s issue with the Jews didn’t appear to be racial, but theological.15

  Luther was frustrated that they rejected Jesus, and he couldn’t convince them otherwise. On this score, he wrote,

  Just as I may eat, drink, sleep, walk, ride with, buy from, speak to, and deal with a heathen, Jew, Turk, or heretic, so I may also marry and continue in wedlock with him. Pay no attention to the precepts of those fools who forbid it. . . . A heathen is just as much a man or a woman—God’s good creation—as St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Lucy.16

  Luther also opposed the Jews because of his historicist eschatology, which viewed the Turks, the Pope, and the Jews as part of a great end-time coalition designed to wipe out Christians under the leadership of the devil.17

  2. Luther held to several shocking views about marriage and sex.

  Here are some examples:

  When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another. We would certainly have to accept it if someone’s life were taken from him. Why then should we not also accept it if a wife steals herself away from her husband, or is stolen away by others?18

  As to divorce, it is still a question for debate whether it is allowable. For my part I so greatly detest divorce that I should prefer bigamy to it; but whether it is allowable, I do not venture to decide.19

  For my part, I confess that I do not see how I can prevent polygamy; there is not in the sacred texts the least word against those who take several wives at one time; but there are many things permissible that ought not becomingly to be done: of these is bigamy.20

  3. Luther denied the canonicity of the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.

  He did so for two reasons. One reason is that he believed these books went against the Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia (by grace alone) and sola fide (by faith alone). The other reason is because these books had their canonicity questioned by others.21

  In his preface to the New Testament, Luther ascribed to several books of the New Testament different degrees of doctrinal value, saying,

  In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.22

  In another place, he wrote,

  Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle.23

  4. Luther believed it was justified—and even divinely ordered—that civil disobedience be punished severely, as demonstrated in the Peasants’ War.

  In the beginning, Luther stood on the side of the peasants. He made this plain in his Admonition to Peace. In it, he blamed the conflict on the rulers. His view was that the rulers should oblige the peasants.

  But after he observed the unruly behavior of the peasants, he changed his position. In his treatise Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, Luther urged the princes with these words:

  Furthermore, anyone who can be proved to be a seditious person is an outlaw before God and the emperor; and whoever is the first to put him to death does right and well. For if a man is in open rebellion, everyone is both his judge and his executioner; just as when a fire starts, the first man who can put it out is the best man to do the job. For rebellion is not just simple murder; it is like a great fire, which attacks and devastates a whole land. Thus rebellion brings with it a land filled with murder and bloodshed; it makes widows and orphans, and turns everything upside down, like the worst disaster. Therefore let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you, and a whole land with you.24

  On this score, historian H. A. L. Fisher wrote,

  The manner in which he [Luther] dissociated his movement from the peasant rebellion . . . and the encouragement he gave to a course of repression so savage that it left the German peasantry more defenseless and abased than any social class in central or western Europe, are serious blots upon his good name. The German peasants were rough men and rough fighters; but their grievances were genuine, and their original demands were just and reasonable.25

  Here are some other quotes by Luther on the matter:

  The wise man says, “Cibus, onus et virga asino;” “straw for the peasant.” They have gone mad and will not hear the Word, and so they must bear the rod, that is, the guns; it serves them right. We ought to pray for them that they may be obedient; if not, then let the shot whistle, or they will make things a thousandfold worse.26

  Preachers are the greatest murderers because they admonish the ruler to do his duty and punish the guilty. I, Martin Luther, slew all the peasants in the uprising, for I ordered that they be put to death; all their blood is on my neck. But I refer it all to our Lord God, who commanded me to speak as I did. The devil and the ungodly kill, but they have no right to. Accordingly priests and official persons must be distinguished well, so that we may see that magistrates can condemn by law and can put to death by virtue of their office. Today, by the grace of God, they have learned this well. Now they abuse their power against the gospel, but they won’t get fat from it.27

  5. Luther believed that heretics should be put to death.

  By 1530, Luther believed that blasphemy was punishable by death, and he included “false teaching” in that definition.28

  In 1536, Philip Melanchthon drafted a memorandum demanding death for all Anabaptists, and Luther signed it.29

  6. Luther believed that writing in anger, using profanity, and shaming his enemies by name-calling was justified.

  If you ever got on Luther’s bad side, you’d be wise to run for cover.

  Note his words:

  Anger refreshes all my blood, sharpens my mind, and drives away temptations. . . . I was born to war with fanatics and devils. Thus my books are very stormy and bellicose.30

  Church history buffs are well aware of Luther’s unkind and coarse tone as well as his penchant to be angry and bullheaded. In addition, name-calling wasn’t beneath him. On this score, Luther wrote,

  I cannot deny that I am more vehement than I should be. . . . But they assail me and God’s Word so atrociously and criminally that . . . these monsters are carrying me beyond the bounds of moderation.31

  And again,

  We should take him—the pope, the cardinals, and whatever riffraff belongs to His Idolatrous and Papal Holiness—and (as blasphemers) tear out their tongues from the back, and nail them on the gallows in the order in which they hang their seals on the bulls, even though all this is mild compared to their blasphemy and idolatry.32

  Luther believed that using profanity was acceptable. For example, he called the Jewish rabbi’s interpretation of Scripture “Jewish piss and shi*.”33

  He reprimanded his Catholic opponents, saying, “How often do I have to yell at you, you crude and unlearned papists, before you come with Scripture at least once? Scripture, Scripture, Scripture! Don’t you hear me, you dumb goat and crude ass?”34

  In this regard, Erasmus is purported to have said of Luther, “God has sent in this latter age a violent physician on account of the magnitude of the existing
disorders.”35

  Luther is purported to have once declared,

  I wrote it after dining—but a Christian can speak better inebriated than a papist can sober.36

  Luther’s collaborator, Melanchthon, admitted that he could “neither deny, nor excuse, or praise” Luther’s coarse writings.37

  On balance, scattered references and crude language would only amount to a couple of pages total in his numerous books.38

  7. Luther believed that all physical ailments were the work of Satan.

  Luther’s view was that sickness and disease were used by the devil to persuade believers to forsake Jesus. He strongly approved of doctors, even though they didn’t realize that the cause of sickness was the devil.39

  8. Luther ridiculed and disparaged some of his opponents in the Reformation.

  Luther often clashed with his fellow Protestant Reformers. Andreas Karlstadt was a professor at the university of Wittenberg who promoted Luther to the doctorate in 1512. But both men had a heated exchange at the Black Bear Tavern. And thus began a bloodletting doctrinal war between the two men.

  In one of his publications, Luther ridiculed Karlstadt. Theirs was largely a dispute over the Lord’s Supper, disagreeing over the meaning of the words “this is my body.”

  In Luther’s eyes, Karlstadt and the Swiss Reformer Zwingli were “willful liars,” “sect leaders,” and “novices in the Scriptures.”40

  Luther once disparaged Zwingli, saying, “I have bitten into many a nut, believing it to be good, only to find it wormy. Zwingli and Erasmus are nothing but wormy nuts that taste like crap in one’s mouth!”41

  The bad blood between Luther and other Reformers set an example of uncivil dialogue and noncooperation between Protestant leaders that continues to this day.

  Luther’s vehemence was even greater toward the Anabaptists. He castigated them as “fanatics” and a “seditious mob.”42

  In 1532, Luther commented, “So the Anabaptists reject baptism almost entirely. The pope, who distorts it, nevertheless allows baptism to remain.”43