Recently, I had some questions about when Jehovah’s Witnesses became a Protestant group, along with the teaching of a heavenly hope and the "Anointed class". That movement was known as restorationism, is the belief that Christianity should be restored along the lines of what is known about the apostolic early church, which restorationists saw as the search for a more pure and more ancient form of the religion. From this information, other questions about the early church teachings led me to the Protestant Reformation of Martin Luther, in 1521, with his Ninety-Five Theses sent to the Canon of Wittenberg. Some of his theses are quite interesting because they are still relevant today. In any of them, you can insert the name of any church or founded group. I will post examples written in October, 1867, and republished in 1868 with comments by an unknown author, as a “Jubilee of the Reformation.†I will post a few at a time for thought provoking stimulation. 1. THE SACRED SCRIPTURES ARE THE ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE FOR CHRISTIANS. According to this thesis, which is universally acknowledged, theoretically at least, by all Protestants, no human creed can be the rule of faith and practice. A creed made by men must either be scriptural truth in a human form, or else it is error mistaken for truth, or it is truth and error mingled together, and in neither case can it be made the rule of faith and practice for christians. For the thesis does not claim that rules of faith and practice must be made from the Bible, but that the Bible itself is such a rule. Whatever value may, therefore, be attached to human creeds, they must not be thrust between the christian and the scriptures, they are not the rule that guides him, they have no binding authority. And all Protestant christians, if consistent, must acknowledge the truth of this syllogism: the Bible is the only rule and binding authority for christians; a creed made by men is not the Bible; therefore no creed made by men can be either the rule or a binding authority for christians. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 2. THE WORD OF GOD IS SO PERFECT AND SO CLEAR, THAT IT NEEDS NEITHER THE TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH TO COMPLEMENT IT, NOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CHURCH TO MAKE ITS TEACHINGS PLAIN. This thesis was as much insisted on by the Reformers, as the preceding one, from which it is really but a deduction. If the Bible is not sufficient and clear without addition or interpretation by some external authority, it cannot be the only rule of faith and practice. If the doctrines of the Bible are such that the Church must decide for the individual what their real meaning is, then not the Bible, but the interpretation of the Bible, given by the Church, is the rule of faith and practice for christians. And then not the scriptures alone, but the scriptures and the Church would be a binding authority for christians. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 3. CHRISTIANS FORM A PRIESTHOOD, ALL HAVING EQUAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES, EQUAL LIBERTY OF MIND AND CONSCIENCE, AND ALL HAVING THE RIGHT AND BEING IN DUTY BOUND TO INTERPRET THE SCRIPTURES ACCORDING TO THE LIGHT GIVEN THEM. Rev. 1:6, it is said of Jesus, that he “hath made us kings and priests unto God.†1 Peter, 2:5, christians are called “a holy priesthood;†9th verse, “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood.†Many other passages teach the priesthood of all christians. This was one of Luther’s favorite doctrines, with which he opposed the distinction made by the hierarchy between clergy and laity. Thus the right of any class or body of men to make creeds for others was denied, and liberty was restored to christians. He denied the right of popes and councils to think, believe or confess for the individual Christian; but giving to each a Bible he claimed for him the right to interpret the scriptures. The Gospel demands investigation and gives to all equal liberty, and when a church or any body of men attempts to think for the individual and to determine authoritatively for him, what to believe, it must be regarded as an effort to introduce into the church the most abject mental and spiritual slavery.
I post every "helloween" the link to the Widipedia on this .. that's my post on Facebook every 31 oct .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses
4. THESE PRINCIPLES, IF FAITH FULLY ADHERED TO, WILL LEAD THE CHRISTIAN DIRECTLY TO THE TREASURES OF THE BIBLE, AND WILL GIVE HIM THE FREE AND PROPER EXERCISE OF ALL HIS FACULTIES, THUS ON THE ONE HAND KEEPING HIM FROM INFIDELITY AND ON THE OTHER FROM ENSLAVEMENT OF MIND AND CONSCIENCE BY HUMAN AUTHORITY. Infidelity recognizes the freedom of the mind in its investigations, but denies the authority of scripture. It either denies the need of a revelation or else that, even if a revelation is needed, the Bible is a revelation from God. Those on the other hand, who make human authority in matters of faith binding on Christians, deny the freedom and the rights of the human mind. The problem now to be solved is this, how can both infidelity (mental libertinism) and spiritual slavery be avoided? How can the freedom of conscience and the authority of reason be maintained with the authority of the scriptures? We answer, by going back to the fundamental principles of the Protestant church which avoid both the extremes, skepticism and dogmatic symbolism. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 5. THE ROMISH CHURCH DENIES BOTH THE SUFFICIENCY AND THE CLEARNESS OF SCRIPTURE, AND CLAIMS FOR ITSELF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF SUPPLEMENTING THE SCRIPTURES WITH ITS TRADITIONS, AND OF INTERPRETING THE SCRIPTURES FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. The Papists in Luther’s day did not deny the authority of scripture, but denied that it was the only authority for Christians. The Council of Trent decided “that the traditions of the church are equal to the scriptures; that the apocryphal books are canonical; that the vulgate is to be regarded as authentic; that the scriptures are obscure, and that the church alone has a right to determine their sense. It was accordingly decided (with threats of punishment for violation) that no one, in reliance on his wisdom, should venture, in matters of faith and practice, to give an interpretation of the scriptures contrary to that fixed by the church.†The church of Rome thus claims the right to bury the pure gospel under the rubbish of human traditions and interpretations, which it freely exercises. If this Romish claim is denied by Protestants, what are those who heap on the Bible so many symbolical books, that only with the greatest difficulty, if at all, the pure, clear, divine teachings of the inspired writers and of Jesus can be seen through them. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 6. THE ERROR OF THE PAPACY, IN THIS RESPECT, IS THEREFORE TWOFOLD, IT ROBS THE SCRIPTURES OF THEIR SUPREME AUTHORITY, AND THE HUMAN MIND OF ITS FREEDOM. If traditions are equal to the scriptures, then the scriptures are no longer supreme. If the church must interpret the scriptures for the individual, then the church is of greater authority for him than the Bible, and the christian is no longer free in his investigations, but is bound by the interpretations given by the church. The Romish church (the hierarchy) thinks for its members. It denies the universal priesthood of christians and establishes an order called the priesthood, to which the laity are subject in spiritual things.
I like Martin very much, he was bold and took action. But I disagree with this: 2. THE WORD OF GOD IS SO PERFECT AND SO CLEAR, THAT IT NEEDS NEITHER THE TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH TO COMPLEMENT IT, NOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CHURCH TO MAKE ITS TEACHINGS PLAIN. The collective organization of the church is necessary for delivering the truth through the ages. "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" Further, there is a 'body' which we belong to - yes, not confined by human hands, but exactly like Israel, there is a group who collect around this body into an organization (if you will). On an individual basis it is our own choice whether to associate with the body, but I take it as a command, REGARDLESS of the flaws of human organizations. Jehovah accomplishes his will through these human collectives (Israel, the Catholic Church, etc) [not to dismiss their transgressions, but to reject God's system based on the flaws of men is short-sighted IMO - they will be corrected, and Jehovah will use them to accomplish his purpose regardless] ------ The Bible is an extremely complex book and very hard to understand, I see no possible way that Christianity would exist today as more than a 'myth' without the church system and those who gather into it. ------ The interesting thing about Luther is that he didn't want to split the church. He just wanted it reformed. So his goal wasn't freedom from the collective of believers, but to correct the transgressions and doctrines of the papacy.
Hi SingleCell, What Luther is saying here is that the TRADITIONS of the CHURCH and the INTERPRETATION of the CHURCH are not necessary. If an individual has the desire to study and read the Bible, with the Spirit of Jehovah and His Christ helping, an individual can learn the truth. When a person learns the truth of the Word of God, they can not keep quiet about it. They are impelled to speak out and tell others (therefor a preacher). Today, there are more people turned off about God’s Word because of the false teachings of the CHURCHES. If they ALL claim to represent GOD ALMIGHTY, why so many different messages? Do good people go to HELL? Why do bad things happen to GOOD people? For every question, there are many answers from the CHURCHES. Is the God of the Bible really a part of “One nation UNDER GODâ€, of the USA? How many so-called Christians reject Jehovah God? That is why the WTB&TS makes the claim that Babylon the Great is the worldwide empire of false religion, because of the confusion [babel] it projects. Unfortunately for Luther, the church bearing his name didn’t apply these Ninety-Five Theses. They are still very similar to the Catholic Church. Although CHURCHES will bear some responsibility for their wrong teachings, each individual has to take the consequences of their actions. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Just as Adam and Eve tried to pass the blame to someone else, they were both held responsible for the evil that was done. They received the death sentence, and passed it on to their offspring. Thankfully, Jehovah made provisions for us to take advantage of the ransom provided. It is a choice to be made by each individual, not the CHURCH. Actually, the term CHURCH is a misnomer. Most people believe it to be the building, and not the people inside. Jesus did not establish and consecrate a corporation. The original ekklesia was, as the word implies, “a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assemblyâ€, or, “a company of Christians, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake.†Hmmm. Sounds like this group. I will continue to post the rest of the theses by threes or fours, until they are all posted.
7. IF ANY CHURCH, WHATEVER ITS NAME AND PRETENSIONS, CLAIMS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE FOR ITS MEMBERS WHAT THEY MUST BELIEVE, EXCEPT THE PLAINEST AND MOST DIRECT TEACHINGS OF SCRIPTURE, ITS PRINCIPLE IS PAPISTICAL AND NOT EVANGELICAL. No one denies the right of a church to lay down its principles and doctrines for the guidance of its members, and no one denies a church the right to become papistical. As soon as a church attempts to substitute human reasonings and philosophical definitions for the plain teachings of scripture, and makes them binding on its members, it departs from the great principle of Protestantism and becomes essentially Romish. No Evangelical Church can claim the right to decide questions left undecided by the Bible. Nor can the Church become the interpreter of scripture for the individual christian, without ceasing to be Protestant. The best creed that could be formed according to the principles of the Protestant Church would be from passages of scripture giving the cardinal doctrines of the gospel, systematically arranged. Such a scriptural creed could not fail to convince every member of the Church what the essential doctrines of the Bible are. In interpreting the passages selected, there must of necessity be liberty, that liberty which the gospel grants every one. From such a Church no one honestly accepting the scriptures and trying to understand their meaning would then be excluded. Christ while on earth received all such, whatever errors might still be theirs. And why should not the Church do the same? Is it not a sad fact that the Church which makes a human creed the condition of membership, necessarily rejects persons whom Christ would welcome as his disciples? ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 8. A CHURCH THAT MAKES A CREED WHICH IS HUMAN (NOT PLAINLY AND DIRECTLY SCRIPTURAL) A BINDING AUTHORITY, ELEVATES ITSELF FOR THE INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIAN ABOVE THE SCRIPTURES, AND IN SO FAR IT IS PAPISTICAL AND NOT EVANGELICAL. The plea that a creed is but an interpretation of scripture, will not suffice to make it a binding authority, for the Church is not the interpreter of the scriptures for the individual. The intimate relation of Jesus and the Holy Spirit to the christian makes the interposition of the Church as an interpreter of scripture worse than useless. The Church only helps the christian to Christ and God’s Spirit, but it does not supply their work. If a Church gives an interpretation of scripture which is binding on its members, then the members instead of going directly to the scripture and interpreting its doctrines, must go to the Church to get its interpretations and thus the Church and its interpretations are for him of more authority than the Bible itself. If human creeds must be made a binding authority, then let us be consistent and abandon the principle of Protestantism, and go back to the Papacy and submit to the authority of the Church. If it could with certainty be decided which the true Church is, without spot and blemish, then the doctrines of such a Church would be very authoritative. But to say that a Church is the true Church because it has the doctrines of scripture, and then determines, because it is the true Church, what the doctrines of scripture are, is simply reasoning in a circle. It is Rome’s argument. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 9. SUCH A CHURCH DENIES THE GENERAL PRIESTHooD OF CHRISTIANS, SINCE IT ASCRIBES To A MAN OR A BODY OF MEN, FROM WHOM THE AUTHORITATIVE CREED EMANATES, PREROGATIVES ABOVE ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THAT CHURCH, AND IN so FAR IT IS PAPISTICAL AND NOT EVANGELICAL. If Christians have the same rights, then one has just as much right to make a creed for the Church as another, and no one has a right to decide for others what the scriptures teach or what must be believed. One may have more intellect and piety than another; but that gives him no right to decide for him what his faith must be. A body of men may indeed determine to make a creed for others which shall be binding in a certain Church or community, but such a body of men ought at the same time to declare that the Lutheran and scriptural doctrine of the universal priesthood of christians is erroneous, and that the Romish doctrine is the true one.
Thank you T! I agree with your response and I'm sorry for going on a tangent! I went off the rails thinking about our modern rejection of the institutions composing Christianity, which has been net-good and according to God's will for delivering the Bible and basic doctrine 2000 years from the origin As was foretold, the 'weeds' make it hard to see the 'forest through the trees'.
I can read all of these thesis, with any church in mind, as a violator of most. Imagine what it was like for Luther? The only church institution at the time was utterly corrupt and went to the full extreme in violation of the principles he lays out.
As the saying goes, “Luther’s probably rolling over in his grave. How dare they put my name on that Church!â€
10. SUCH A CHURCH DESTROYS THE FREEDOM OF THE MIND AND CONSCIENCE, AND IN ITS ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH MENTAL AND SPIRITUAL SLAVERY IT IS PAPISTICAL AND NOT EVANGELICAL. As long as I retain my liberty there can be for me no authoritative interpretation of scripture except that found in the scriptures themselves. This was the position of the Protestants at Spires; and those who reject it must also reject the name of Protestants, for this princple was the cardinal one in that immortal protest.* Even if a Church does not interpret the scriptures as the Romish Church did, it is nevertheless papistical in principle if it adopts the Romish principle that the views established by the Church are authoritative for the christian. The principle here rejected is jesuitical. “The Jesuits set themselves as a dam against freedom, which in the reformation, in connection with faith, broke open a passage for itself and shook the authority of the Church. Ecclesiastical authority concluded a league with political absolutism, and supported it in its resistance to political freedom. Out of this struggle and for this struggle, the order of the Jesuits arose as the elite of the army appointed to defend, in the name of faith, the principle of authority in Church and state.†Bungener, History of the Council of Trent. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 11. ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF PROTESTANTISM, THE HUMAN CREED OF A CHURCH CANNOT BE REGARDED UNALTERABLE. As the philosopher who is bound by no school or party, but is a sincere lover of the pure truth, looks upon nothing as unchangeable except the truth itself; so the christian who is not enslaved by the prejudices of a sect regards nothing unalterable except the pure Word of God. Human creeds are human and liable to error, and cannot therefore be regarded as unalterable. Even if a human creed is not in conflict with the scriptures it cannot be made unconditionally and unalterably binding. Its form is necessarily human and that which belongs to a certain age, for which it might be well adapted, though not adapted for another age. Or in ages after the creed was formed there may be doubt, *See Appendix. (after #95) disputes, obscurity on some points, and then the creed is not adapted for the Church or individual. As the forms of expression change, so the form in which a doctrine was expressed centuries ago, though it was probably the best for that age, may be altogether unfit for the expression of the same truth in the present age. Creeds generally have their origin under peculiar circumstances, for which they are especially adapted, thus bringing out certain truths then most needed, whilst others may be left unnoticed; circumstances may so change as to demand the clear expression of other truths, whilst those brought out very prominently in creeds of former ages are less important for present emergencies. And it is the worst kind of obstinacy to claim that any mere human formula of faith is unalterably and unconditionally binding even after the original sense of that formula cannot with certainty be determined, when men may justly dispute as to the meaning of certain phrases used, when some of the expressions have become obsolete, or when the whole creed is but little adapted to the present age. To cling to old human formulas, simply because they are old, is just as foolish as thoughtlessly to adopt the new on account of their novelty. If any one regrets that, according to this thesis, he cannot agree exactly with his ancestors or with the heroes of the reformation, he should consider that the opinions of the reformers and our ancestors are to be prized, not because they held them, but because they are in harmony with the truth; and that the errors they held remain errors, even if an angel from heaven were to proclaim them. All that is human may change, but God’s Word endureth forever. The couplet so often found in German Lutheran works, “Gottes Wort und Luther’s Lehr, Vergehet nun und nimmermehr,†(God’s Word and Luther’s doctrine shall continue forever,) may show much devotion to Luther’s views, but nevertheless it cannot be regarded as in harmony with the great principles of that reformer. The expression, “God’s Word and Luther’s doctrine,†at once excites the suspicion that “God’s Word and Luther’s doctrine†are not the same. It would be an improvement to say God’s Word and Luther’s doctrine in so far as it agrees with this Word shall continue forever. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 12. THE CREEDS OF A CHURCH ARE NOT ITS TREASURES, BUT, AS LUTHER’S 62ND THESIS DECLARES, “THE TRUE AND PRECIOUS TREASURE OF THE CHURCH IS THE HOLY GOSPEL OF THE GLORY AND GRACE OF GOD.â€
Hey T - did you write / assemble the paragraphs following the thesis? I want to copy-paste some of these and send to friends. edit: I see, an unknown 19C author “Jubilee of the Reformation.â€
It reminds me of this prophecy: Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct, and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. 2 Peter 2:2 Satan has charged the 'weeds' with discrediting the truth. Luther will be vindicated against his own church one day
Hi SingleCell, Yes, cut and paste as you like. These are in the public domain, published in 1867. I'll be posting all of them.
13. ALTHOUGH A HUMAN CREED DOES NOT FOREVER FIX THE DOCTRINES TO BE BELIEVED BY A CHURCH, NOR HAVE ANY BINDING AUTHORITY, IT MAY NEVERTHELESS BE VERY VALUABLE (1) FOR ITS AGREEMENT WITH THE DOCTRINES OF SCRIPTURE (ITS INHERENT VALUE (2) FOR ITS EXPLANATION OF THOSE DOCTRINES (ITS HERMENEUTICAL VALUE ) (3) FOR THE KNOWLEDGE IT GIVES OF ITS AUTHORS AND ADHERENTS (ITS HISTORICAL VALUE.) ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 14. THE WORD OF GOD IS BOTH THE INSTRUCTOR AND GUIDE OF THE CHURCH AND THE CHRISTIAN; A CREED MAY BE AN INSTRUCTOR, BUT CANNOT BE A GUIDE IN THE PROTESTANT CHURCH. If a creed is my guide it becomes my rule of faith and practice, a prerogative that belongs only to the Bible. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 15. A CREED DOES NOT INTERPRET THE SCRIPTURES FOR THE CHRISTIAN, BUT IT ASSISTS HIM IN INTERPRETING THE SCRIPTURES. The christian must go back to the pure fountain of truth; in the Church every thing should incite him to study the Word of God. Thence he must draw his doctrines, and no one can get them there for him. As a Protestant I can accept no religious document, however valuable and venerable, as more than an aid in interpreting God’s Word. Creeds, sermons, commentaries are mere aids, they help the christian to interpret the Bible, but they do not do the work for him. The study of the scripture, the effort to interpret its teachings for ourselves, is so very beneficial that it is a real calamity, if the scriptural insight given thereby is lost to any one. The Papal Church may interpret the scriptures for its members, but it is the glory of the Protestant Church that it impels Christians to do so much for themselves which the Catholic Church pretends to do for its members. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 16. A CREED IS NOT ONLY INJURIOUS WHEN IT TEACHES ERRORS, BUT ALSO WHENEVER IT IN ANY MANNER OR DEGREE OCCUPIES IN A CHURCH A POSITION WHICH BELONGS EXCLUSIVELY TO THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. If men make a human creed a binding authority, or make it the ultimate appeal in discussion, (and if its authority is binding this is done,) then it takes the place which only the Bible ought to occupy, and becomes a curse instead of a blessing. It is then no longer a mere aid for understanding the scriptures, but it becomes the Bible for the Church and the christian. Let none suppose that this thesis warns against an abuse of which we are in no danger. There are thousands who call themselves Protestants who have exchanged the Bible for a human creed, and some of them are shameless enough to call themselves Lutherans.
17. IT IS ONLY WHEN A CHURCH HAS LOST ITS VITAL PIETY THAT IT ATTEMPTS TO SUBSTITUTE HUMAN FORMULAS OF FAITH FOR THE BIBLE, AND TO MAKE THEM AND CERTAIN FORMS AND CEREMONIES THE BOND OF UNION, INSTEAD OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, OPERATING THROUGH GOD’S WORD. The proof for this thesis will be found in the Church History of the last eighteen centuries. Bungener (History of the Council of Trent, p. 70) says, “as long as christian doctrines preserved their primitive simplicity, as long as the scripture was in every one’s hands, as long as the pulpits resounded with invitations to study it, we do not see that the idea ever entered any one’s head of setting up that abstract being, the Church, as the regulator and the preserver of doctrine, still less of granting her any right to lord it over the conscience and the reason of her members.†⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 18. A CONFESSION OF FAITH DOES NOT TEACH WHAT OUGHT TO BE BELIEVED BY ALL PERSONS AND AT ALL TIMES, BUT ONLY WHAT IS BELIEVED BY THOSE WHO MAKE THE CONFESSION. What ought to believed is taught only in the Bible. As soon as a confession of any number of men is made authoritative it ceases to be a confession and becomes a law, for it no longer indicates merely what is believed, but what must be believed. And the attempt to make a confession a law is an attempt to legalize the Gospel and make a legal faith. If a confession is made unalterable as well as binding, it is more than a human law or constitution, for these can be altered. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 19. TO DECIDE WHETHER A CONFESSION IS SCRIPTURAL, IT IS NOT PROPER TO ADOPT THE CONFESSION AND THEN READ THE SCRIPTURES THROUGH IT, BUT BEFORE IT’S SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER CAN BE DECIDED, THE CONFESSION ITSELF MUST BE PERFECTLY UNDERSTOOD AS WELL AS THE SCRIPTURES ON THE DOCTRINES STATED IN THE CONFESSION. Many who neither understand the doctrines of a confession nor the scriptures, blindly adopt the confession (or pretend to do so) and persist in declaring that it agrees perfectly with the Word of God. And such persons are often in the van of the host attacking those who cannot as blindly accept a creed as they do. It often happens that this agreement can be predicated with more sincerity the less a person understands both the scriptures and the confession. Those who dare differ from such are liable to fearful denunciations. Ignorance and bigotry are twin sisters, whose obstinacy is often as invincible as their abuse is violent. However common it may be, it is nevertheless very foolish for those who understand neither the confession nor the scriptures perfectly, to decree that both are in perfect harmony. The original sense of the confession must be found, not an arbitrary one. This can only be done by studying its language and the views and interpretations of its author or authors. The Augsburg Confession can best be interpreted by the apology of the confession, written for its interpretation and defense soon after the confession itself. But the Formula of Concord strangely enough lays down the rule that the confession must be interpreted by Luther’s doctrinal and polemical writings, (Mueller, Symbol. Buecher, p. 655, De Coena Domini,) which were not at all written for that purpose. The framers of this Formula of Concord evidently feared that the Augsburg Confession was not Lutheran enough without such an interpretation, and feared that it might otherwise be interpreted to favor some of Melanchthon’s milder views whom so many of the friends of the Formula orthodoxly hated. (Query: how many of those who adopt the Formula of Concord and so confidently assert the agreement between the Augsburg Confession and scripture, have interpreted the former by the rule laid down in the Formula of Concord?) And not only the confession, but the scriptures must also be perfectly understood, for how else can a rational being declare both to be in harmony ? Some who have vowed at all hazards to prove a creed scriptural, do with God’s Word, as Luther says, “They dismember, crucify and scourge it, and torture it in every possible way, in order that they may interpret and stretch it to suit their heresy, their views and their fancies.†Whoever fails to understand any part of a creed in its true and only sense, cannot say that it is scriptural. And who can claim such knowledge of the Lutheran or any other creeds? If symbolists only knew what their positive assertions respecting the perfect agreement of the symbols with the scriptures meant, they would probably hesitate more before making them, or only make them with a blush, for most of them would be convinced that their opinions on the subject are utterly worthless. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 20. AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN WILL UNHESITATINGLY REJECT IN A CONFESSION OF FAITH EVERYTHING WHICH, ACCORDING TO HIS CONVICTIONS, IS IN CONFLICT WITH SCRIPTURE, HOWEVER FIERCELY THE WORSHIPERS OF HUMAN AUTHORITY MAY DENOUNCE HIM FOR BEING MORE SCRIPTURAL THAN SYMBOLICAL. Let them rave. Some have no other way of proving their orthodoxy than by abusing those who have the courage to differ from them, and it would be a pity to rob them of this pleasure.
21. OUR FAITH IS NOT CHRISTIAN BECAUSE IT AGREES WITH ANY CREED OF A CHURCH, BUT BECAUSE IT AGREES WITH THE BIBLE. Evident as this thesis is, it is nevertheless very important to enunciate the truth it contains, since so many act and speak as if all that is necessary to be a christian is, that one believe the creed of a Church. To be a sectarian, one must believe some human authority; to be a christian, one must believe the Bible. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 22. THE DOCTRINES OF A CONFESSION CAN HAVE BUT ONE SENSE, AND ONLY THOSE WHO PERFECTLY UNDERSTAND THIS ORIGINAL AND ONLY SENSE, AND BELIEVE AND CONFESS IT, CAN BE SAID TO MAKE THAT CONFESSION THEIR OWN. If a man misunderstands a single point in a confession, however heartily he may believe that he has made the confession his, he has not, for he does not even understand the confession. If he has the least doubt as to the true and only meaning of any point, he must also doubt whether he has the confession itself. And if one is so fortunate as perfectly to understand every part of a confession, he cannot be said with truth to make it his confession, unless he heartily believes every part in its true sense. As long as his mind is in any doubt on a single article, he cannot make the confession his. Perfect understanding of a confession, and unwavering faith in its teachings are therefore the necessary conditions for making any confession our own. How many of those who swear by a creed have complied with these conditions? ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 23. NO DOCUMENT IS REALLY THE CONFESSION OF A CHURCH, UNLESS EVERY MEMBER OF THAT CHURCH UNDERSTANDS AND BELIEVES EVERY ARTICLE IN ITS ONLY AND TRUE SENSE. If men differ in the least in interpreting a single article in a creed, though they may have the same words, they have not the same confession; for it is evident that no two can have the same confession unless they understand the confession alike. If now a single member of a Church misunderstands or questions a single doctrine, then the document is not the confession of the Church, even if it should be the creed of all the rest, it would only be the creed of a part of the Church. A document then cannot be the confession of a Church unless it is the confession of every member in the Church. Therefore a confession of faith is either perfectly understood and heartily believed in every particular by every member, in which case it is the confession of the Church; or some members misunderstand or question part of the confession, and then it is not the confession of the Church but only part of it, namely those who perfectly understand and heartily believe it. According to this test, which is the only true one, there is not a creed that can really be said to be the creed of a Church, for in no case can it be said that all the members of a Church comply with these conditions. How absurd therefore to claim that a creed is a binding authority for the members, unless every one can be forced to comply with Art. IV, of the “Fundamental Principles of Faith†of the General Council, according to which the confessions “must be accepted in every statement of doctrine in their own true, native, original and only sense. Those who set them forth and subscribe them, must not only agree to use the same words, but must use and understand those words in one and the same sense.†⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 24. IF ALL THE MEMBERS OF A CHURCH MUST BELIEVE THE SAME CONFESSION OF FAITH, THEN THEY HAVE NO RIGHT OR LIBERTY TO INTERPRET FOR THEMSELVES THE MEANING OF THAT CONFESSION. Even the last remnant of liberty must be taken from christians. For if each member is allowed to interpret the creed for himself the views of the teachings of the confession might differ, and hence the same creed would not be held, but each one would simply hold his interpretation of the confession. If a Church wants all its members to hold the same confession, then it must give an authoritative interpretation, and an interpretation of the interpretation, and so on, ad infinitum; for as long as the members have any liberty of thought left, they are in danger of adopting something that is not really the confession. If therefore a human creed is made a binding authority, the Church must so interpret it for the individual christian, that he will have no interpreting to do for himself. The sameness in faith which some aim at would best be attained if the Church could somehow be made to do the believing for its members. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 25. IF ALL THE MEMBERS OF A CHURCH MUST UNCONDITIONALLY BELIEVE THE SAME HUMAN CREED, THEN NO ONE IS A MEMBER OF THAT CHURCH IF HE REJECTS ANY PART OF THAT CREED, IF ANY PART OF THE CREED IS OBSCURE TO HIM, OR IF HE MISTAKES A SINGLE DOCTRINE IN THE CREED. Here there is not the least room for error or doubt. If a creed is unconditionally binding on the members of a Church, then none are members unless they perfectly understand, without a shade of error, and heartily believe every statement in its “own true native, original and only sense;†all others must necessarily be excluded as not members, however sincere, devout and faithful they may be. If any one is tolerated in a Church who does not perfectly understand and believe the creed, then the creed is not unconditionally binding on all the members. And who of the ministers professing to regard the creeds as binding authority so understand and believe the creeds? And what shall be done with the laity, of whom not one in a multitude can comply with these conditions? Indeed, it is very doubtful whether any man can stand this test in the Lutheran Church, for with absolute certainty no one can say that he understands her creeds in this sense. For the uneducated there is no room in such a Church, which, in justification of its course, ought to expunge from the scripture the words of Paul, “him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations;†and also Luther’s words, “if thou seest a brother, who still has failings think thus, I must bear this burden of the brother, I must not reject him as long as he confesses Christ.†Had Jesus or the apostles done as the symbolists do, where would the christian Church have been? Whilst the latter make hard conditions for those who want to enter their Church, our Saviour says, “My yoke is easy and my burden is light,†to those who want to enter his Church. Between the two, choose ye.
26. IN CHURCHES THAT MAKE CREEDS A BINDING AUTHORITY, THE MEMBERS DO NOT SO MUCH BELIEVE THE CREEDS AS THEY BELIEVE IN THE CREEDS. All know how often this is the case. The members will swear by their confessions, however little they may understand them. For the ignorance of both preachers and laymen, in reference to the confessions, proves conclusively that they did not adopt the creeds because they understood and believed them, but because they believed in them even without understanding them. It need not be stated that very many defend creeds because they have adopted them, (or believe in them,) and not because they believe them. Many would regard the question, have you ever read, and do you understand, the creeds? so impertinent, that they would find it advisable not to reply. Faith in the Bible, even when its doctrines are not all understood, is a very different thing, because we believe it to be inspired. And we believe no human creed without fully understanding its teachings, for the simple reason that it is not inspired. To believe in a confession without understanding or believing the confession is equal to the Papist’s faith in his Church and the ignorant Mohammedan’s faith in the Koran. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 27. THE EFFORT OF MINISTERS TO INDUCE THE LAITY TO ADOPT SYMBOLS WHICH THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND, IS PAPISTICAL AND TYRANNICAL. What a spectacle the world has witnessed during the last year in which so many laymen were called on to vote all the symbolical books of the Lutheran Church into perfect harmony with the scriptures! Men who had never read these books were asked to say: “The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Catechisms of Luther and the Formula of Concord, are, with the unaltered Augsburg Confession, in the perfect harmony of one and the same scriptural faith.†Men were actually found who had the hardihood to ask preachers and laymen, who knew not what they were doing, for they understood not these creeds, to declare all these symbolical books to be in perfect harmony with each other and the scriptures! And it was even done without blushing and without confessing that thus a papistical principle was introduced into the Church. And this was done in the nineteenth century and by men who disgrace the name of Luther by calling themselves Lutherans! Against this disgrace and wickedness in the Church the enlightened christian sentiment of the age cries out. Such acts bear their own condemnation with them. In the dark ages such deeds were winked at, but now they need repentance. We know not whether most to hold in contempt the effrontery of those who asked unsuspecting laymen to vote blindly for such articles, and who carefully sugar-coated the pill otherwise so nauseous, or to pity those who were so symbolically and orthodoxly duped. Every layman in Christ’s Church, and especially in the Lutheran branch, should manfully assert and maintain his christian liberty and priesthood, and should spurn with a holy indignation every papistical and tyrannical attempt to force on him human creeds which he does not understand, which are beyond his comprehension, or which he cannot sufficiently study to comprehend. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 28. THE CHURCH THAT ADOPTS, AS BINDING AUTHORITY, CREEDS FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF WHICH THE LAITY ARE DEPENDENT ON THE CLERGY, PREPARES THE WAY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HIERARCHY, In such a Church the clergy exercise a spiritual dominion over their flock, and their hierarchical claims will only be limited by their cupidity and power. Make creeds binding authority and make the members dependent on the clergy for the interpretation of the creeds, and the seed will be planted from which, by the most natural growth, the whole Roman hierarchy may be developed. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 29. THE CHURCH WHICH MAKES THE ADOPTION OF CREEDS WITH SCHOLASTIC DISTINCTIONS, NOT DIRECTLY FOUNDED ON SCRIPTURE, THE CONDITION OF CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP, MAKES CONDITIONS NOT MADE BY THE BIBLE, AND IS UNSCRIPTURAL. When men invent the ubiquity of Christ’s body, as a crutch for their theory of his bodily presence in the Lord’s Supper, and put it into their creed and make that creed a condition of membership, they make unscriptural conditions. No christian Church has a right to make conditions of membership other than those made by Christ himself. Those whom Christ himself would receive, the Church has no right to reject. And the Church which makes a narrower basis for its members is unscriptural and culpable, just as well as one which makes a basis broader than the Gospel. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 30. THE CHURCH THAT INSISTS ON AGREEMENT IN MATTERS ON WHICH THE GOSPEL GRANTS LIBERTY, OR WHICH IT DOES NOT CLEARLY SETTLE, IS SCRIPTURAL. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 31. THE CHURCH THAT INSISTS ON UNITY IN NON-ESSENTIALS, NOT REQUIRED BY THE SCRIPTURES, IS SCHISMATIC. If one body of men has a right to exclude from their fellowship all who disagree with them, on non-essentials, then every other body has the same right; and thus the slightest differences in the Church may produce endless schisms. What a pity that Prof. Loy in preaching the opening sermon before the Reading Convention, did not add a few more verses to the text. His text was, 1 Cor. 1:10, “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.†The verses that ought to have been added are those that immediately follow: “For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?†These words ought to have warned the men of that convention to avoid rending the Church into factions on account of slight distinctions unwarranted by scripture.
32. AMONG MEN WHO USE AND UNDERSTAND ALIKE THE SAME CREEDS, THERE MAY BE SAMENESS; AMONG THOSE WHO USE THE SAME FORMS AND CEREMONIES, THERE MAY BE UNIFORMITY; BUT CHRISTIAN UNITY, WHICH IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH, CAN ONLY BE PRODUCED BY GOD’S SPIRIT THROUGH THE DIVINE WORD. THERE MAY BE SAMENESS AND UNIFORMITY WHERE THERE IS NO UNITY; AND THERE MAY BE UNITY WHERE THERE IS NEITHER SAMENESS NOR UNIFORMITY. The use of the same creeds and ceremonies is no guarantee of unity; indeed, there is often more unity between those who use different creeds and forms than between those who use the same. “People who at bottom are least agreed, are often the very persons who apparently are most agreed.†If grains of sand are of the same kind and the same form, there is sameness and uniformity, but still no unity. But in the human body and in the tree, whilst there is neither sameness nor uniformity there is real unity. Not the confessions of a Church, nor the same ceremonies create unity in the Church, but God’s Spirit operating through God’s Word on the hearts of the members produces this unity. Christ is the vine, christians are the branches, and they are in direct contact with the vine, without being inserted through creeds and forms. It is indeed true that the more perfectly minds are united on the same truth the more perfect will their union be, all other things being equal. But it is absurd to claim that there must be perfect union in the faith before there can be union in the Church. We desire all Christians to be perfect, but this does not justify us in excluding all who are still weak and imperfect. Much that is desirable for a Church is not necessary for its existence. The error of symbolists is twofold. They hold first, that for church-fellowship perfect agreement in doctrine is necessary, second, that all must agree with them. Contrast now the position of the Bible with that of symbolists on this point. Paul says, Roms. 10:9, 10, “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.†Compare with this and similar passages of scripture, all of which make the conditions of being members of Christ’s kingdom plain and simple; the sermon before the Reading Convention referred to above, it says: “We must use plainness of speech; it is impossible for us, because it jeopardizes our very hopes of heaven to unite for Church purposes without being perfectly joined together in the same mind by holding the same faith in the same truth.†“We grant that the confession must be judged by the Word, and it must fall if it cannot abide the test. God is over all, and God rules by His quick and powerful Word; we are bought at too great a price to think now of becoming the servants of men. We can allow no authority over conscience but God’s, whom to serve is liberty and honor. To Him alone we bow, and the truth of our symbols binds us only because it is God’s truth, which can neither gain nor lose in its authority by being expressed in the symbols. That it is the truth we know from God’s unerring Word; we are willing to hazard all upon it; we are willing to stand before our judge upon it. If others cannot embrace it, if they cannot so see it as we see it, if they are tossed about by conflicts and doubts, if they deny even that it is truth, we can pity them, we can labor for them, we can, as long as they do not contumaciously struggle against the light shining upon them, pray for them; but we cannot cease to urge as a condition of union that we must all speak the same thing.†This simply means: We believe our symbols to be God’s truth, and all who would fraternize with us must believe the same. Christ’s conditions of fraternity are however preferable, and those who comply with them can afford to lose the fraternity of symbolists. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 33. THOSE WHO EXALT THEMSELVES TO THE POSITION OF UMPIRES IN MATTERS OF FAITH, DENOUNCING AND REJECTING ALL WHO CANNOT AGREE WITH THEM, AS THE JEWS DID CHRIST, DESERVE THE PITY AND NEED THE PRAYERS OF CHRISTIANS. The writings, speeches and actions of some men, indicate that they regard themselves as heaven’s favorites, specially called to decide in God’s name, who is sound and who is unsound. Their decisions are final; they are right and all others are wrong; their creed is true, all others are false; their Church is the Church, and to them are committed the keys of heaven, and woe be to those who cannot see eye to eye with them, and will not dance when they pipe. Some of them are heresy-hunters, with a scent as keen as that of bloodhounds; and when they find a poor mortal who cannot sufficiently compress his faith to make it fit into their formulas, however pious and sincere he may be, he must be abused and anathematized; “stand aside, for I am holier than thou,†(that is, more orthodox,) is their language. We know not what most to pity in such men, their pharisaical conceit, their narrow-heartedness, or their uncharitableness. They are a curse to any Church. If they are not in the Church of Rome, they form a popeless Papacy. They have fixed the exact terms on which man must believe, and God affect men. If the Holy Spirit can work through the formulas they have laid down for him, there may be some hope for them yet; for there is no hope that they will yield to any divine influences which are not in their sense of the term orthodox, that is, exactly in accordance with the letter and spirit of their creed. They may have more truth on their side than the Jews of old, but their spirit is the same; and their course naturally suggests the thunders of the Vatican, and the spirit that established and fostered the Inquisition. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 34. MEN WHO DENOUNCE, CONDEMN AND EXCOMMUNICATE OTHERS, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CANNOT IN EVERY RESPECT AGREE WITH THEM IN DOCTRINE, ARE NO MORE TO BE HEEDED THAN SO MANY FANATICS AND LUNATICS. Such men are to be tolerated as an unavoidable nuisance, whose ravings and anathemas are no more to be heeded than those of fanatics and Papists; reason is probably wasted on such men, since the difficulty lies rather in the region of the heart than the head. They lack the great principle of love laid down in the Gospel. The language of scripture, “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints,†they interpret to mean, “fanatically contend for the creeds once delivered unto us.†1 Cor. 13, is entirely forgotten, especially the words, “and though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.†Our Saviour received all who had faith in him; these men receive only those who have faith in their creeds. May God have more mercy on them than they have on others. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ 35. IF SUCH MEN EXCLUDE US FROM THEIR FELLOWSHIP, AND REFUSE TO FRATERNIZE WITH US, WE ARE TO REGARD IT RATHER AS A BLESSING THAN A CALAMITY. If they are less liberal than we are, we need not on that account withdraw from them our fellowship, as long as they hold the essential doctrines of the Gospel. And though they denounce us for our faith, this gives us no right to denounce them, for we are to love our enemies. But their uncharitable spirit, makes all fraternal relations with those who differ from them impossible. To be denounced and excommunicated by such men, is an honor. What matters it if they do condemn those who humbly follow Christ and learn of him, without understanding or adopting their formulas and scholastic distinctions? Let them make their creeds a law for all, and say with a corrupt party of old, “have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? but this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.†It is important to call the attention of narrow-hearted sectarians, to the third article of the Apostle’s Creed, which teaches that there is one holy Christian Church, and a communion of saints. To hold this article, a Church must either teach that the various Evangelical denominations constitute this one holy Christian Church, and that consequently there is to be communion with all; or else a denomination must teach that it is the Christian Church, and that no other denomination belongs to that Church, and that consequently the members of all other denominations must be excluded from fellowship. To acknowledge that certain denominations are Christian, and then exclude them from communion, is simply to reject the “communion of saints.â€