Featured On Reformation Day

Yes – exactly. The level that is appropriate. I am not saying this in disrespect to Luther – as I stated before, I respect Luther and his works (although I disagree with much of his view). But there were some that put their life on the line every day to beat back the darkness that remained in Luther’s theology – they were persecuted and killed for holding doctrines that are foundational to my faith and they died by Luther’s approval (at first Luther advocated expulsion but later supported execution for those who taught these doctrines). These men were products of their time, and held views in relation to their era. I do not look at Luther with condemnation because he persecuted Christians, but instead look at the light he shone in the darkness. Likewise, I appreciate those who were persecuted and killed under his doctrine for shining the light in the darkness that remained. I see God’s hand in the Reformation, but I think that we sometimes forget that the churches of the Reformation were to other Christians what the Catholic Church was to them. Put another way - if you lived back then and was caught teaching Baptist doctrine then you would have been executed (Zwingli probably by drowning, Luther and Calvin probably by the sword, and the Catholics would most likely have burned you). But still, the contributions of the Reformers are worthy of study and appreciation.

Thank you for your honesty. I do try to be civil, but sometimes fail. When communicating with believers I also think it necessary to remember our relation in Christ. So on that thought, I do apologize if my understanding is offensive to you as I do not mean to be “trashy.” A question was posed and I answered. But since we’ve arrived at the point where you feel free to evaluate and describe my understanding as such I will also be honest and state that I thought it wrong (morally and in error) to use Romans 13:7 as an insistence on rendering honor to Luther by observing Reformation Day. But again, it is not your observance of Reformation Day that is the issue (I am not advocating that you not observe it) – it is your insistence that I somehow should observe that day as honor or tribute due Luther regardless of my conscience or inclination to do so.

 

I was going to ask earlier, but forgot. Do those Baptists here who celebrate Reformation Day observe "Radical Reformation Day" on Jan 21st as well?

 

Just wondered. I know some observe both - actually I didn't know that until I looked it up...but I know it now :smilewinkgrin:

So I suppose your observance is about the doctrines that came out of the Reformation and "Radical Reformation" more than a tribute to Luther. That makes more sense to me than Luke2427's view of honoring a single reformer. Of course, I still don't celebrate it - but I do study it, and this thread made me study it more on Reformation Day and I posted about it - so I guess I inadvertently celebrated it Perhaps I will yell at the Catholic Church as I drive by...

 

You certainly cover a wide range. I am not going to address your repeated use of our nation’s founders and their ownership of slaves as I believe it is not relevant (I actually feel the same about honoring them beyond the respect and appreciation that I have already mentioned. I will also ignore the unfounded claim that it is “fact” that they should be celebrated beyond honoring with respect and appreciation (for the same reason – it is not relevant to the discussion).

What is relevant is your interpretation of Romans 13:7.

I had always viewed verse 7 as being related to the passage as a whole. So I took the verse to mean rendering due respect to those in authority over us. It seemed right to me because the passage that contains the verse concerns being subject to the government. I checked with the commentaries that I had on hand so see if they offered a view similar to yours. Thomas Schreiner presents honor in this passage and context as linked to civil authorities to indicate respect and honor that should be rendered to those who have authoritative positions. Stott relates it in a similar manner but links it more to the tax issue: Christians will submit to civil authority, honor its representatives, pay its taxes and pray for its welfare. F.F. Bruce indicates that this verse also applies to secular authorities. Apparently all I have is “trashy” commentaries (but am open to suggestions).

Again, I do not believe we should ignore Luther. As I said, I respect and appreciate the man and his work in regards to correct biblical doctrine. But the type of honor and celebration that you offer Luther is actually something that I reserve for Christ. While I respect many men, and honor them in that way, I can't think of any man that I would be comfortable celebrating beyond that. But you go ahead - I'm not condemning you in the least and I see nothing wrong with you honoring Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Spurgeon, John MacArthur or Billy Graham in what ever manner you see fit and in accord with your conscience and biblical restraint. That's up to you - but don't prescribe it to others unless you can support it through Scripture.

I guess my question is how you go from Paul’s topic in Romans 13 (which is actually very specific) to the conclusion that verse 7 in a post-Reformation age is a command to honor Luther?

Suppose a skillful leader helped the nation recover economically from financial ruin. By your standard, should he be honored and celebrated for that regardless of his flaws?

 

Luther is not in a position of authority as in Romans 13:1-7. Luther is dead. I doubt you will find much support for the notion that he is in a position of authority as in Romans 13 – although who knows, you may. Many people are an authority as was Luther. In terms of my theological understanding, Scripture is the authority.

Perhaps Luther won the right for me to speak of my beliefs without being burned at the stake, but only because he would have had me executed by the sword before I even got to the last post.

I celebrate holidays – but not really men. I celebrate Independence Day - not really as a tribute to our founders but as the birth of our nation. I do honor men in terms of respect for their achievements, contributions and the lives they led. This includes Luther. I greatly admire his works.

If I did honor a man, beyond respect and admiration, and dedicate a day of celebration as tribute to that man, then Luther would probably be in my top ten – even above Jerry Garcia.

 

Through all of this, I think you missed my point of view. Most likely it is because I failed to state it clearly.

I am so sorry to have to tell you this…but no, Luther died a little while back and is not around to receive honors as indicated in Romans 13. He is not in a position of authority, although thankfully his works survive. I am grateful for the rich Luther's contributions. In the course of human and church history was Luther the most important human being since Paul? I doubt it. There were other Church heroes before Luther that paved the way for a Reformation. Was the Reformation one of the most important events in terms of Church history since the early church? I believe so. The difference is that you seem to attribute the Reformation as mostly a result of Luther while I believe if we step back we can see it as an act of God.

Great - glad you can. There’s always a dumb one in the bunch and today it’s me. I need you to explain how Luther is in a position of civil authority and therefore Romans 13 1-7 applies to him or provide other sources that confirm your interpretation (I provided 3 that were contrary to your interpretation, so maybe it isn’t that obvious to everyone).

Serious??? Luther advocated execution by sword for those who taught Anabaptist doctrine. I hold to some of the teachings for which they would be condemned. But, just like our founding fathers and slavery, Luther’s worldview was a product of his environment - so I don’t hold it against him.

We can go back and forward on this one. I celebrate Independence Day because we adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. You, I suppose, celebrate it in memory of….George Washington?

I do take time to remember those who have died serving our nation. I don’t take time to dedicate the day to one particular person, but I do think of those men and women. Why on earth do you think I’d refuse to recognize it just because I don’t celebrate Luther - especially when I said I understood recognizing the Reformation in its entirety?

I do - why wouldn’t I? I’m not sure why my not feeling obligated to set aside a day in tribute to a man would lead you to think I don’t stand in honor of the American Flag…but whatever. - but that was, well, a stupid question with an offensive and assumed answer (i.e., trashy). I don't know what you do for a living, but with a question like that, hopefully it excludes dealing with people. I'm getting the feeling you could do some real damage in person.

 

Ok, to sum it up:

We both agree that Luther is to be honored in terms of respecting the man and his work. I disagree that we are obligated to set aside a day in celebration for Luther but am not offended by people who do where you hold that Romans 13:7 commands us to do so.

I believe Luther to be a hero of the faith while you hold him as an authority of the faith.

In your eyes that makes it questionable if I stand in honor of the flag, observe days set aside to honor those killed in service, and makes me an ingrate. In my eyes, from what you have posted, you come close to the Catholic practice - veneration of the saints - and apply it singularly to Luther in your idolatry.

We will never agree here. While I respect Luther and admire his works - He is not for me an authority. I wouldn't be comfortable accepting something as valid on that basis and for me to accept what you have stated is farther than I would be willing to go. It seems that you are "of Luther" in your faith.

I suppose I can see what you are trying to say. If we look after the peasants revolt we are speaking of pacifists so perhaps their teaching of believer’s baptism and the church as a body of believers was justifiable cause for their execution because it was against the law. We actually believe some of the heretical teachings for which they were killed.

As you point out, when we speak of Luther we speak of his ideas and works. I doubt he actually killed personally (although some debate regarding his initial conversion).

“That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenants relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God…Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine…For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized?...From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound…to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders…Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenant, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then …we conclude that…the stubborn sectaries must be put to death.” Luther, 1636 (He did seem to wrestle with killing vs. expelling at times).

Now that I know, I am actually sorry for asking your view of Romans 13:1-7. You seem not to really have a concrete view except that obedience to civil authority is a suggestion which you can ignore if you are willing to pay the price. (ironically this is the passage that you use to say that I am commanded to observe Reformation Day but obeying the law is suggested).

Not at all - I have never said that I do not honor Luther in terms of respecting him. I just don't observe Reformation Day. I have also expressed gratitude for Luther and the other Reformers. In terms of works, I prefer Calvin as they seem more consistent to me (although I also disagree with some of his doctrine). I just don't idolize or venerate Luther. (I'm actually amazed that you took so much offense to my not observing the day and stating my reasons).

 

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Not exactly – the Corinthians were not corrected for saying “we are of Jesus”- For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. (1 Corinthians 3:4-7)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In that context, you seem more like the pious Corinthians saying “I am of Luther” as if Luther is the greatest man since Paul and an authority of your faith (which, actually, is what you said a few posts ago). It seems that Paul admonished those in Corinth for this attitude and went so far as to say that they (including himself) were nothing but all honor belonged to God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Luther cannot be a hero without being an authority??? Nonsense. He is a hero of the faith because of his contributions. He is not an authority because those truths that he preached were not his truths but biblical truths. He was neither the first nor the last to preach justification by faith – this is biblical doctrine. I believe that you go too far in holding up Luther as an authority in such a way, but I also have to acknowledge that I hold to Solo Scriptura and I know that other Christians do not. That is the primary difference between us on this issue – I think your “honoring” Luther in such a way actually dishonors those portions of his doctrine that I admire. Perhaps that is why we are both so passionate about this issue…I think your honor to Luther borders idolatry and diminishes the doctrine of Solo Scriptura and therefore undermines what was correct about Luther’s theology in the first place. [/FONT]

 

I apologize. I did think that I supported my claims and do not mean to come across as mistreating a brother in Christ (although your claims that I am an “ingrate,” “trashy,” incapable of objective thought, - perhaps “cultic”, not really sure why you brought that up - and “unpatriotic” were not supported and for the most part ignored – but at least you called me “nice” at the beginning).

To clarify:

The reason that I believe your view diminishes the doctrine of Solo Scriptura and undermines Luther’s doctrine is that you hold Luther to such an authority. It is not enough to “honor” him by respecting his life and work and appreciating his contribution (as I have repeatedly said I do), but one must also set aside a day of tribute. One must hold him in authority. This is the same mode of authority that Luther rejected in form of papal authority and stands in contradiction to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Were it not so, then Sola Scriptura is meaningless – Scripture CAN NOT be our only authority in matters of faith if it is so because of the authority of Luther. YOU negate the doctrine, not Luther. I think that Luther, like Paul, would say “I am nothing – honor God.” My understanding is that you honor Luther with your words, but disgrace the doctrines he risked his life for with your idolatry.

No, we enjoy the direct access to God, assurance of salvation by grace and not by works today because of Christ – not Luther.

Your problem here is not with me, but with Scripture. You claimed that I was being pious like the Corinthians saying “we are of Jesus,” when in fact this was far from the meaning and text of the passage. They, like you, were uplifting one man and his doctrine. Paul corrected them not for being pious but for this division and exaltation of man.

Again, you say:

Scripture says:

For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 1 Corinthians 3:4-7

Luther is a hero of the faith – not an authority of the faith.

 

In all sincerity I am sorry for you as I believe you are blinded by your own stubbornness and prejudices rather than by stupidity. I do not denounce people for celebrating Reformation Day or even the practice of observing Reformation Day – yet you would have me sin by paying tribute to and accepting Luther as the authority of my faith against my conscience. You should have realized that there is a difference between honoring the sacrifices of men and paying tribute to a man by accepting him as an authority of our faith.



You are all over the place - I do not even know what you mean by being “of the Marines” – perhaps you should elaborate. What do you mean and how on earth did the Marines even come up in this discussion????


I do have to say that it would be a welcome change if you honored the Word of God as much as you claim to honor Luther. It was wrong of you to alter the passage and claim Paul corrected the Corinthians for being pious and saying “We are of Jesus.” Again, here is the actual verse:


For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 1 Corinthians 3:4-7


And again:


The reason that I believe your view diminishes the doctrine of Solo Scriptura and undermines Luther’s doctrine is that you hold Luther to such an authority. It is not enough to “honor” him by respecting his life and work and appreciating his contribution (as I have repeatedly said I do), but one must also set aside a day of tribute. One must hold him in authority. This is the same mode of authority that Luther rejected in form of papal authority and stands in contradiction to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Were it not so, then Sola Scriptura is meaningless – Scripture CAN NOT be our only authority in matters of faith if it is so because of the authority of Luther. YOU negate the doctrine, not Luther. I think that Luther, like Paul, would say “I am nothing – honor God.” My understanding is that you honor Luther with your words, but disgrace the doctrines he risked his life for with your idolatry.

 

Until you presented a biblical mandate to pay tribute to Luther (the Romans 13 interpretation) and your view of Luther as an authority of our faith I saw no issues with your view (although it was one that I did not personally share). Since then I disagreed as I understood your view as placing Luther in place of Scripture and therefore discrediting Luther by essentially turning his theology in to a form of idolatry. I have tried to show support for my view (which I believe you have ignored and simply continued to attack my position) and that I believe I am entitled to hold within the boundary of Christian orthodoxy. You have referred to me as unstudied, trashy, nonobjective, cultic, lacking understanding, unpatriotic, unreasonable, nitpicking, inconsistent, pious, uneducated, self-righteous, holler than thou, an ingrate and finally evil.

That said, and since I alone seem to object to Lutheran authority in matters of faith, perhaps it would better if your brethren here on BB would offer to correct my errors on this issue. I am actually open to discussion and not beyond persuasion. However, based on the personal level of previous posts which extend beyond the topic at hand, I believe that you have excluded yourself from an opinion that could be of persuasion to me on this issue. Likewise, my conduct has most likely invalidated any point that I may try to make. I know that I can be sarcastic and I need to keep that in check, and if I have been offensive in this manner I do sincerely apologize. We both seem to find the other’s views extreme. But I do not see this discussion, if it remains between you and I alone, as being fruitful. Instead I see it continuing to devolve into personal attacks on the part of both of us. But thanks for an interesting chat nonetheless. (And if you don’t mind, I still would like to know what you mean by “of the Marines,” this one has me stumped).