After his confession of faith at the Diet of Worms, the Church declared Martin Luther to be a heretic worthy of excommunication. Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor declared him an outlaw who could be killed by anyone without consequence.
On his way home to Wittenburg, Luther was abducted by a group of masked horsemen. To prevent murder by Luther’s opponents, the Elector of Saxony, Frederick the Wise, had staged the abduction to protect Luther and secretly hold him at Wartburg Castle. While in exile for 300 days, Luther continued to be attacked (in print) by his opponents.
No doubt his opponents appreciated the exile—at least for a time—perhaps assuming that Luther could no longer inflict damage on their false doctrines and man-made traditions.
Is it possible that within the present-day Church,[1] Luther has been (conceptually) exiled again? This time, has he been abducted by his opponents to keep his writings and teachings silent and to protect the twisted doctrines they promote?
Consider the content of sermons heard within the Church just under three generations[2] ago. It was not uncommon that Luther and his works were specifically mentioned by name. Today, Luther is nothing more that a component of the Church’s name and a couple of prayers and hymns, whereas Luther the faithful servant is never mentioned. Is it a requirement that Luther be mentioned by name in sermons? Of course not, but when the pure doctrines of Scripture are rightly defended it is difficult not to reference the deep insights and gifted witness of Luther’s testimonies, if not by name then certainly by the truth of Scripture.
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”
(Hebrews 13:8)
“‘[The] word of the Lord remains forever.’ And this word is the good news that was preached to you.”
(1 Peter 1:25)
Listen to a few vintage sermons for yourself. Compare them to the sermons heard in the Church today. Read a few of Luther’s sermons for yourself. Compare them to what you hear today. Is there a difference?
Based on the differences I’ve observed, I propose several theses statements as a basis for discussion and/or disputation:
- Many of Luther’s teachings regarding the true pure doctrines are no longer heard in the Church today.
- Believers are not familiar with Scripture, because they are discouraged from reading or studying[3] the Bible.[4]
- Believers are not familiar with Luther’s writings because they are secondary to the Bible, and since the Bible itself should not be studied, Luther’s writings are therefore completely irrelevant.
- Sermons like those often heard in the Church during the 1960s-70s would not be tolerated in the present-day Church, and ministers preaching likewise would be benched.[5]
- Luther himself would not be allowed to preach or teach in the present-day Church, and would be considered an unbeliever or at least a very troubled soul to be avoided by all.
- Many of the pure doctrines Luther (and other Reformers) rediscovered in the 16th century are anathema to many of the doctrines and practices found within[6] the present-day Church.
- Conceptually, Luther has been intentionally exiled from the present-day Church, i.e., many of the pure doctrines of Scripture have been cast aside.
Can you support or disprove these statements? Why or why not? Reply below, I would enjoy hearing your insights.
[1] Finnish Independent Apostolic Lutheran Congregations (I.A.L.C.)
[2] See also: Surrendering to Idols
[3] It is worth noting that some of the American Heritage Dictionary definitions of the words read and study are defined in very similar ways. For example, definitions for read/reading/reads include: To discern and interpret the nature or significance of through close examination, To examine and grasp the meaning of. And definitions for study/studied/studying include: To read or look at carefully, To give careful thought to; contemplate, To apply oneself to learning, especially by reading, To ponder; reflect.
[4] One of Luther’s great Reformation accomplishments was translating the Bible into the common language of the people so they too could understand it. Today’s sad truth is the present-day Church rejects the use of reliable translations in modern understandable English.
[5] Years ago, I heard this minister or that minister was benched because he “didn’t feed the flock.” At first I was impressed by the phrase “didn’t feed the flock,” but then I realized it was highly subjective and therefore meaningless! If you have an objective definition of the phrase, please let me know.
[6] And just what are the doctrines of the Church anyway? If they are documented somewhere, please let me know. If they are documented, are they known and observed by all?