I recently saw someone share this tweet from Josh Buice, the founder of G3 Ministries:
We can be certain that Luther, Calvin, Knox, Tyndale and other figures of the Reformation were not making decisions about defending the faith by calculating their career advancement and protecting their platform.
— đ đ¤đ¨đ đ˝đŞđđđ (@JoshBuice) October 28, 2021
Faithful men stand up.
Faithful men speak up.
The sentiment he’s getting at is great, but he could hardly have chosen worse examples: one reason Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox avoided dying for their beliefs is that they showed a remarkable ability to adopt new and more politically-acceptable beliefs at a moment’s notice. (Tyndale, for all his faults, was consistent, and was executed for it).
So I couldn’t resist pointing out some of the pretty flagrant political hypocrisy of these three Reformers. For instance:
Protestants are free to make of Lutherâs ideas whatever they will, although I suspect that the idea of turning control over the churches to secular authorities no longer sounds as attractive as it did to Luther. My point is simply that between 1518 and 1520, Luther executed a remarkable 180-degree reversal. He pledged fealty to the pope âcome what mayâ when he thought that would benefit his cause, and when it didnât, he denounced the pope as the Antichrist and pledged support to the worldly authorities instead.
In 1558, John Knox wrote The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women to denounce the Catholic Queen Mary. Knox denied her legitimacy as queen of England, insisting that women âmay never rule nor bear empire above man,â because âwoman by the law of God, and by the interpretation of the Holy Ghost, is utterly forbidden to occupy the place of God in the offices aforesaid, which he has assigned to man, whom he has appointed and ordained his lieutenant in earth, excluding from that honour and dignity all women.â
But then an awkward thing happened: Mary died, and her Protestant half-sister Elizabeth I became queen. Would Knox continue his principled opposition to female empire? He would not. He quickly wrote to the unhappy queen, addressing her as âthe virtuous and godly Elizabeth, by the grace of God, queen of England,â and insisting that nothing in The First Blast âis, nor can be prejudicial to your graceâs just regimen,â a reign for âwhich most I have thirsted, and for whichâas oblivion will sufferâI render thanks unfeignedly unto God.â Elizabeth remained unmoved by Knoxâs sycophancy, forbidding him from entering England.
Calvin quickly found himself embroiled in the Knox scandal, as it turned out he’d privately counseled Knox… but then distanced himself from the man after Knox’s book became controversial, claiming to not even have known about it.
If this sort of thing interests you, there’s more where that came from.
Add Joseph Smith and Charles Russell. Two men with no political agenda.
Therefore, most holy father, I prostrate myself at your feet, placing myself and all I am and have at your disposal, to be dealt with as you see fit. My cause hangs on the will of your Holiness, by whose verdict I shall either save or lose my life. Come what may, I shall recognise the voice of your Holiness to be that of Christ, speaking through you. If I merit death, I do not refuse to die, for ” the earth is the Lord’s,” and all that is therein, to whom be praise to all eternity ! Amen. May He preserve your Holiness to life eternal. MARTIN LUTHER
And now, Most Blessed Father, I cast myself and all my possessions at your feet; raise me up or slay me, summon me hither or thither, approve me or reprove me as you please. I shall recognize your words as the words of Christ, speaking in you. If I have deserved death, I shall not refuse to die. For the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof ; blessed be he forever. Amen. May he always preserve you. Amen.
I would be interested to know the original wording of the letter because the âcome what mayâ doesn’t appear in both translations.
Anyway, regardless of that two years is a long time, is there anything to say that Luther didn’t genuinely mean what he wrote in his letter in 1518? And then later changed his mind about the pope based on several factors including the pope ruling against Luther’s dictate of conscience?
Yes it appears John Knox was hypocritical.
(It’s kind of like how the Catholic church teaches that women can teach in non-liturgical, non-magisterial capacities. Yet doesn’t the Catholic church teach the Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis contribute in ordinary magisterial capacities?)
“In an age in which authorities were willing to violently suppress perceived heresy,…men avoided physical suffering in no small part by ingratiating themselves to the politically powerful, even at the cost of some of their own inconvenient principles.”
I guess it might be worth getting martyred over having the Holy Scriptures translated from the original languages and having words translated according to common-language rather than ecclesiastical-language loaded with theological baggage, so that the common people are able to interpret the scriptures.
I personally don’t believe in transubstantiation but I wouldn’t die for my view about it, whether someone believes in a real physical presence vs a real spiritual presence is much of a muchness to me. It’s a metaphysical question.
I don’t believe the shroud of Turin is authentic but I wouldn’t die for that view which I base on the scientific evidence (not even taking into account the radiometric dating). If someone wants to believe in it regardless of the evidence that is their choice.
I don’t believe in the perpetual virgin of Mary because I see no good theological reason for doing so and no positive scriptural evidence for it. But if someone wants to hold that view as a pious opinion then go for it but as soon as you say it’s dogma I will address it.
I’m guessing I’m saying there are some parts of the Faith worth dying for such as obedience to God and other parts of the faith that you should uphold but I think pro-life would trump upholding them at all costs.
Hypocrisy is a problem of fallen man, it affects all denominations.
In regards to Josh Buice tweet I think it is still accurate to say that they weren’t calculating career advancement, even though they did make political decisions to protect their platform.
On a side note, the problems raised about the relationship between reformers and political powers is an excellent argument for seperation of church and state. There should be no religio-political powers and there should be no state religion.
Tyndale and John Frith were better than all the rest, not just because they spoke the Holy Language (English) which is great unto itself and sets them above all the disgusting French and German barbarians, but also because they stuck to their principles and suffered persecution for Christ’s sake. In Tyndale’s case to render the Bible into English, which was certainly necessary since Wycliffe was an unreadable mess.
As someone interested in Lutheranism. I’d have to be honest and add: There was also the present war, where to be true to Luther, even known I believe he never indented for the presents of Germany to revolt. It was the sort of logical conclusion of his books, where he argued every Christians is free and bound at the same time. Sort of meaning, you’re only bound by your duty to love, but you have no master.
The Resents War killed almost half of them in Germany, citing with the nobility of Germany, Luther wrote to kill them like mad dogs.
Then there was Church polity. Luther wanted a sort of congregationalist polity, but the Church structure had to remain Episcopalian because of the princes, again.
Since you apparently feel that the perversions and abominations of priests, popes and cardinals have no bearing on the RC Church’s claim to sole authority, I am left wondering how you think some fast footwork by certain leading historical protestants proves anything?
You claim the magic of the keys absolves everyone RC of everything and that no sins can affect the purported authority of the popes, yet you think these protestant figure’s theologies are disproved by their political accommodations or changes of doctrine?
Yes, perhaps you should have resisted the temptation to delve into this for you have only proven the emptiness of your exceptionalism once again.
@James
Not in the least. The scandal resulting from the exposed abuse grieves the Church & is shameful – & has no doubt been a cause among many for which many will have left the Church – but it doesnât take away from the fact that the Church is still His Body.
Your line of thinking reminds me of the Donatists of long ago. The Church had addressed that problem long ago.
âThe magic of the keysâŚâ Is that really what you think?
This is from the Jewish Encyclopedia Online on âThe Keyâ by Emil G. Hirsch, M. Seligsohn:
âIn Biblical times the key, as its Hebrew name indicates (“mafteaḼ” = “the opener”), was used chiefly to open the door which was locked by means of a bolt (“beriaḼ”). This bolt, like that used in the Orient to-day, had a number of holes into which fitted iron points in the door-post, so arranged that they dropped into the corresponding holes as soon as the bolt was pushed into the opening made for it in the door-post. The key, made of wood, was provided at the end with a similar number of nails, arranged to correspond with the iron points holding the bolt. Introducing the key from the side into the run of the bolt, one was able by these nails to push up from below the iron points and then draw the bolt back. Thus Ehud could lock the door of Eglon’s palace without the aid of a key, while only Eglon’s servants “took the key and opened” (Judges iii. 25). The expression “to bear the key on his shoulder” denotes possession of office (comp. Isa. xxii. 22).
In the time of Ezra, four Levites, the chief porters, were in charge of the key of the Temple (I Chron. ix. 27). The key as a symbol of authority is also met with in the Talmud: “Three keys are in God’s own hand which He never entrusteth to any angel: the key of rain; that of childbirth; and that of the resurrection of the dead. The Western (Palestinian) Talmudists say also the key of nourishment” (Sanh. 113a; Ta’an. 2a).â
Steve Ray did a great explanation of the keys & their historical context in âPeter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Chairâ (See YouTube – Coming Home Network).
Regarding the Protestant figures you believe wrongly disproved for political reasons, the main reasons for their disproof are their acts of rebellion against Christâs very Body. For those who profess to uphold & love the Scriptures, these leaders of the past somehow blindly ignored Christâs very call to unity for His Church – His Body – & St. Paul informing St. Timothy called the Church the household of God – the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). They ignored Scripture where Christ appeals to Tradition in speaking of Mosesâ Seat, & St. Paul exhorts the Church to âstand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistleâ (See 2 Th 2:15). So much can be said of these ReformersâŚ
I hardly believe anything has been disproved from the Church. That is a false assumption.
Oh dear. My friend your error is in believing that the Body of Christ is composed solely and entirely of the Roman Catholic Church. I’ve posted the relevant portions of Scripture before so won’t do it again, but please, do you really think non-RC believers cannot be saved and are not part of the body of believers? Christ will decide whose belief is acceptable to Him. not you or I or Pope X. Remember those who were exorcising in Christ’s name whom the disciples forbade to do so, “because they follow not with us”? What did Christ say in response? Can you not see the point? St. Peter founded other churches before Rome…You can continue to stumble over this medieval presumption or accept that God is the judge and authority and will decide who is acceptable to Him when He judges the quick and the dead. How many dozens, nay hundreds of non-Roman Catholics have performed miracles, cast our demons and had experiences of divine revelation, indeed visitation? Go and listen to them if you are actually a seeker after truth; dozens of them on Youtube for example.
Straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
James…do you know were RC comes from?? from Trevor in New Zealand
DO YOU JAMES?? From Trevor.
Dear Trevor, yes, I think so. Right behind the eye of Horus and the obelisk at St. Peter’s? Oh, you didn’t know Bernini was an occultist? Those Protestants only began spreading obelisks around their capitals three centuries later. Very advanced for the time you were!
thank you James….NO! made up by the Church 0F England! I will send you details if you like? from Trevor in New Zealand
What was made up by the poor old C of E Trevor? The title “Roman Catholic Church”? Point being?
If you’re one of those poor souls who believes the Roman Catholic Church headed by Pope ____ is the “body of Christ”, and no other Christians, all I can say is good luck to you. The RC Church had the power, what the Chinese called “the mandate of heaven”, for centuries and allowed themselves to be corrupted until honest men could no longer put up with it. The fracture of the western church is due to that and that alone, and rather than accept the rebuke of many fellow Christians with the humility that Christ commanded of believers in such a case, they merely retrenched and exaggerated their errors and presumptions, while trying to repress dissent with cruel violence. By their fruits ye shall know them. One only has to look around the political world to see the idiocies of human psychology and behaviour, the preference for absolutism and group-think to see the same dynamic in action. “Teaching for commandments the doctrines of men”.
thank you….No Trevor is a member of true church. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! NOT THE RCC. Do YOU WANT FURTHER INFORMATION?
Certainly Trevor, by all means post your information. I am always open to be convinced – from Scripture.
But perhaps first you should address the points I raised.
James….No we do not believe The Pope is the Head of the roman catholic church! from Trevor.
head of the nRoman Catholic chiurchmthe nHrad of the n
So what do you believe Trevor? And does “we” refer to you and some others, or Roman Catholics in general?
Luther/Knox/Calvin/Tyndale…..James when look at the lives of these people, not very nice really?!! even allowing for the times. from Trevor.
Indeed some were not; but what does that prove? They were men, like you and I: full of all kinds of unholy things and hopefully struggling against them to draw closer to God and His Will.
Rather like your pope who held a celebratory mass and issued a commemorative medal for the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.
And of course there’s the thousands of “good Catholics” who planned and participated in it.
No doubt Pope whatever told them it was to their eternal credit?
I attend a small “Protestant” church, but grew up in the Anglican Church – and you?
James, before we go any further, please tell me what church do you attend?? thank you….from Trevor.
James, which came first…Catholic, or Roman Catholic? from Trevor.
Well Trevor, I have answered your questions, and now it is time for you to post the information you proffered above.
But it is also my turn to ask, again, whether you believe only Roman Catholics can attain salvation?
James…..my background is Church of England schooling in Birmingham, England…..Not Anglican!! 1940-1948. from Trevor.
Am I correctly reading your statement to say that you attended a C of E school, but are/were not an Anglican?
I see; and your point(s) is/are?
Yes……
CHURCH OF ENGLAND! No mention of Anglican. from Trevor.
better late than never! NO, I WAS BAPTISED INTO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND…from Trevor.
Trevor, not to be unkind, but could we get to the point of your comments or intended comments?
Or do I guess correctly from the above that you wanted to say that the “Catholic Church” is not the Roman Catholic Church per se, but perhaps all churches that describe themselves as Catholic, including the Church of England?
Did you want to explain your apparent dislike for the term “Anglican Church”?
I’m not sure about the Catholicism of the Anglican Church anymore, at least not in most anglophone countries. Women priests and gay marriage I can’t see as Catholic. That helps to explain why the non-established protestant churches are growing like anything while the Anglican Church withers away. Roman Catholics may cheer, but the same dynamics are eroding them also. Preach the Gospel of Salvation and people flock to you; become a talking shop for secular humanists and your church is doomed.
fairly interesting James that should write to me on this day, 29th September!! this was the day in 1956, when the only love of my life, Bernadette and Trevor were married! James……66 years to the day!! ps do you KNOW THE FEAST DAY WE ARE CELEBRATING??
Belated congratulations Trevor. đ
Did you have a scriptural or theological point to make, or am I reading correctly that you simply wanted to say that you hold the Roman Catholic Church in England to be the authentic “Church of England”?
I’m afraid – well, actually I’m not đ – that He who seeks those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth is not actually bound by any of mankind’s denominational constructs. Given that St. Peter cannot be proven to have founded the Church of Rome, but is known to have founded other churches previously, I’m afraid I can’t the see logic of the RC claims of exclusivity.
Besides which, St. Paul made many converts – he was after all the Apostle to the Gentiles – where do those people and churches fit into your theological and organizational hierarchies?
James of course not…..England was once Catholic, that was all changed by such people ,Henry, Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen!! Good Queen Bess! from Trevor in New Zealand.