.jpg "Dr. C. F. W. Walther")
An indirect proof of the fact that Luther, as often as Melanchthon's deviations were announced to him, did not overlook or "carry" them, but then intervened against them immediately, are Melanchthon's repeated complaints, ever and always, especially in the last years of Luther's life, that he felt himself pressed to the extreme at Luther's side and thought of exile. We have already stated above Melanchthon's complaint in his letters to Carlowitz [Part 11]:
“I have also in the past carried an almost shameful servitude, since Luther was often of a disposition in which there was no small quarreling, more than served either his position or the common good” *). [Latin/Greek; Bente p. 106]
——————
*) This has always been the way of those who harbored false doctrines but dared not come out into the open because they had to fear the still living, resolute representatives of the pure doctrine, to complain secretly, and after their death also publicly, about experienced "servitude," tyranny of conscience, pressures, domineering, arrogance and the like.
What else does Melanchthon say here but that Luther did not carry him, did not hold any deviation to his credit, but, if he noticed such a deviation, immediately intervened against him, and that Melanchthon, as often as he deviated, had to carefully conceal this and constantly had to be concerned to be called to account by Luther for it? Or could Melanchthon have complained so bitterly of Luther in the year 1548 about an earlier “almost ignominious servitude” toward Luther, if, however, Luther, as his most important assistant and as a man otherwise highly deserving before others, had given him the freedom to depart here and there from the truth recognized by him, Luther? Does not this complaint prove clearly and unambiguously that Melanchthon, fearing Luther's wrath, often agreed to Luther's statements with inner reluctance?
(LuW 354)
Another indirect proof that Luther did not carry Melanchthon's deviations, when they came to his knowledge, are Luther's many explanations that he could not give way to any man, any angel, in short, any creature, in his doctrine, and precisely also in his doctrine, in which Melanchthon is urgently suspected of having deviated already in Luther's lifetime. To cite here only a few such explanations, so Luther wrote in October of 1544 in his “Brief Confession of the Holy Sacrament against the Enthusiasts,” and indeed, as history proves, also to Melanchthon, too, as a warning:
“I count them all in one cake, *) as they are, who do not want to believe that the Lord's bread in the Lord's Supper is His right, natural body, which the wicked or Judas receives just as orally as St. Peter and all the saints. Whoever, I say, does not want to believe, let me be at peace with letters, writings, or words, and do not hope for any fellowship with me; nothing else will come of it.” (XX, 2212 [StL 20, 1778, § 41])
——————
*) Immediately before, Luther had said, “His name is Stenkefeld, Zwingel, or whatever he wants.”
Still a few weeks before his death, on January 17, 1546, Luther wrote to the preacher Jakob Probst:
“I, most unfortunate of all men, have had enough of this blessedness of the Psalm: 'Blessed is the man who does not walk in the council of the sacramentarians, nor tread in the way of the Zwinglians, nor sit where the people of Zurich sit. There you have it, which is my opinion.” (XVII, 2634 [StL 17, 2177])
If Luther had known that Melanchthon was also a stubborn Zwinglian and had cultivated the most intimate fellowship with him, that would have proved that Luther was the greatest hypocrite the sun ever shone on, and that his whole fight against the Swiss was not based on the fear of God's Word, but on personal hatred or envy and arrogance. But who will claim this other than a blind papist, for example?
“… perceived later doctrinal errors.”
- Martin Chemnitz, Timothy Kirchner, and Nicolaus Selnecker, the authors of the Apology of the Book of Concord (see Excursus 1),
- Leonhard Hutter (Excursus 2),
- Valentin Löscher (Parts 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and Excursus 3)
- Johann Wigand and Timothy Kirchner (again) at the Altenburg Colloquium (Part 16),
- Amsdorf, whom Luther approved of in so many doctrinal disputes,
- Cordatus (Parts 5, 6, 15),
- Ratzenberger (or Ratzeberger) (Parts 6, 10, 15, 26) [a physician and theologian close to Luther, even standing in for him at some assemblies, yet a thorough Internet search found no image of the dear Matthäus Ratzeberger],
- Baumgartner (Parts 9, 10),
- Quenstedt (Part 12),
- John Calvin (Parts 8, 12), who carried on considerable correspondence with Melanchthon,
- Lewis W. Spitz, Jr., editor of AE 34, who stated of Melanchthon p. 327, fn #1: “Under humanist and slightly under Calvinist influences, he was inclined to deviate from his earlier positions, for example, in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, free will, and the necessity of good works for salvation”,
- Paul McCain, who by endorsing Bente's history (Part 9), tacitly approves of the reproofs of M.'s later errors, and even
- Dr. Lowell Green, who admitted on p. 229 (1980 ed.): “Melanchthon and his associates had made unfortunate concessions to the demands of the Roman Catholic emperor, who attempted to suppress the Protestant cause.”
"This teaching ["salvation by grace alone through faith alone", i.e. the Gospel], according to Melanchthon, and Dr. Green, is incomplete without the addition of a changed will compelled to be sent out in love to share the gospel, spread the 'good news' and be the ambassador of Christ to family and neighbor."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.