Luther's "Reformation" Regret

Catholic Voyager ^

[Cronos]

Public domain image of Luther nailing 95 Theses at Wittenberg. (Acquired from Wikimedia Commons)

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his infamous 95 Theses to the door at a church in Wittenberg, Germany, signifying his break from the Catholic Church, and paving the way for like-minded protestors. 499 years have since elapsed. Disunity among Christians remains a scandal and an affront to the prayer of Jesus that the people, "may be one." (cf. John 17:11-26)

In the modern era of social media, we see today the hashtag #ReformationDay posted in a strictly celebratory manner. From one perspective, it is a strange, even perverse, celebration, that Christians on either side of this divide find cause to rejoice for disunity. In fact, one could argue Martin Luther himself would have taken offense at the celebration.

Eight years after the incident at Wittenberg, Luther lamented how competing teachers of the faith fancied themselves the more authoritative than he, when he wrote: "There is not one of them that does not think himself more learned than Luther." Again, he bemoaned: "[T]here are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads." If we look at his 1525 letter to Antwerp, we see these regrets and more. He believed he had escaped devils in the Catholic Church, yet discovered that "a stronger" devil had prevailed:

We believed, during the reign of the pope, that the spirits which make a noise and disturbance in the night, were those of the souls of men, who, after death, return and wander about in expiation of their sins. This error, thank God, has been discovered by the Gospel, and it is known at present, that they are not the souls of men, but nothing else than those malicious devils who used to deceive men by false answers. It is they that have brought so much idolatry into the world. 

The devil seeing that this sort of disturbances could not last, has devised a new one; and begins to rage in his members, I mean in the ungodly, through whom he makes his way in all sorts of chimerial follies and extravagant doctrines. This won't have baptism, that denies the efficacy of the Lord's supper; a third puts a world between this and the last judgment; others teach that Jesus Christ is not God; some say this, others that; and there are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads.

I must cite one instance, by way of exemplification, for I have plenty to do with these sort of spirits. There is not one of them that does not think himself more learned than Luther; they all try to win their spurs against me; and would to heaven that they were all such as they think themselves, and that I were nothing! The one of whom I speak assured me, amongst other things, that he was sent to me by the God of heaven and earth, and talked most magnificently, but the clown peeped through all. At last, he ordered me to read the books of Moses. I asked for a sign in confirmation of this order, "It is," said he, "written in the gospel of St. John." By this time I had heard enough, and I told him to come again, for that we should not have time, just now, to read the books of Moses...

I have plenty to do in the course of the year with these poor people: the devil could not have found a better pretext for tormenting me. As yet the world had been full of those clamorous spirits without bodies, who oppressed the souls of men; now they have bodies, and give themselves out for living angels...

When the pope reigned we heard nothing of these troubles. The strong one (the devil) was in peace in his fortress; but now that a stronger one than he is come, and prevails against him and drives him out, as the Gospel says, he storms and comes forth with noise and fury.

(Martin Luther, Letter to Antwerp, 1525)

Below is a card of the above Luther quote, suitable for sharing on social media.

---

TOPICS: General Discusssion; History; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS:

[Cronos]

Luther had a point This won't have baptism, that denies the efficacy of the Lord's supper; a third puts a world between this and the last judgment; others teach that Jesus Christ is not God; some say this, others that; and there are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads.

There is not one of them that does not think himself more learned than Luther;

Martin Luther was essentially tearing his hair out over the explosion really of interpretations and divisions that had resulted from—okay, wait for this—that had resulted from his own teaching of Sola Scriptura and the right of private judgment, the right of private interpretation. Quoting Luther: "There are as many beliefs as there are heads." He was complaining. Now apparently, even some of Luther's own students followed his example and they took their stand on Scripture alone as he had, and wound up rejecting aspects of what Luther was teaching in order to stand on their own interpretations of Scripture, and Luther complained about that too.

[Cronos]

Quoting Luther again: 'I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved.'"

[Theophilus]

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his infamous 95 Theses to the door at a church in Wittenberg, Germany, signifying his break from the Catholic Church

False, Luther had no intention of breaking with the Church. They were a list of propositions for an academic disputation.

[RightOnTheBorder]

What is the Catholic remedy to a heretical pope and a corrupt church as was the case in Luther’s day? It seems the Catholic Church had a major course correction in response to people taking up Protestantism. Who’s to say that some level of “disunity” as described in the article is not necessary to prevent unity in following error?

[Cronos]

The remedy was always true reform from within, not schism - whenever the Church faced moral corruption or bad leadership, God raised up saints—like Francis of Assisi, Catherine of Siena, and Ignatius of Loyola—who reformed morals and renewed spiritual life inside the visible structure without tearing apart the body of Christ.

the tragedy of Martin Luther was that the solution chosen was not reform but permanent fragmentation.

As for the suggestion that disunity acts as a healthy check against following error: scripturally and logically, that fails completely.

Jesus prayed explicitly for his followers ‘that they may all be one, even as you, Father, are in me and I in you’ (John 17:21), warning that a house divided against itself cannot stand?

Look at the practical result of treating “disunity” as a feature rather than a flaw: it has led to tens of thousands of competing denominations, where every group claims the Holy Spirit led them to a different conclusion on baptism, the sacraments, and even core doctrines like the Virgin Birth. When everyone is their own final appellate court, error isn’t prevented—it is multiplied infinitely.

The safeguard against error is Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would protect His visible Church from formally defining error (Matthew 16:18, John 16:13).

[Tell It Right]

False, Luther had no intention of breaking with the Church. They were a list of propositions for an academic disputation.

I agree 100%. If time travel was real, I'm sure many Catholic thinkers today would go back in time and try to talk some of the RCC leaders in Luther's day to agree with him on some things then that many Catholics agree with today. (i.e. Luther's wish to remove indulgences, Luther's ideas on general repentance, and the pope doesn't have authority to remit guilt -- but does have responsibility to teach of God's forgiveness.). If other Catholic leaders in Luther's day had sat down with him and agreed with him on those things, perhaps today we'd refer to the Protestant Reformation movement as a reform movement (as Luther intended), not a breakaway movement.

[Cronos]

You are 100% correct on that historical point. Luther did not intend to break with the Church on October 31, 1517. His 95 Theses were written as an academic invitation to debate abuses regarding indulgences, not as a formal declaration of schism.

Luther may have only wanted an academic debate, but once the principle of private interpretation was unleashed—where an individual sets their own conscience and reading of Scripture above the visible hierarchy—the genie could not be put back in the bottle.

Within just a few short years, that same dynamic led to radical splintering: Luther was furiously disputing with Zwingli over the Eucharist, Calvin was establishing his own model in Geneva, and the Anabaptists were rejecting both. Luther quickly realized that everyone was using his own principle to interpret the Bible differently, leading to the very fragmentation he never originally intended.

So you’re right that it wasn’t a planned break on day one.

While we can wish there had been more gentleness on all sides, history proved the core fear correct: once the principle of institutional unity was broken, the fragmentation never stopped.

It didn’t stop with Luther and Calvin. It splintered into the Anabaptists, the Church of England, the Puritans, and eventually thousands of independent denominations, proving that without a visible, unified center of authority, theological disputes inevitably lead to permanent separation.

True reform is good. But the tragedy is that instead of reforming the house from within, the division broke the foundation, leaving a fractured Christendom that is still trying to find its way back to the unity Christ prayed for in John 17. And I think there are lots of blame to be put on all “sides”

[Big Red Badger]

Fascinating...

Studied MOSES this Sunday,
Aaron his Slave brother and Joshua who also a Slave but a craftsman of sorts.
Moses and Aaron both denied entry into The Promised Land But Joshua led Israel across the Jordan which was parted like The Red Sea and Later was involved in Stopping
“Time” in one of The Lords Battles to Secure the Promised Land !
Stopped TIME !
Joshua seemed to Listen to The Lord and Follow His Direction without “Leaning Right Or Left” to the Letter.
Inscribed the Commandments Not Using Iron Tools and In Joshua’s good byes never spoke ill of Moses.
.
I say This to illustrate God communicated
Thru to Men beyond His Scripture it seems to Me. Joshua could listen and Do what was given but Moses let His Emotions get in The Way but Our Merciful Father still show Cased Moses in The Transfiguration!
.
We Serve A Mighty and Merciful God !
Maranatha!

[allendale]

Luther consoled himself by eating enormous quanities of pike. He turned out not to be a very good father to his children.

[Cronos]

Correct.

I think the horrific splitting post Luther shocked him and the world.

Though a world without the reformation would save many lives, it would be a completely utterly different world from today - I don’t say better or worse, just utterly different

[heterosupremacist]

“False, Luther had no intention of breaking with the Church. They were a list of propositions for an academic disputation.”

Correct. He only wanted to reform the church that had existed for so many centuries, he did not anticipate the many thousands of christian denominations that exist today...

He was not nearly as smart as he claimed he was.

[Tell It Right]

I respectfully disagree with FReeper Cronos' statement: "Look at the practical result of treating “disunity” as a feature rather than a flaw: it has led to tens of thousands of competing denominations...". Fellow Protestants, keep in mind that FReeper Cronos usually disagrees with us in a respectful way, and often is educational in doing so. Please treat him in the same manner. The few times I can recall Cronos typing with some venom is after us Protestants drew first blood and tossed venom at him .

Are there multiple Protestant denominations? Sure. But to treat every minor breakaway as a completely separate denomination is stretching the definition of a "denomination" quite a bit.

For example, when I think of the relatively minor distinctions among Baptists, most of the varying Baptist denominations look to me less like many denominations and more like the Roman Catholic Church's various Orders (i.e. Augustinian, Jesuit, Benedictine). The major Baptist deoniminations agree in the Trinity, Five Solas, inerrancy of Scripture, and adult baptism. Except for a few tiny Baptist fringes that don't agree on those core beliefs of Baptists (IMHO those are like the leftist groups that call themselves "Catholic" organizations). The relatively minor disagreements among the major Baptist denominations (i.e. some are Calvinist, some are Armenian) look more like the minor disagreements among the orders within the RCC.

As far as the first portion of the statement "Look at the practical result of treating 'disunity' as a feature rather than a flaw...". Agreed, let's look at the practical results. Again, I respectfully ask that we examine Luther's and the other early reformation leaders demands in light of both the good results and bad results. The bad results have been stated (the aforementioned fracturing -- it's easy to start a new denomination if everyone is their own Bible interpreter). For an example of good results of the disunity, anyone who is Catholic and doesn't pay indulgences today should be glad that there was some "disunity" five centuries ago.

The same goes for "disunity" in many cases helping Protestant churches. Frankly, I'm glad that the denominations who had leftist takeovers and preach modern hedonism are hemorrhaging members, with members moving to other churches, to both Protestant and Catholic. The fact that the members leave those hedonism churches and move to other denominations are an example that members aren't concerned as much with minor beliefs that often aren't explicitly described in the Bible (i.e. Armenian vs Calvinism, I can see an eisegesis for both, but not enough to go full exegesis on either IMHO, and evidently it's not important enough to Christians moving from an Armenian church to a Calvinist church). However those moving Christians are very clear on things the Bible is explicit about, often stated repeatedly in the Bible (i.e. sexual immorality is clearly sin to all true Christians). And I'm glad that in the case of United Methodists, entire local churches are leaving the hedonism promoting United Methodist Conference and joining the new Global Methodist Conference.

Where would Christians in those Protestant churches today be without some recent "disunity"? Where would Catholics today be without the old "disunity"? And don't many of us on FR today want some RCC leaders to toss around some "disunity" at the leftist major RCC leaders who are leaning toward leftism like being pro-LGBTQWERTY and Islam-is-like-Christianity and doomsday-cult-save-us-from-global-warmageddon?

So I'll be in favor of some disunity to keep our church leaders from leadings over the deep end.

[PeterPrinciple]

Disunity among Christians remains a scandal and an affront to the prayer of Jesus that the people, “may be one.” (cf. John 17:11-26)

---

1Co 11:18 First, I hear that there are divisions among you when you meet as a church, and to some extent I believe it.
1Co 11:19 But, of course, there must be divisions among you so that you who have God’s approval will be recognized!

Now, above is another view point. God is a fan of division also.

Jesus came to unite but also came to divide. How is that possible? You can’t look at just one verse.

Jesus is a sharp sword. His WORD divides. anybody been offended or said ouch lately?

[Secret Agent Man]

They can’t even get the number of years since then correct. It’s not 499 years, it’s 509 years.

[Secret Agent Man]

Corect. It was for Reformation, not Exodus.

[PeterPrinciple]

The RC church stood hard and fast on their indulgences and would not repent or be corrected. The centralized leadership can not be wrong according to tradition.

God destroyed the centralized temple many times. Why?

He tore the curtain, destroyed the Temple, got rid of the old priest and prophet system, completed the sacrificial system to pay for sin and established A NEW COVENANT.

I suggest to all they read what God says about the NEW COVENANT.

You MUST BE BORN AGAIN, BAPTIZED IN THE SPIRIT.

God wants a personal relationship with you, not an institutional one.

A reminder to all, God is a living God, He is close, not far away.

The Holy Spirit is a WHO, not a what.

[Cronos]

Peter, you are confusing two very different things: division caused by faithfulness to God’s truth and division caused by disunity among God’s people.

The distinction is important, particularly in light of Jesus’ prayer in John 17.

1 Corinthians 11 “For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” (KJV)

Paul is not celebrating division or suggesting that God enjoys denominational fragmentation.

He is addressing divisions within the Corinthian church, particularly those involving factions, social distinctions and the abuse of the Lord’s Supper.

His point is that divisions and false teachings can expose who remains faithful to God.

There is a significant difference between saying that God can use divisions to reveal what is right and saying that God approves of division.

---

Then you quote Matthew 10:34-36:
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

Jesus is explaining that allegiance to Him will sometimes create division, even within families. Some will accept Him; others will reject Him.

The division is a consequence of people’s responses to Christ, not an instruction for Christians to create divisions among themselves.

Jesus never contradicted His prayer for unity in John 17.

---

Then you bring up the sword of God’s Word. Hebrews 4:12 tells us:
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword...”

Yes God’s Word exposes error, challenges falsehood and confronts sin. But God’s Word divides truth from error, the Gospel separates those who accept Christ from those who reject Him.

Yet Christ calls those who belong to Him to be united in love, truth and fellowship.

Being offended by the truth is not the same thing as being justified in creating divisions among Christians.

There is a MASSIVE difference between division that results from standing for truth and division that results from failing to live out the truth.

[Cronos]

Regarding destruction of the physical temple: Hebrews 10:10-14 explains that Christ offered one sacrifice for sins for all time. The Old Testament sacrificial system was fulfilled in Christ.

However, where does Scripture say that Christ abolished the Church or intended His followers to live their faith independently of one another?

In fact:
- Matthew 16:18 – Jesus says, “I will build my church.”
- Acts 2:42 – The first Christians devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers.
- Ephesians 2:19-22 – Believers are described as members of God’s household, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.
- 1 Timothy 3:15 – Paul calls the Church “the pillar and ground of the truth.”

______

Your statement “God wants a personal relationship with you, not an institutional one.” presents a false choice.

Of course, God wants a personal relationship with every believer. But the New Testament also describes Christianity as a communal faith.

Consider 1 Corinthians 12:27:

“Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.”

Notice that Paul does not describe Christians as independent individuals who happen to believe in Jesus. He describes them as members of one body.

Furthermore, Jesus established a community of disciples, appointed apostles and entrusted them with responsibilities.

Personal faith and belonging to the Christian community ie the Church are not mutually exclusive.

[Cronos]

“The Holy Spirit is a who not a what”

We should call Horton, but in lieu of him, you can refer to Ephesians 4:4-5 which says:

“There is one body, and one Spirit... One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

This aligns with what Jesus prayed in John 17:21:

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee.”

The Holy Spirit, whom you rightly identify as a person, is also described as the Spirit of unity (Ephesians 4:3-4).

Are we allowing the Holy Spirit to lead us towards the unity Christ prayed for??

[Flaming Conservative]

Amen!