3.08 - THE REFORMATION, NO. 1

THE REFORMATION, NO. 1

I am certainly glad that the effort thus far put forth, very largely historic in nature, has met with a favorable response, and has created within you all anxiety to hear what is to follow.

I come now to study the Great Reformation. This period embraces what we call in history the Renaissance, or the transition from mediaeval to modern civilization.

Evidences of this period are seen in the invention of a number of things that proved advantageous to man in driving away the clouds, permitting light to shine upon his path, and granting to him the privilege of independent thought and study. Perhaps chief among such inventions was the printing press invented toward the close of the fifteenth century. By means of it vast volumes of written matter were scattered over the face of the earth, which brought to the homes of the people such things as they could study for themselves and from which they could draw their own conclusions. It created independent thought which served as the very foundation of that independence that enabled the people to break away from that ecclesiasticism to which they had been in bondage for almost a thousand years. At this time the nations of the old world were sending forth ships on missions of exploration. England, France, Spain, Holland and Portugal had their ships plying the bosom of the different seas in search of things that lay beyond. A broader horizon was appearing, and a greater conception of independence and responsibility was dawning upon the world. That period was also characterized by the birth and development of the greatest artists the world has ever known. To it belong Michael Angelo, Leonardo de Vinci, Raphael, and others, unsurpassed even by those of the twentieth century. In literature it was the age of Shakespeare and of Dante.

These were followed by John Milton and a host of others. Coexistent and contemporaneous with this enlarged program there was of necessity a great religious awakening. Men were no longer satisfied to accept what the powers that had swayed the scepter over them expressed. A new day had dawned and a new era had begun.

Previous to this time the political powers alone had rebelled against Catholic authority, but now there is a religious element joining in with the political to defy the domination of the hierarchy. The laity were beginning to get together and to determine whether or not they should longer bow to their sovereign, the pope.

There was between the years 1520 and 1670 the greatest revolt against Catholicism that has ever characterized any other fifty years in all the world. During these years this revolt had evidenced itself so much that by the year 1570 Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, England, Scotland and Holland had been lost to the papacy. In France, in Spain and even in Italy, there was open rebellion and bold defiance of the wonderful power claimed by the pope.

You ask what the cause of all this rebellion, and of this great stir that shook the religious world as few things had ever done. Let me try to gather from the pages of history a summary of these causes. I submit to you, first, the abuse within the Catholic church itself. Almost any school history abounds in the recitation of the ungodliness and the wicked practices that characterized Catholicism during those years. What is known as simony, a word which means the sale of church offices, was practiced openly and above-board. Those who had the power of appointment sold the office, and therefore gathered unto themselves all immense amount of money out of what was considered a sacred transition and conferring of power. Men won’t always stand for those things, either in religion or in politics. A second criticism or abuse was what is called nepotism. This means that all favors, splendid positions, and places of prominence were given to kinsmen and relatives. From such we are not wholly freed even now. A general cause for all of this disturbance might be summed up in these words. There was all attack made against the popes and the bishops on the ground of immorality. These charges were preferred by men of high rank and of influential bearing, and their charges and criticisms began to prove effective. Restlessness characterized the powers who were guilty of these charges.

Then there is a third thing responsible for this wonderful transition of thought. These lay members, rising to the height of their rights, and asserting their independence, began to entertain and to practice things different from the pope’s doctrine, and without his authority. As a result, a number of leaders arose to direct the minds of the people, to march out in front, and feel assured that numbers, under such conditions, would follow in their path.

Chief among these was none other than Martin Luther, who lived from 1483 to 1546. His parents were peasants, who worked in the mines. They were devout Catholics.

Martin, like many a worthy boy, resolved to secure all education in spite of the poverty round about him. It is said that he went along the streets, sang in front of the homes of numbers, then extended his hand for some kind of a donation. By this, and the practicing of the strictest economy, he was enabled to go to school. He began the study of law, which was his father’s ambition for him, but, at one time, when he thought he was nearing death’s door, he stopped and promised God that if his life were spared, he would dedicate the remnant of his days to the preaching of what he conceived to be the gospel of His Son. That incident changed his entire career. HE made progress in school to such all extent that he attracted the attention of the very elite of the land. He graduated from the University of Erfurt, and later became a teacher in the theological department of the University of Wittenberg. In the year 1513 the Catholics wanted to raise all immense sum of money to repair old At. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome, and when they "got up against it," true to their history, they put on a big sale of indulgences. Martin Luther could no longer be quiet. He rose up and declared such a practice to be rotten, corrupt and unworthy of the endorsement of decent men.

He wrote out ninety-five objections to the Catholic church, and with a courage that you can but admire, walked out in front of all old church building, and nailed up those propositions, and asked any Catholic on earth to meet him in a discussion of the same. That brought forth the bitter denunciation in what is called a papal bull. Martin Luther defied the pope by burning his decree before the gate of Wittenberg, and expressed in sentiment what I quoted as having been said by Col. Roosevelt. As a result of this act on his part, Luther was ex-communicated from the Catholic church in 1521, and that date marks the beginning of the first denomination born on the earth. Back of 1521, there was not one of the modern denominations with which you are familiar. We cannot find one particle of history either in the Bible or out of the Bible, or anywhere else, concerning any of them. My friends, according to the Rt. Rev. Mons. Patrick F. O’Hara, LL.D., Martin Luther was almost anything other than a saint. I have read Luther’s life story, and if the record of it be true, there were wanting in him many of the elements that adorn the Christian character. But, since Christ stood before Pilate, since Peter stood before the Jewish Sanhedrin, since Paul stood before Agrippa, the grandest moral spectacle which this old earth has ever witnessed was Martin Luther before the Diet of Worms. And because of that very fact, plus all ability to expose the corruption of the old church, Luther was a leader among men. The Augsburg Confession of Faith, the Ritual of the Lutheran church, was drafted and adopted in the year 1530.

Back in those days, Catholics, Lutherans and others had quite a bit of trouble in deciding matters pertaining to the Lord’s supper. Just why that bothered them as it did’ I may never know. The Catholics, as I have stated, taught the doctrines of transubstantiation, that is to say, that, by the word of the pope, the bread and fruit of the vine became the literal body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Martin Luther accepted that until the day of ax-communication. He, doubtless, believed it until the day of his death. But because of the fact that he hated the Catholics worse than he did the devil, he coined him a new word. Instead of transubstantiation, he used the term consubstantiation. His philosophy and that of the Catholics are both just about as clear, even to them, as ordinary mud.

I call attention to another fact. Martin Luther is the first man on this earth who taught the doctrine of justification by faith only. Why did he do it? Because of his bitterness and opposition to Catholicism. The Catholics, then and now, lay quite a bit of stress upon works. Luther, in trying to get away from works, swung to the other extreme, and declared that justification was by faith only.

Friends, the Bible uses the expression "faith only" just one time. In James 2:24, we have this expression, but you will observe it is preceded by the word "not." James says, "Justification is not by faith only." Luther earnestly sought to get some crumb of comfort from the Word of God, and when he ransacked the pages of Holy Writ from first to last, and found no such consolation, let me tell you what he did. He turned to Romans 3:28, and in his translation, added the word "alone" to the Book of God. That verse says this: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Luther’s Bible, which he translated, reads this way: "We hold that a man is justified without works of the law by faith alone." Those who have made the creeds have followed in Luther’s tracks and have incorporated as one of their articles: "Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." My friends, maybe it is of comfort to a man who neither knows nor cares what God says. But to people who respect the Bible, who know that such is not in God’s Book, no comfort from Luther’s addition can come. Christians do not add to the Word of God, nor seek to be wise above what is written. A solemn warning against such runs throughout the Bible.

It is a dangerous thing to tamper with the Word of God.

I would not say that I am free from prejudice. I think that would be saying too much. Of course, in my own judgment, I try to keep that element away, and to study matters fairly and squarely. I do not believe the Catholic doctrine think it rotten almost from beginning to end. And yet I would not be moved by it to such all extreme view as to go beyond that which is found in the Book of God. Men ought to be prompted by the highest motives, the loftiest incentives, and the noblest purposes. We ought to be mindful of the fact that we have no abiding city here. We ought to be conscious of the idea that death and decay and passing away are written upon the wings of Time, and all timely things. We ought to be reminded that with the passing of the years our form becomes frailer, our hair becomes frosted, our cheeks become furrowed. We ought to desire to reach heaven when we die, to be transported home to glory at last. I must be careful, honest and sincere. My preconceived ideas, my prejudices, must not stand in the way of the truth of God.

Let us examine, therefore, our hearts, and know whether or not the very foundation upon which we stand, every plank of it, is in the Book of God. If it is, and from God’s Book we are enabled to read our titles clear, let us press on to joys eternal, and to bliss Divine. But if not, we had better stop and make investigation. We had better pause long enough to examine that on which our hopes for eternity rest. Let not bias, prejudice or partisan spirit, or a matter of tradition, rob us of the prospects of that blissful home across which the shadows never come.

You ask, friends, what is the summary of the entire life and contribution of Martin Luther. I would put it in these words, namely: Martin Luther gave to the world all open Bible. It was through his influence and matchless courage that this Book was cut loose from the pulpit, and given to the pew. He but re-echoed that which had been propounced by old John Wickliffe, John Huss, and others who had died at the hands of the powers that then prevailed. I owe much to Martin Luther. I am grateful to him. He had a part in clearing away the rubbish, in denouncing the false, and in preparing for the dawning of a golden light, the rays of which, I think, have come in my path. But with all the things that I might say complimentary, Martin Luther did not die for me. I was not baptized in his name, and no spiritual blessing direct can he bestow. Therefore, I do not propose to wear his name, or to attach myself unto all institution founded by him.

There are, according to our federal report, twenty-one different kinds of Lutherans on the earth tonight, and I do not have to apologize to the Lutherans by saying that the Bible is a stranger to every one of that number. Not one shoot, phase, wing or branch was ever thought of, dreamed of, or hinted at, by holy men that penned this Book. I can find out something of Lutheranism in history, magazines and religious papers, but not one thing can I learn about such in all the Word of God. When you want to study Lutheranism you have no more use for the Bible than you have for all almanac.

Maybe you think this is a hard saying. Question: is it the truth? If so, it ought to be said. If not, you ought to expose me.

Contemporaneous with Martin Luther was the great Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, a man equally learned, and perhaps equally courageous. He, likewise, opposed the sale of indulgences as offered by the church, of which he was a member, and expressed that opposition by writing out sixty and seven declarations against it. Zwingli be came the leader of the Swiss reformation, and outlined some ideas much more in harmony with the Book of God than those of his contemporaries. Unfortunately for the cause of independence in religious thought, Zwingli was killed in the year 1530, when the Protestants and the Catholics were engaged in carnal warfare. Each one was striving for supremacy, and was ready to die rather than yield.

Zwingli’s head was as clear as a bell regarding the Lord’s supper. He said that the elements are simply symbolic of the real body and of the real blood of Christ.

I pass next to a third outstanding character who towered above his fellows. John Calvin, of France, born in the year 1509, educated far above the great masses of his people, early in life began to have convictions regarding things religious, and his sentiments drove him to side with the Protestant movement. Because of that very sympathy and disposition, he was driven out of France.

He found refuge in the city of Basil, Switzerland, and there began to write his very learned and popular Institutes. His object in this production, which is a classic in ecclesiastical matters, was two-fold. First, he wanted to influence the King in behalf of the reformation movement; and, second, it afforded him a fine opportunity to set forth his doctrine contrary to the Catholic church.

You ask, what the result? He became the founder of the Presbyterian church in the year 1535.

Now just as surely as history can be respected, and as writers have been authentic in their accounts, just that surely a Presbyterian church was then born upon this earth. Was that the Church of Christ? Of course not. Well, why? The Church of Christ was founded by the Lord in the city of Jerusalem in the year 33. Presbyterianism was founded by John Calvin, in the country of Switzerland, in the year 1535. That man does not live who can reduce them both to the same thing.

John Calvin is the author of the five main doctrines that have ever characterized the Presbyterian body. Here they are: first, election, predestination. Second, a limited atonement. Calvin seemed not to believe Paul when he said (Heb. 2:9), "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." The third point is the doctrine of total depravity. Calvinism teaches that a soul is born into this world as black as midnight darkness. Here lies the foundation upon which rests the idea of a direct operation of God’s spirit. It was this thought that suggested the practice of baptizing babies. Rob the world of the idea of depravity, and there would never have been any kind of a reason for the preacher’s laying his dirty ecclesiastical hands upon a spotless babe. But be it said that this doctrine, of Roman origin, is rapidly passing, and some of the creeds have been forced to change their long time practices and articles of faith. The fourth point or tenet of Calvinism is this: the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit. By that here is what they mean. If that man there chanced to be one of the elect, in God’s own good time, he will work upon him, and it will be impossible for him to resist it. He may sit on the stool of do-nothing, and keep on doing less, but if God sees fit to call him, he must respond. And the fifth point of Calvinism is the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, the impossibility of apostasy. There is scarcely a denomination on earth but that has one or more of these unscriptural points prominent in its creed. But here is one good thing that I want to say about Calvin. I appreciate his attitude toward the Bible. He and Luther held exactly opposite views regarding the rights and privileges of worship.

Luther said, "My conception of the church and of the worship of God is this: we are allowed to practice anything unless the Bible specifically forbids it." Luther’s question was: Where does God say, "Thou shalt not?" If a thing was not directly and positively prohibited, Luther felt justified in doing it. John Calvin said, "Let us practice nothing unless the Bible specifically authorizes it." His question was: "Where does God demand it?" There is more Calvinism about me in that statement than in anything I ever read from him or about him. The difference tonight between the Church of Christ and many others in this land cannot be better summed up than by the repetition of these words. The attitude that I propose to assume toward the Bible is this: I want to preach nothing, practice nothing, be nothing, do nothing, unless the Bible specifically and directly authorizes it. Some of my good friends have the Lutheran approach to the Word of God. They say, "I propose to practice whatever I please, whatever suits my fancy, provided God does not directly and specifically say, "Thou shalt not." The questions, therefore, of these two are opposite; that is, one asked, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" The other one says, "Lord, what hast thou said that I must not do?" One is a positive attitude; the other is negative. One respects the authority of God; the other takes advantage of his silence. The spirit of Calvinism evidenced itself in France, Germany, England, Holland and Scotland. Strange as it may appear, Calvinism has assumed different names, and unless you become a diligent student, you may think some churches are different in their fundamentals. On the great European continent Calvinism was called the "Church of the Reformed Faith"; in France, Calvinism bore the name of "Huguenots"; in Scotland the very same body was styled "Presbyterian"; in England, they bore the name of "Puritans"; and in Holland the "Dutch Reformed Church." So then, when you speak about the Reformed Faith, when you talk about the Huguenots, and the Dutch Reformed, and the Presbyterians and Puritans, you are talking about bodies practically the same in origin, doctrine, and practice.

More than any other man who had lived since the apostles, Calvin emphasized the sovereignty of God. He magnified Jehovah, and ascribed unto him all power. He made man to recognize his utter dependence, his impotency, and his inability, and therefore stressed the dignity and the supremacy and the sovereignty of God Almighty.

There are ten different branches of Presbyterians mentioned in the religious report of our federal census at Washington. When I say to you that each of these ten branches is a total stranger to the Bible, I but tell you that which you already know.

Friends, are you willing to spend your time, your talent, your money, your influence, your all, in propagating and promulgating a doctrine and all institution regarding which the Bible is as silent as the grave? What will you have to say in that great and awful day? Why turn from that which is plainly put upon the pages of God’s Book, and lend yourself, lend your very best efforts to the fostering and to the building up of that which is purely of human origin? It is because of these facts recorded upon the pages of history, that I do not hesitate to invite you to that church bought by the blood of Christ, and about which you can read in your own Bibles. To you the gospel invitation is again extended. I respect your intelligence and your person, to the extent that I will not ask you to believe one thing, to do one thing, or to practice one thing, not directly found in the Book of God. If that is not safe, sound and sensible, then we have got the wrong book.

I do not want you to come and be Lutherans, or Presbyterians, and, of course, not Catholics. I want you to come and be simply a Christian—a Christian simply. I want you to be born again—born of water and of the Spirit—into the family of God, into that institution heavenborn in its origin. If such be the sentiment of any of you, the invitation is to you gladly tendered, while once again we join in singing the song.