THE RISE, FALL, AND

FINISHING OF THE
REFORMATION
SOLA SCRIPTURE
The Reformation is Born
The Failure to Follow Sola Scripture
The Defeat of Sola Scripture
Will Sola Scripture or Tradition Win?

THE REFORMATION IS BORN
For hundreds of years the Church of Rome had kept the nations of Europe in bondage to her doctrines 
and superstitions. The Little Horn, which Daniel describes as being more stout than the others, which 
spoke great swelling words and made war with God's saints and prevailed against them; the little horn 
that attempted to reach into heaven itself and cast down Christ's daily sanctuary ministry to the ground; 
that little horn had enshrouded Christianity with darkness. 
Like a glorious sunrise after a dismal night, the sixteenth century Reformation ushered in the penetrating 
light of the gospel! God was at work to break the shackles of ignorance and superstition. Men were rising 
up in different lands to present to the people forgiveness and justification with a personal Savior. With 
their very lives they resisted the controlling tyranny of the Roman Religion. 
This Protestant movement received it's greatest momentum from the fearless leadership of Martin Luther. 
Rome was sorely shaken. Whole Protestant nations came into being. Through Luther, God accomplished a 
great work for the reformation of Christianity and the enlightenment of the world. 
The Reformation sprang forth from a three fold discovery:
1. The Rediscovery of Christ and His salvation 
2. The acknowledgment of the Holy Scriptures as the only foundation for religious faith
3. The discovery of the identity of Antichrist and his subversions from the prophesies 
Yet the enemy of all souls was also actively at work to cast his blanket of darkness and hide the light once 
more. Not only was the counter reformation initiated by the Roman Church, but the Protestants 
themselves caused the reformation to flounder and come to a halt through theological and political 
compromises. 
Let's trace the floundering of the Reformation. The column on the left traces the failures of Reformers to 
move forward in scriptural understanding and slide back into Papal traditions. The right side traces the 
Reformers who stood for the Biblical truths and continued to seek for a true restitution of the "faith 
which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3) 

THE FAILURE TO FOLLOW SOLA SCRIPTURE 

MAIN REFORMATION MOVEMENT THE FAITHFUL REFORMATION

SOLA SCRIPTURE SOLA SCRIPTURE
The reformation, pushing aside the  The Bible, not tradition, was the 
traditions and ultimate authority over  watchword. The whole Bible was 
scripture which the Roman Church  regarded as God's holy Word. 
insisted upon, held up the Bible as the  Andreas Karlstadt, contemporary and co­
only foundation for religious faith. If they  reformer with Luther declared: "God's 
had adhered to this principle, the papacy  Word is a fountain out of which the 
would have been completely overthrown.  Divine Spirit flows into the believers...we 
But they stumbled on this issue in a  believe the Biblical books because the 
great and suicidal way and as we will  Holy Spirit spoke them to the church." 
see, it gave the papacy the footholds to  Karlstadt wrote: "I am grieve by the bold 
make a grand, and in the end times,  depreciation of James." 
almost complete comeback.  As to the Revelation, it was the 
The first mistake was in being selective  Anabaptists who, with diligent and 
in scriptural interpretation. Luther chose  prayerful study discovered many truths 
to be selective in his Biblical beliefs. His  of the Advent hope, long suppressed by 
bold depreciation of James is one  all churches. 
example. He also declared that "Moses is  It was the firm adherence to the Bible in 
no concern of ours." And in the  opposition to the traditions of the papacy 
preference to his first edition of the New  which caused these faithful believers to 
Testament he wrote of Revelation, "There  suffer, not only the wrath of the papacy, 
is too much lacking in this book to call it  but also the wrath of the Protestants. Yet 
apostolic or prophetic." This position  if their stand on the Bible had been 
showed up in the complete confusion on  followed the Papacy would never have 
end time events among Protestants and  gained the victories over Protestantism 
opened them up to the deceptions of the  which have been gained. 
Jesuit counter reformation.  LAW AND GRACE
LAW AND GRACE Karlstadt also emphasized the 
The selective interpretation of scripture  importance of justification by faith and 
also led to Luther's tendency to separate  pointed out that good works are never to 
justification from sanctification. Luther  be seen as "merits". But he pointed out 
tended to see the law as merely a tool by  to Luther that throwing out the moral 
which people see their inability to do the  law was contrary to scriptural teaching. 
will of God and therefore, the sinner  He strongly asserted that the moral law 
throws himself on the mercy of God after  was still the divine standard by which 
which the law, not even the ten  the obedience of grace is demonstrated 
commandments, is no longer needed.  in the life. Do we then abolish the law? 
The Christian does good works out of  No! We become "lovers and doers of the 
spontaneous love in obedience to God. law." 
Luther's gospel focused primarily on Karlstadt stressed that "the full gospel of 
justification. Christ" must include not only 
THE EUCHARIST justification by faith but also 
Catholics believe the bread and wine in  sanctification, or a "new supernatural 
the Eucharistic service actually turn into  life," lived in harmony with the 
the body and blood of Christ and the  commandments of God, as the forgiven 
priest created and reenacted the sacrifice  sinner gives himself to Christ in complete 
of Christ. The emblems then became  self­surrender and total commitment. 
filled with mystical power to infuse grace  THE LORD'S SUPPER
for meritorious works into the receiver.  Karlstadt replaced the mass with the 
At first Luther spoke quite strongly  communion service. He again offered the 
against this unbiblical doctrine.  cup with the bread and emphasized that 
Yet he continued the service of mass,  this was a memorial service of Christ's 
simply modifying it somewhat.  death. He officiated without the 
Then, in his zeal to stop the mob action  Eucharistic vestments, wearing a plain 
of the fanatics, he swung right back into  gown. He did not elevate the host and 
Catholism by turning back the reform in  made no reference to this being a 
this area; restoring the Latin mass with  reenacted sacrifice. It was Karlstadt who 
its elevation of the host, condemned  reintroduced the Lord's Supper as Jesus 
giving the emblems into the hands of the  gave it to His disciples. 
participants, and reinforced the rules of  (Note: Karlstadt and his followers were 
fasting before Communion!  totally against violent measures to 
BAPTISM implement changes. They refused to 
The spiritual significance of baptism  participate in the peasant's revolt, etc. 
seems to have totally escaped many of  Yet, as we will see, they were constantly 
the reformers. The concept of the carnal  lumped with, and condemned, with the 
nature dying with Christ and the person  people who sought reform by violence, 
being raised to newness of life in Christ  rather than the Spirit of God. This was 
was not seen. Luther continued to  just another of the enemies tactics to 
baptize babies on the basis of their  cause the reformation to flounder and 
"sleeping faith".  maintain as much of the false doctrines 
This is one of the reformers blackest  as possible) 
marks! On April 23, 1529 the Catholic  BAPTISM
and Protestant Princes gathered at the  Karlstadt saw baptism, not as a ticket to 
second Diet of Speyer and one of their  heaven, but as a public confession of 
decrees was: "every Anabaptist and  commitment to Christ, and an 
rebapitized man and woman of the age of  acknowledgment that the old way of life 
reason shall be condemned and brought  was forsaken and a new way entered 
from natural life into death by fire,  upon. "He who wants to receive baptism 
sword, and the like, according to the  properly...must repent, forsake the old 
person, without proceeding by the  life, and take up a new life," he wrote. 
inquisition of the spiritual judges."  This is sola scripture! Infant baptism 
Speaking for Luther and himself,  came from Catholic tradition not Biblical 
Melanchthon, making no distinction  authority. "Repent, and be baptized." 
between the quiet reformers who believed  (Acts 2:38) the Bible says.
in baptism and the radicals who had  "Know you not, that as you are baptized 
used mob action (peasant's revolt)to war  into Jesus Christ you are baptized into 
against papal oppression, wrote  his death? Therefore we are buried with 
(February, 1530) "The government is  him by baptism into death; that like as 
under obligation to kill them:" A year  Christ was raised up from the dead, even 
later, Luther himself wrote: "I  so we also should walk in newness of 
approve, ...although it is terrible to view."  life!" (Romans 6:3­6)
Here we have a classic example where  Jesus set the example by being baptized 
the lawless deeds of some is used to  by John in the river Jordan. 
persecute the true, honest believers in  These reformers instituted the dedication 
Biblical truth. And the mainline  of children after the example of Jesus. 
Reformers sided with the Papal position.  This service was begun by Hubmaier in 
Proper procedure would have been to  Switzerland. The ordinance of foot 
punish those individuals who instigated  washing was also rediscovered by several 
the violence, but instead they condemned  of them. 
truth and persecuted those who followed  Interestingly, the mainline reformers 
it.  renounced their belief on baptism, not 
Luckily not all Protestant princes  with the Bible, for they had no basis for 
followed the decree. Prince Philip of  that, but because of "disruption to the 
Hesse, when urged to do so, said, "We  state." For the honest Christian, to be 
cannot find it in our conscience to judge  baptized into Christ was a solemn 
someone with the sword for his faith,  decision indeed, not to be taken lightly, 
where we have no other adequate  for many were forced to seal their 
evidence of an uprising." decision with their lives. 
STATE OF THE DEAD STATE OF THE DEAD
The Catholic Church teaches the  The doctrine of the "sleep" of the dead 
immortality of the soul, complete with  was taken up strongly by these reformers 
the soul going to hell, purgatory and  who based their belief on a thorough 
heaven. In his early years Luther  knowledge of the subject from the 
frequently referred to the "sleep" of the  scriptures. 
dead. He asserted that the immortality of  THE SABBATH
the soul was only a papal doctrine to  Karlstadt saw the moral law as the 
"make it possible for them to hold fast to  continuing standard of the Christian life, 
human dreams and doctrines of devils."  but at first he excluded the Sabbath 
However, as the doctrine of the sleep of  command. As he continued to study, he 
the dead was accepted by the " whole  realized that God did not place the 
Bible only" reformers, who also believed  command in the middle of the Decalogue 
in baptism, etc., Luther began to say less  by mistake. So he began to advocate 
and less about it. It was never included  Sabbath keeping. But he did not 
in his catechism or in his confession of  associate it with the 7th day. 
faith.  Luther condemned the whole idea as 
After Luther's death the truth on the  legalism but pointed out that to be 
state of the dead continued to be  consistent, Karlstadt would have to keep 
suppressed and the papal traditions  Saturday. Some of Karlstadt's followers 
upheld. took Luther's words seriously and 
THE SABBATH searched the scriptures to see if these 
Luther opposed the Sabbath, calling it  things were so. 
legalistic. He failed to see the spiritual  Oswald Glait, about 1529, became the 
value of the full truth in the Biblical  first to point out that the true Sabbath 
 Sabbath. He was however perceptive  was the "seventh" day. Glait pointed out 
enough to point out that Sunday was not  that the moral law of the Decalogue was 
the Biblical Sabbath, Saturday was.  as binding on Christians under the new 
A Protestant leader named Schwenckfeld,  covenant as it had been in the Old. 
was quite impressed with Gait's thorough  "Either the Sabbath must be kept," he 
Biblical research on the Sabbath, but  argued, "or all the other nine 
countered it by spiritualizing away  commandments must also be rejected." 
Sabbath. He wrote the Biblical  He maintained that the ceremonial law 
admonitions should not be taken literal  was the shadow that passed away, but 
but all one does is "resting from sin is  God's moral law stands firm. "Sunday," 
the true spiritual Sabbath." To which the  he said, "is the pope's invention," and the 
Sabbath believers responded that he had  abrogation of the Sabbath is none other 
an "extreme mystic holy day theory."  than "the devil's work." 
Luther, on hearing of the Sabbath  Oswald Glait can be classified as the first 
keeping churches springing up, declared.  Seventh­day Adventist, for his arguments 
"A foolish group of people who call  on the Sabbath sound surprisingly like 
themselves Sabbatarians."  those of any Seventh­day Adventist. And 
By 1529 reports of people being martyred  he also believed in the coming of Christ 
in reference to Sabbath keeping begin to  before the 1000 year millennium. 
show up. In France, Barabara of Thiers  Others took up the message and 
was executed because "God commanded  Sabbath keeping churches sprung up in 
us to rest on the seventh day."  Moravia, Bohemia and spread to other 
So once again, Biblical truth was  European countries. The Seventh­day 
uncovered but suppressed while the  Baptists are direct descendants of this 
Papal tradition was maintained in it's  movement. 
place.

THE DEFEAT OF SOLA SCRIPTURE
The big showdown came at the Council of Trent in 1562. Would Sola Scripture become the authority of 
the Christian community, or would Catholic Tradition be the final authority. In the Council of Trent the 
Protestant position of Sola Scripture was defeated and the Catholic Tradition upheld BECAUSE THE 
PROTESTANTS THEMSELVES WERE UPHOLDING IT. 
"The Bible and the Bible only," were the watchwords of the Protestants. 
"The Bible as interpreted by the Church and according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers," this was 
the position and claim of the Catholic Church. 
Back and forth the arguments flowed. There were strong advocates for the Bible only, even among 
Catholics within the council. The Papal authorities became very worried as the debate continued day after 
day. 
Then on January 18, 1562 Archbishop Reggio came with an argument that completely took the wind out 
of the sails of the Protestants and won the battle for tradition over the Bible. 
"The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as 
the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the church has apostatized from the 
written word of God and follows tradition. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard 
of faith, IS FALSE. Proof: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the 
Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold to Scripture alone as 
their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet 
they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath, but they have adopted and do practice the observance 
of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of :Scripture 
alone as the standard,' fails; and the doctrine of ‘Scripture and tradition' as essential, is fully established, 
the Protestants themselves being the judges." 
The Protestants had no answer. They themselves had admitted that Sunday was a child of the Papacy, yet 
they were worshiping upon it, rather than upon the Sabbath day.
See note 
The Catholic scholars were elated, the advocates for "Scripture alone," surrendered, and the council at 
once unanimously condemned Protestantism and the whole Reformation as only an unwarranted revolt 
from the communion and authority of the Catholic Church, and proceeded to other matters. 
IN THE FINAL SHOWDOWN, WILL SOLA SCRIPTURE OR TRADITION WIN?
Thus it will be in the latter days. The study of history shows men arising with a message. Luther began 
strong, but drew back retreating back into Papal traditions, condemning those who moved on. Zwingly 
went further than Luther, but retreated on the issue of Baptism and the Sabbath, staying with Papal 
traditions and also condemning those who moved on. And so it went. The Baptists pressed on further, 
suffering extreme persecution for their Biblical beliefs, yet they too are rapidly retreating back into Papal 
traditions, and now even join in condemning people who advance to positions they once held. Seventh­
day Adventism took up the torch and bravely carried the scriptural truths spreading them throughout the 
world, but they too are being pulled down. Attacked left and right to give up the plain Biblical truths and 
retreat to mystical traditions. 
The counter Reformation has almost completely undone the Protestant Reformation. 
By accepting the traditions of the Catholic Church — of which Sunday is held forth as her mark of 
authority over God's law and her power to interpret scripture — Protestantism seals her doom and will be 
conquered and absorbed into the control of the Papacy. Just as Revelation predicted. 
The Sabbath will be the final test, because it will be on this commandment that apostate religion will 
enforce the traditions of man upon the nations, while disregarding the the plain commandment of God, 
revealed in His Word. 
"In vain they worship Me", Christ said, "teaching for doctrines the traditions of men." (Matt. 15:9)
"Come out of her my people!" (Rev. 18:4) 
"Here is the patience of the saints, here are they that keep the commandments of God and have the faith 
of Jesus." (Rev. 14:12) 
NOTE: 
1443. Sabbath, Change of, Cited as Proof That Tradition Is Above Scripture 
Source: Gaspare [Ricciulli] de Fosso (Archbishop of Reggio), Address in the 17th session of the Council of  
Trent, Jan. 18, 1562, in Mansi SC, Vol. 33, cols. 529, 530. Latin. [ Gian Domenico Mansi, ''Sacrorum  
Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio"] 
[col. 529] Such is the condition of the heretics of this age that on nothing do they rely more than 
that, under the pretense of the word of God, they overthrow the authority of the church; as though 
the church, His body, could be opposed to the word of Christ, or the head to the body. On the 
contrary, the authority of the church, then, is illustrated most clearly by the Scriptures; for while 
on the one hand she recommends them, declares them to be divine, [col. 530] offers them to us to 
be read, in doubtful matters explains them faithfully, and condemns whatever is contrary to them; 
on the other hand, the legal precepts in the Scriptures taught by the Lord have ceased by virtue of 
the same authority. The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been changed into the 
Lord’s day. Circumcision, enjoined upon Abraham and his seed under such threatening that he who 
had not been circumcised would be destroyed from among his people, has been so abrogated that 
the apostle asserts: "If ye be circumcised, ye have fallen from grace, and Christ shall profit you 
nothing." These and other similar matters have not ceased by virtue of Christ’s teaching (for He 
says He has come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it), but they have been changed by the authority 
 of the church. Indeed, if she should be removed (since there must be heresies), who would set forth 
truth, and confound the obstinacy of heretics? All things will be confused, and soon heresies 
condemned by her authority will spring up again. [See No. 1444.] 
1444. Sabbath, Change of—Cited in Council of Trent as Proof that Tradition Is Above Scripture 
Source: Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Kanon und Tradition ("Canon and Tradition") (Ludwigsburg: Druck  
and Verlag von Ferd. Riehm, 1859), p. 263. German. [FRS No. 72.] [Facsimile (in the original German)  
below.] 
The Council [of Trent] agreed fully with Ambrosius Pelargus, that under no condition should the 
Protestants be allowed to triumph by saying that the council had condemned the doctrine of the 
ancient church. But this practice caused untold difficulty without being able to guarantee 
certainty. For this business, indeed, ‘well­nigh divine prudence’ was requisite—which the Spanish 
ambassador acknowledged as belonging to the council on the sixteenth of March, 1562. Indeed, 
thus far they had not been able to orient themselves to the interchanging, crisscrossing, 
labyrinthine, twisting passages of an older and newer concept of tradition. But even in this they 
were to succeed. Finally, at the last opening [see editors’ note] on the eighteenth of January, 1562, 
all hesitation was set aside: [Gaspar de Fosso] the Archbishop of Reggio made a speech [see No. 
1443] in which he openly declared that tradition stood above Scripture. The authority of the 
church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the church had 
changed circumcision into baptism, Sabbath into Sunday, not by the command of Christ, but by its 
own authority. With this, to be sure, the last illusion was destroyed, and it was declared that 
tradition does not signify antiquity, but continual inspiration. 
[Editors’ note: This "last opening" of the Council of Trent was not the last day, but the opening of the 
17th session, the first meeting of the last series of sessions that was opened, after a lapse of time, under a 
new pope. The council was in session for longer or shorter periods over a series of years.] Source: Neufeld, 
Don F., Seventh­day Adventist Bible Student’s Source Book, Don F. Neufeld and Julia Neuffer.—
Washington, D.C., Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1962, pgs. 887­888 Note's source at "Bible 
Light" 
Reference Books:
W.L.Emmerson: The Reformation and the Advent Movement
Harold Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500­­­1650
LeRoy Froom: The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers
B.G. Wilkinson: Truth Triumphant:The Church in the Wilderness
Romes' Challenge: Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday? Catholic Mirror
J.N. Andrews: History of the Sabbath 
 
Return to Home Page
More On Martin Luther
The Counter Reformation and it's Deadly Work. 
 
 

> 

THE COUNTER REFORMATION
AntiChrist? Who could that be?
 
 A Remarkable Come Back 
The Jesuits' Counter Interpretations 
The Jesuit Ribera's Futurist Counter Interpretations 
The Jesuit Bellarmine's Counter Interpretations 
The Jesuit Alcasar's Preterist Counter Interpretations 
The Protestant Interpretation Revisited 
Why were the Jesuits so Successful?
The Implications Resulting from Their Success 
 

A REMARKABLE COME BACK"

With strength and power the Religious Reformation swept across Europe. Dynamic
men, fearlessly opposed the strong grip of Roman Catholic Power upon the lives and
conscience of the people.
To the casual observer in the mid 1500's, it must have seemed as though Roman
Catholicism would succumb to Protestantism. However that did not happen. The
Roman Catholic Church staged a remarkable come back called the Counter-
Reformation, by which they not only regained much that had been lost, and greatly
suppressed the reformation, but also laid the foundation for the conquest of the world
which we now see in action. A conquest described by Catholic Writer and eminent
theologian, Malachi Martin in "Keys to this Blood" where he "reveals Pope John Paul's
own blueprint for a genuinely geopolitical structure: a one-world government that is
both viable and humanly acceptable." (Flyleaf, then going on to page 480)
"From the beginning of his pontification, John Paul has been talking incessantly about
the convergence of the nations. He had the end game in view some ten years before
other men faced into it;. . .He would endow his papacy with an international profile
and, as Pope, move around among world leaders and nations, vindicating a position
for himself as a special leader among leaders, because in that competition he plans to
emerge as the victor."
The Pope is acknowledged, in Mikhail Gorbachev's words, "as the most eminent moral
authority in our world today."
What happened to the Reformation, where men like Luther, Calvin, Knox and all the
other Protestant Reformers unanimously declared that the papacy was the prophecied
antiChrist?
Luther wrote: "Here in Daniel 11:36, the pope is clearly pictured, who in all his decrees
shouts impudently that all the churches and thrones will be judged by him, but he
cannot be judged by anyone... Here, in Daniel 11:37, we have a description of the
Antichrist. . . the Antichrist, that is the pope, will not have God nor a legitimate wife
and that means that the Antichrist will despise laws and regulations,. . . in heaven and
on earth and accept only his own law. . . .believe me, the pope is the antichrist."
Tomas Cranmer (who, combining the prophecies of Dan. 7 and 2 Thess.2, wrote) :
"After all these sprung up the pope, that triple-crowned monster, and great antichrist,
which took upon him authority, not only over the clergy, but also climbed above kings
and emperors, deposing them at his pleasure, and settled himself in the temple of god,
that is, in the consciences of men, extolling himself above God, dispensing with good
laws, and giving men leave to break them and to regard more his decrees than the
everlasting commandments of God."
Cranmer was burned at the stake for his testimony against the prophesied papal
Antichrist, just as were Hooper, Ridley, Latimer, Bradford and many others.
What happened to these deep convictions that caused men to risk their very lives to
offer the world truth?
1. The Bible, and the Bible only they cried.
2. The Papacy is the Anti-Christ revealed in Prophecy.
3. Righteousness comes by Faith in Christ.
These were the main issues that fueled the reformation. The Bible was given back into
the hands of the people! They were taught that it was at once their duty and their right
to examine it, to judge for themselves as to what it contained, and to act upon their
convictions on what God required. The conscience was set free from the tyranny of
Rome to follow the Word of God.
We already touched on how the Papacy can claim the victory of tradition over the
Bible in "Reformation Part One". In this article we will deal mainly with the Reformers
recognition of the Papacy as the Anti-Christ and the counter interpretations of the
counter Reformation .
The Reformers were by no means united on all points of doctrine, but one thing they
were unanimous on, and that was applying most of the prophecies of Anti-christ to the
Papacy. It was this clear understanding of the prophetic symbols that gave them such
extraordinary courage and effectiveness to protest against Rome and to resist her
tyranny, even if it meant death to themselves. The prophecies of Daniel, John and Paul
were applied to the Papacy with tremendous effect.
In order to off set this incriminating scriptural evidence, Rome realized something,
besides killing the messengers, must be done if she was to regain her power. The
Bible had, dispite her efforts, gone out to the people so now she must come up with a
plausible sounding counter interpretation to get the focus of the prophecies away
from her, for as long as she was recognized as the anti- christ power of the last days
people would resist her with their very lives. Prophecy must be reinterpreted!
THE JESUIT'S COUNTER INTERPRETATIONS
"The Society of Jesus was established by the papacy in 1540 as a very special
‘fighting unit' at the total and exclusive disposal of the Roman Pope. From their
beginnings, the Jesuits were conceived in a military mode. Soldiers of Christ, they
were given only two purposes: to propagate the religious doctrine and the moral law
of the Roman Catholic Church as proposed and taught by the Roman Pope." (The
Jesuits, page 41, Malachi Martin)
 Their first job was to counter the Reformation. They must, by plausible exposition of
Scripture break the unbroken harmony of the reformers positions.
Interestingly enough, they came up with two alternatives that were actually conflicting
and contradicting each other, yet the Catholic Church sanctioned both! So much for
truth! What they did achieve was to push the prophecies away from the papacy.
Through the Jesuits Ribera, of Spain and Bellarmine, of Rome came the Futurist
interpretation. This interpretation leaps over the immense era of papal dominance, and
crowds the antichrist prophecies into the far distant future.
THE JESUIT RIBERA'S FUTURIST COUNTER INTERPRETATIONS
Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) " assigned the first few chapters of the
Apocalypse to ancient Rome, in John's own time; the rest he restricted to a literal
three and a half years' reign of an infidel Antichrist, who would bitterly oppose and
blaspheme the saints just before the second advent. He taught that Antichrist would
be a single individual, who would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, abolish the
Christian religion, deny Christ, be received by the Jews, pretend to be God, and
conquer the world--all in this brief space of three and one-half literal years!" (Prophetic
Faith Vol.2 p. 490)
Here we see that Ribera "laid the foundation for the great structure of Futurism...and
then, wonder of wonders, in the nineteenth century this Jesuit scheme of
interpretation came to be adopted by a growing number of Protestants, until today
Futurism, amplified and adorned with the rapture theory, has become the generally
accepted belief of the Fundamentalist wing of popular Protestantism!" (Prophetic Faith
Vol. 2 p. 493) How could Protestantism forsake it's main foundation of prophetic
interpretation and adopt a Jesuit counterfeit? How did this happen?
THE JESUIT BELLARMINE'S COUNTER INTERPRETATIONS
There was also (Saint) Robert Bellarmine, Jesuit, cardinal and theologian who, as an
outstanding controversialist opposing the Protestant doctrines of the Reformation,
was regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as one of its most powerful defenders.
He entered the Society of Jesus in 1560....He was a lecturer at the new Jesuit College
in Rome.
Between 1576 and 1589, in addition to his teaching Bellarmine lectured to large
audiences. He insisted that the prophecies concerning Antichrist in Daniel, Paul and
John, had no application to the papal power. This formed the third part of his
"Disputations de Controversiis Christianae Fidei Adversus Huius Temporis
Haereticos" published between 1581-1593.
Bellarmine's assault on the Protestant interpretations of prophecy was centered upon
the year-day principle which stood at the base of the historic interpretation of
prophecy and had risen to general notice and wide acceptance among both Catholics
and Protestants. He went out of his way to do this.
Determined to nullify the day = year prophetic principle, used by Protestants as the
basis of the 1260 year period of Antichrist's tyranny, he sought to deprive this symbol
 of its Scriptural support. He came up with the argument that Ezekiel 4 was in reverse,
that is saying a year = a day, when in actuality Ezekiel's acted out prophecy was in
days and symbolized years.
Ballarmine was very methodical as he dissected the Protestant position, his works fill
nine ponderous folio tomes, attacking the standard prophecies pertaining to
Antichrist.
Ballarmine capitalized on Luther's weakness. Luther had declared the Bible as the
source for truth, yet Luther was selective in what he considered inspired in the Bible.
Luther rejected the book of Revelation. "There is too much lacking in this book to call
it apostolic or prophetic," he had written in the preference to his first edition of the
new Testament. Zwingli made the same mistake in interpreting prophecy. He too
refused to recognize the Revelation as apostolic. Now the Jesuit Ballarmine posed
himself as the defender of the Bible against the Reformers who, he declared had
rejected it. He then shaped the Revelation to fit the futurist view, thereby by- passing
the whole Christian era and the real antichrist.
Actually Ballarmine assigned the apocalyptic symbols to the distant past and the
distant future. Antichrist, according to him, had not yet come, for he would abolish the
daily sacrifice— or the Eucharist (daily mass) and would reign for three and a half
literal years.
Bellarmine maintained that the little horn of Daniel 7 as well as the end power in Daniel
11 was a single king--who like Antiochus— would take away three kings and subdue
seven other to himself, who, he contends, would therefore be one man only, and not a
kingdom. Antiochus was a figure or symbol of the Antichrist of the last days.
THE JESUIT ALCASAR'S PRETERIST COUNTER INTERPRETATIONS
On the flip side of the Counter Reformation was another Jesuit. Jesuit Luis De Alcazar,
or Alcasar (1554-1613) of Seville Spain.
Alcasar advanced the Preterist interpretation. He made all prophecy stop short of the
papal domination. He maintained that the apocalypse describes the war of the church
in the early centuries. Partly between the Jews and their adversaries and then the
Church and paganism. Revelation 1-11 he applied to the rejection of the Jews and the
desolation of Jerusalem by the Romans. Revelation 12-19 Alcazar allotted to the
overthrow of Roman paganism and the conversion of the empire to the church, the
judgment of the great Harlot being effected by the downfall of pagan idolatry.
Revelation 20 he applied to the final persecution by Antichrist and chapters 21
referring to the New Jerusalem he made descriptive of the glorious and endless
triumphant state of the Roman church. ( See Prophetic Faith vol 2 p. 507)
The three Jesuits who worked most effectively to overthrow the Protestant
understanding of prophecy, and whose theories are now (in modified forms) almost
universally accepted are:
 Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) From Italy.
Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) of Salamanca Spain
Jesuit Luis De Alcazar, or Alcasar (1554-1613) of Seville Spain.
THE PROTESTANT INTERPRETATION REVISITED
Let's look again at the Protestant interpretation which was based on the historic
method.
The Protestant John Knox in Scotland: (1505-1572) believed:
1. That "the papal religion is but an abomination before God" and to "flee out of
Babylon, that you perish not with her." (Friedrich Brandes, John Knox, der Reformator
Schottlands p. 191)
2. "Knox took the text written in Daniel, the seventh chapter, beginning thus: And
another King shall rise unlike unto the first. . . ".
He identified the creatures as Babylonian, Persia, Greeks, and the fourth of the
Romans; which he affirmed to be the Roman Church; for to none other power that ever
hath yet been, do all the notes that God hath showed to the Prophet appertain, except
to it alone;
3. Knox next showed that Daniel's "little horn" was identical with Paul's "man of sin"
and John's "Whore of Babylon" as one single Antichrist
4. Every prophetic day is a year— every common prophetical day is taken for a year. A
prophetic week is a "week of years," and a Jewish or Greek common year is a year of
"360" days". He quotes Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:5,6 and cites the seventy weeks
as evidence of fulfillment, "In the seventy weeks of Daniel, a day to be taken for a year,
extending in the whole to 490 years; otherwise, that prophecy of the Messiah's
coming, would not fall upon the just time of Christ's coming, as necessarily it ought to
doe.. . . .
The point is clear, these concepts did not originate with ADVENTISM. Adventism is
sticking to Protestantism while the rest of Christendom is following Jesuit
interpretations. We also see the sure result of this shift in Prophetic understanding of
the apocalypse. Protestants are playing into the hands of Rome, by helping to screen
the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist. The ecumenical movement which is at
work to unite all Christendom under the "shepherding" influence of Rome is sweeping
the world. The Pope's dream and plan "of his own universal Roman Church— a
winner-take all race against time to establish, maintain, and control the first one-world
government that has ever existed on the face of the earth" (Keys of Blood, flyleaf) is in
the process of being set up. For Revelation tells us that "all that dwell upon the earth
shall worship him, all except those whose names are written in the book life", will
worship the beast that was wounded to death (officially by Napoleon's stripping the
Vatican of political power in 1798) but it's deadly wound was healed and all the world
wonders after him. (Rev. 13:3,8)
WHY WERE THE JESUIT'S SO SUCCESSFUL?
 Yet how did this complete reversal of prophetic interpretation permeate the Protestant
world?
It did not happen overnight! Nor did it happen during the lifetimes of the Jesuits who
first promoted the new interpretations. It happened by promoting diversity of opinions
and then moving in to divide and conquer! Had the Protestants remained firm and
united on their historic interpretative stand, the counter reformation could never have
succeeded in implanting these new interpretations into all of Christendom. Many
reformers rose and refuted the futurist and preterist positions, but others bought into
them.
Here is one example. Protestant statesman and theologian, Hugo Grotius, had a Jesuit
friend, named Petavius. Grotius said he wanted peace between Catholics and
Protestants and he used his diplomacy to achieve this end. To do this he studied
Jesuit Alcazar's Preterist interpretation, and wrote his own anti-Protestant
commentary on the Antichrist (1620) He bought into the Jesuit counter interpretation
so strongly that he believed the pope was not mentioned in any of the prophecies.
Other Protestants were shocked at his writings and wrote to refute him, yet his works
marked the beginning of others following his lead.
Thus the work of infiltrating and planting the counter interpretive ideas and then
watching the Protestants themselves undoing the Reformation slowly gained control.
"The Jesuits carried the battle right into the territories of their papal enemies. They
waged public controversies with kings, they debated in Protestant universities, they
preached at crossroads and in marketplaces. They addressed municipal councils, they
instructed Church Councils. They INFILTRATED hostile territories in disguise, and
moved around underground. They were everywhere, showering their contemporaries
with brilliance, with wit, with acerbity, with learning, with piety. Their constant theme:
The Bishop of Rome is successor to Peter the Apostle. . .any other church institution
is rank heresy. . .they had a monopoly in the education of Europe for over two hundred
years, and numbered the famous and infamous. . .they were giants with but one
purpose: the defense and propagation of papal authority and papal teaching." (The
Jesuits, p.28- 29)
IMPLICATIONS WHICH RESULT FROM THEIR SUCCESS
They were so successful in deleting the evidence that the Papacy is antichrist that
now we see the Lutherans and Catholics embracing one another as fellow Christians,
articulating a "common understanding of justification" agreeing that their Joint
Declaration "encompasses a consensus in the basic truths, claiming that the "differing
explications" are compatible with the joint Declaration and thus no longer the
occasion for doctrinal condemnations, and to look past historic differences in the
name of Christian unity. (Christianity Today, Jan. 10,2000 pp.63-65)
Protestants are willing to clasp the hands of Catholism even though THEY KNOW they
have great differences in doctrines (purgatory, penance, purgatory, images, Mary,)
 THEY KNOW that "Roman Catholics have not now adopted the Lutheran Position"
THEY KNOW that the pope will never give up his stand on papal supremacy.
(Time, Dec.16,1991 p.53 the Holy See officially declares it's position, insisting that a
reunited church must be built upon a papacy that is a God-given, "permanent"
institution with "universal" jurisdiction, "directly founded" by Jesus Christ And the
Pope has personal power to teach infallibly on faith and morals.)
They know all this, yet they sign joint declarations? How can this be?
The success of the counter Reformation has infiltrated all of Christendom. The idea
that the Papacy is antichrist will soon have the same penalties as it did in the 16th
century when people stood against the demands of the Papacy at the peril of their own
lives.
Protestants are joining with and patronizing the papacy. They have made
compromises and concessions.
They bow to the accusation that:
"It is all too easy for Protesants, who have shattered the church into thousands of
pieces, to speak blithely of spiritual unity and continue along a schismatic way.
(Christianity Today)
They never realize that from the beginning the Jesuits tactics were to divide them and
then move in to conquer them for the Catholic Church.
People are closing their eyes to the real character of Romanism and the dangers
realized when she gains again her supremacy. The people need to be aroused to resist
the advances of this most dangerous foe to civil and religious liberty.
"The Roman Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies
her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christlike garments; but she
is unchanged." (GC) This is not to say that many sincere Catholics do not truly love
the Lord. No, this is not about individuals, this is about a system. The system will
restore and supercede all her cruelties to enforce her dogmas.
Why are there dungeons and torture chambers in the basements of her churches. Why
has the office of the inquisition been reactivated?
"Every principle of the papacy that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines
devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. The papacy
that Protestants are now so ready to honor is the same that ruled the world in the days
of the Reformation, when men of God stood up, at the peril of their lives, to expose her
iniquity. She possesses the same pride and arrogant assumption that lorded it over
kings and princes, and claimed the prerogatives of God. Her spirit is no less cruel and
despotic now than when she crushed out human liberty and slew the saints of the
Most High. The papacy is just what prophecy declared that she would be, the apostasy
of the latter times. 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4. ( GC)

References:
Froom, LeRoy The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers Vol. 2
 Martin, Malachi, Keys of This Blood also The Jesuits
Grimm, Harold The Reformation Era
Emmerson, W.L. The Reformation and the Advent Movement
Encyclopedia Britannica
Time Magazine, Dec. 16, 1991
Christianity Today, January 10, 2000

Go to: The Reformation, Part One

Return to Home page

THE AUTHORITY OF LUTHER

A Bit of History
The Reformation and Fanaticism
What Did He Write Concerning Obedience?
Was Luther the Final Authority?
Upon the forums dealing with Adventism one finds many references to Luther. Most of
the time references are pulled from his writings to try to prove to Adventists that their
belief that God's holy law is still binding is against the Protestant Reformation. Are
Adventists against the Protestant Reformation? No, they uphold the Protest of the
Reformation, while the rest of the world is gravitating back into the arms of Rome.
Luther was only a man. Yes, God used him mightily to free Christianity from the
Roman oppressive power. The Reformation that gained strength to sweep away the
superstitions and darkness of popery into the light of a purer faith based upon the
scriptures was, in a large measure, due to the courage and determination of this man.
But Luther was neither a prophet nor a saint. He wrote some things that are wrong and
his writings should not be considered infallible inspired.
Personally I believe Luther would be totally upset if he saw and read how his works
are now being used. His fight was against the Papacy whom he considered antichrist
-- now his works are used to level the walls that separate people from the papacy! He
would be belligerently angry if he saw what was happening today!

A BIT OF HISTORY
 For interest sake, here is some history.
(With a great deal of help from "The Reformation Era" by
Harold Grimm)
January 3, 1521 four years after the outbreak of the
indulgence controversy during which Luther hammered
his thesis on the cathedral door, the Pope issued the
actual excommunication bull "Decet pontificem
romanum" against Luther.
If the pope believed that he could silence Luther without
giving him a hearing he was greatly mistaken. The many
people who had come to look upon the Wittenberg
reformer as their spokesman in political, economic, and
social, as well as religious, matters would not meekly
accept the condemnation of Luther solely on papal
authority.
In all the excitement which followed, Luther remained belligerent, and self-confident,
for he was certain that the growing support coming to him from all sides was an
evidence of God's will that he should continue the struggle against the pope. He
considered the pope the Antichrist of the Apocalypse who ruled a church which had
become "the most lawless den of robbers, the most shameless of all brothels, the very
kingdom of sin, death, and hell."
Luther publicly announced his reaction to the papal attack, especially to the public
burning of his books at Cologne, Mainz, and Louvain, by having a public burning of
his own. Just outside the eastern gate a big bonfire was started, into which Luther
ceremoniously threw a number of books which supported the authority of the papacy
and the Catholic hierarchy. Finally consigning the Pope's bull against him to the
flames as well.
Meanwhile, exasperated by the arguments which the supporters of the papacy had
advanced on behalf of papal absolutism and informed of the fact that Leo X was taking
steps officially to condemn his doctrines, Luther published his three significant
pamphlets of 1520. These served to arouse the German people to a defiant stand
against the papacy. These pamphlets no longer reflected the spirit of a humble monk
seeking enlightenment on doctrinal matters, but of a bold leader of the people
demanding a revolutionary break with Rome.
The first "Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation" was primarily
concerned with ecclesiastical politics. Luther called upon the Germans to reform the
church and all society. After summarizing the many evils recognized by most of his
contemporaries, Luther demanded in strong and uncomprising terms that the German
rulers radically reform the papacy and the entire ecclesiastical hierarchy, whose
inviolate character he denied. The Pope, was not the sole interpreter of Scriptures and
had no legal or divine authority in secular matters, Luther wrote.
 Therefore the government should not only put an end to such evils as the financial
exploitation of the German people and the trafficking in religious matters, but deprive
the pope of all political rights. He also favored the repression of the mendicant orders
because of their interference with Christian liberty. He fought against the laws of
enforced celibacy of the clergy and for the abolition of punishment for heresy.
The second of the revolutionary pamphlets, which Luther called "The Babylonian
Captivity of the Church" was largely theological in nature. In it he summarized his new
theology on justification by faith alone, particularly with respect to the sacraments. He
condemned the papacy for holding the church in captivity by distorting the original
meaning and purpose of the sacraments and reserving for the clerical hierarchy the
rights which belonged to all Christians as members of the universal priesthood of
believers, in short, fighting for the right for every Christian to approach God directly
and personally through faith. He attacked the doctrine of transubstantiation as taught
by the Catholics, and looked upon the Lord's supper as a visible memorial signifying
God's forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ.
Luther made his sharpest attack upon penance. He stated that the tyranny consisted
of distorting the simple Biblical teachings of contrition, confession, and satisfaction.
The popes had made a merit of contrition, had made confession a monopoly of the
clergy, and had hindered the regeneration of man by burdening satisfaction with all
sorts of meritorious works, even granting absolution before demanding satisfaction.
Yes, Luther made very important and great changes in the thinking of the Christian
world.
THE REFORMATION AND FANATICISM
But then something happened. Fanaticism took hold of some of his followers. They
became violent. "To them the Holy Scriptures were but a dead letter, and they all
began to cry, ‘The Spirit! The Spirit!" One leader of the fanatics, a Thomas Munzer,
declared, "He who possesses this spirit, possesses the true faith, although he should
never see the Scriptures in his life."
And oh, how often we hear the same cry today— Upon one forum someone told me
just recently that he no longer really needs the Bible (except to read the historical
facts of the great Christ event in history) but as to his daily life the Spirit is leading
him. The whole scheme of getting rid of the binding nature of not only the decalogue
but even the bible! The downplaying of God's standards in the name of the Holy Spirit!
Luther did not do away with the Bible-- He gave the Bible to the common people, and
gave people the right to read it and find God's will for themselves.
However, the authorities began to accuse Luther of insurrection. This is always the
work of the great adversary the devil, to stir up mischief and then blame it on God's
followers. Luther moved to stop the fanaticism. Not only were the people throwing off
the authority of the Papacy but also the authority of God and of law abiding citizens.
Is this where we are now heading. Are people now using Luther's writings, but
throwing out the written commands of God's Word, and telling us that the Spirit is all
 they need! Are they now moving to rid us of all rules and laws? Has the fanatical
element again taken hold?
Luther did move to counter act. His counter action helped save the reformation from
disgrace. However Luther also made mistakes, his strong stand against fanaticism
and violence was heroic and necessary, but then he also began to back pedal on many
of his positions. His colleague, Karlstadt, was totally against the violent sectors and
totally for the Bible as the source of truth, he was advocating reform in a decent
orderly fashion, yet Luther also turned against him.
For example: Catholics believe the bread and wine in the Eucharistic service actually
turn into the body and blood of Christ and the priest created and reenacted the
sacrifice of Christ. The emblems then became filled with mystical power to infuse
grace for meritorious works into the receiver.
At first Luther spoke very strongly against this unbiblical doctrine. He encouraged the
move to a more "Communion style" ordinance. Then, in his zeal to stop the mob
action of the fanatics, he swung right back into Catholism by turning back the reform
in this area; restoring the Latin mass with its elevation of the host, though modifying
the words, he condemned giving the emblems into the hands of the participants, and
reinforced the rules of fasting before Communion!
Karlstadt replaced the mass with the communion service. He again offered the cup
with the bread and emphasized that this was a memorial service of Christ's death. He
officiated without the Eucharistic vestments, wearing a plain gown. He did not elevate
the host and made no reference to this being a reenacted sacrifice. It was Karlstadt
who reintroduced the Lord's Supper as Jesus gave it to His disciples.
(Note: Karlstadt and his followers were totally against violent measures to implement
changes. They refused to participate in the peasant's revolt, etc. Yet, (see Reformation
part one), they were constantly lumped with, and condemned, with the people who
sought reform by violence, rather than the Spirit of God speaking through the Holy
Scriptures.)
The same was true of baptism. Luther taught that baptism was not merely a promise of
forgiveness of sins through faith but also a regeneration of man. It was not a single
sacramental act which magically wiped out original sin, as the scholastics maintained,
but a process which continued throughout life.
Yet Luther continued to baptize babies on the basis of their "sleeping faith".The
concept of the carnal nature dying with Christ and the person being raised to newness
of life in Christ was not seen. The "repent and be baptized" seems to have not been
understood.
The issue of baptism remains the greatest black mark upon the Reformation era. For
many of the great reformers, including Melancthron and Luther, sided with the edict to
kill all twice baptized adults without trial of any kind, . Here they themselves fell into
the devil's methods condemning the righteous with the fanatical criminals. For the
edict went into effect after the peasant's revolt — the edict however, condemned all
baptized people to death, without trial as to whether they were involved in the revolt or
not.

WHAT DID HE WRITE CONCERNING OBEDIENCE?

Luther was a man used by God, but by no means infallible.
Now people are telling us that Luther told us "to sin boldly, because we have grace."
If Luther taught that HE WAS VERY, VERY WRONG!
LUTHER WAS FIGHTING THE PAPAL SYSTEM! A man standing up to the most
powerful system in his world! He changed the course of History and helped free the
world from Roman tryanny.
Yet, just as with the words of Paul, people today are taking Luther's words and totally
misapplying their meanings. Now they actually take Luther, or Paul's, words and fight
against Christ's own words which He spoke while on earth. The way they use their
words today will lead people straight back into the Roman system, which Luther's life
was dedicated to releasing us from.
Paul was not opposed to God's law.
And from what I have personally read from Luther, he was not opposed to God's law
either.
Here are words from the pen of Luther in his introduction to Romans: These words
need to be balanced with all the quotes some people are pulling forth, and weighed in
the understanding of what Luther was really working against.
"Epistle to the Romans is the very purest Gospel and is worthy that every Christian should know
it word for word. . .but first we must have knowledge of its words: law, sin, grace, faith,
righteousness, flesh, spirit, etc., otherwise no reading of it has any value.
"The little word "law" you must not take in human fashion, as a teaching about what
works are to be done or not done. That is the way it is with human laws — human laws
can be fulfilled by works, even though there is no heart in them. But God JUDGES
according to what is at the bottom of the heart, and cannot be satisfied with mere
works. For even though you keep the law outwardly, with works, from fear of
punishment of desire for reward, nevertheless, you do all this without willingness and
pleasure, and without love for the law, but rather with unwillingness, under
compulsion and if the law were not there you would gladly do otherwise. The
conclusion is that you hate the law.
"For this reason Paul says the law is spiritual. What is that? If the law were a human
law, it could be satisfied with works; but since it is spiritual, no one can satisfy it,
UNLESS all that you do is done from the bottom of the heart. But such a heart is given
only by God's Spirit, so that he acquires a desire for the law in his heart, and hence
does nothing out of mere fear and compulsion but everything will be loved and
fulfilled with such a spiritual heart and this requires the Holy Spirit. Doing the works of
the law and fulfilling the law are two very different things. How can a man fulfill the
law, if he is doing the works of the law from a reluctant and resisting heart? To fulfill
 the law is to do its works with pleasure and love without the compulsion. This
pleasure and love for the law is put into the heart by the Holy Spirit.
"Sin, means not only the outward works of disobedience, but looks into the heart and
regards the root and source of all sin.
"Faith, is a divine work in us. It changes us and makes us to be born anew of God. It
kills the old nature and makes us altogether different in heart and spirit and mind and
powers. Oh, it is a living, active, mighty thing, is faith and so it is impossible for it not
to do good works all the time. It does not ask if good works must be done for
salvation, but does them from a heart overflowing.. . .it is impossible to separate
works from faith."
"Sin", Luther, thundered from the pulpit, "is a terrible thing, it totally unfits man for
heaven. It is like the poison of asps, the asp is a serpent and it's poison is sure to kill.
A sinner cannot be restored to spiritual life by simply applying merits. These pitiable
people do not recognize the poison nor the death of their souls. Where is you
repentance? Only in Christ can salvation be found, it can not be earned or purchased.
It is a free gift. . . .Humble yourselves at the foot of the cross, there is no other way."
The reformers taught that absence of the Moral Law Brings Chaos.
The warnings of Roderick Campbell and Martin Luther ring true.
The absence of the basic Moral law would bring chaos, anarchy, or death, into every
realm of rational being. On the other hand, if there were no law there would be no sin,
hence no sinners, and no room for Grace. If there were no sin, there would be no
Saviour, no redemption, and no gospel message.
Thus we read, "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; that as sin
hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto
eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 5:20,21). Grace is that golden stream,
that river of the water of life, which always flows in the channel of Law, out from the
fountain of the immeasurable love of God.
Without a conscience within and an objective Moral Law without, mankind would
revert to a condition lower than the brute creation. The earth becomes a garden or a
desert, a paradise or a hell, according as men perform, or fail to perform, the just
demands of the righteous Moral Law. A stable order among men can be maintained
only when it is based upon a conviction that, above the level of life on earth, and
above the physical creation, there exists a supreme Moral Governor of the world...
Israel and the New Covenant, pp. 42, 43
A Heresy That Luther Never Thought to See
Martin Luther was amazed how some responded to his gospel
message, and commented:
But Satan, the god of all dissension, stirreth up daily new sects, and last of all (which
of all other I should never have foreseen or once suspected), he hath raised up a sect
of such as teach that the Ten Commandments ought to be taken out of the church, and
that men should not be terrified by the law, but gently exhorted by the preaching of the
grace of Christ. Preface to Luther's Commentary on Galatians
WAS LUTHER THE FINAL AUTHORITY?
Luther does not do away with obedience, he strongly condemned outward
righteousness without inward renewal. In this he is preaching true righteousness.

Yet, if in any of his writings he does say that disregard for any of God's
commandments is fine --- he is VERY WRONG! Indeed, his heavy emphasis on
justification at times causes him to loose focus on the binding nature of God's law, as
is seen in his treatment of the 4th commandment. The idea that grace somehow
replaces God's law does come through in his writings.
Other Reformers, like Carlstadt, Zwingli and Wesley, denied that the moral law was
abrogated by grace, and asserted that they were the continuing standard of the
sanctified life. Therefore we must not take Luther's, words without considering under
what condition they were written and uphold them as if they were the inspired
revelation of God on the interpretation of scripture.
Luther made incredible advances under the most adverse situations, but he did not
reach all truth.
Now some are upholding the words of Luther above the words of Christ Himself.
Luther had some big time problems and said some things that shock even those with
toughened sensibilities. He was very stubborn and very head strong -- yet those very
qualities God used to fight the mammoth despotic system of the papacy.
Now people take his writings where he is looking for justification apart from the
Roman false system, and use it to break down the wall that separates people from that
self same false system.
Sunday is the biggest bond Protestant Churches have with Rome. Their claim of sola
scripture makes total ship wreck on this one commandment. There is no scripture for
Sunday, but to break people from holding to the true sanctified day of worship, the
"Jesuits" must first destroy the concept that God's laws are binding. Once that is
destroyed then it will be easy to slip in Sunday as the day of convenient worship -- and
the people will hardly notice they have rejected their date with God.
Our work is to move forward not backward.

Go to The Reformation, It's Rise and Fall

The Counter Reformation
Return to Home Page