On the other hand, to profit from their failures as well as their successes, we need, in a positive context, to examine those weaknesses to better understand their nature and to examine ourselves to determine if we are still preserving them. To understand why we have not as yet received the latter rain but instead face serious divisions within our ranks, we do well to consider the following questions:

Why did the Reformers so soon fail to continue the Reformation? And why did those who did try to continue the Reformation become subject to persecution -- often by the key Reformers themselves? Indeed, why did the entire Reformation become divided soon after it began, with the initial Reformers themselves often intensely opposing each other – even identifying the other as agents of Satan?

As we briefly examine the background and beliefs of the most prominent Reformers, it will become evident that each was very sincere, but that all violated the most important, third principle of the Reformation. The priesthood of all believers was not most important as a theology, but as a practice, without which the other two cease to have meaning.

It was upon the priesthood of all believers alone that Scripture could remain the sole authority. Without its active practice, Scripture could not and did not retain its meaning. In its absence, each Reformer unwittingly violated the first principle of Scripture as the ultimate authority, as each sought to enforce his own view by formulating creeds by which to judge truth, rather than continuing to honor Scripture itself as the test of truth.

Moreover, the second principle, justification by faith, was also placed in jeopardy. For when creeds become the basis of determining truth, each instinctively enforces his own view, with no way to remedy it. And that is just what happened. Indeed, confusion regarding the nature of salvation was a key cause of division. In a later section we will see that each Reformer had elements of truth the others needed to find the balance and unity of truth. But only in a priesthood of believers context could they unite in truth.

As we will see, it was rejection on the part of each of Scriptural light from the other that caused the divisions. Thus, the vary differences that could have united them in the whole truth through exercise of the ‘priesthood’ principle became the cause of conflict and division. We can only wonder what the history of Protestantism would have been had they not formed their creeds against each other and, instead, continued to maintain the third principle of the Reformation to which all agreed and which had collapsed the mighty Papal power.

A more important consideration has to do with what God wants us to learn from their failure which will at last permit the Spirit freedom to complete the task Christ promised He would do: “When He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth” (Jn 16:13). Only as we learn this lesson and allow Him to finish His work will Christ’s prayer be fully answered, which He prayed:
Neither pray I for these alone [disciples and early believers] but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they may be one; as Thou Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou has sent Me (Jn 17:20-21).

Only when we are one in Him will He pour out His Spirit in latter rain power and thus prepare the world for the close of probation and for His soon coming.

Scholar Turned Monk Becomes Wittenberg Professor
Martin Luther was born November 10, 1583 (1584, according to Melanchthon). He and his family were loyal Catholics and there was no intimation that he would someday defy his church and lead a Reformation. At age 18, having gained a full knowledge of Latin at his school at Eisenach, Martin enrolled in the most celebrated, university of Erfurt. Melanchthon states concerning his outstanding performance there, “the extraordinary talents of the young man were at that time the admiration of the whole university.” Indeed, “his fellow students referred to him as ‘the learned philosopher’ and ‘the musician’” (A History of the Christian Church, by Lars P. Qualben, Thomas Nelson and Sons, New York; 1942, p222; many details below aside from the quotes may be found in Qualben’s history.)

By 1502 Martin had earned his Bachelor of Arts degree. On receiving his Master of Arts degree in 1505, at age 22, he embarked on a law degree. But in a sudden storm on his return to Erfurt from his home at Mansfeld on July 2, 1505, “he became so frightened by a sudden crash of lightning that he fell to the earth and tremblingly exclaimed, ‘Help me, holy Saint Anna, and I will become a monk’” (221)

Luther for a time regretted this impulsive vow, but refused to heed his friends’ attempts to get him to change his mind, since he had not made “due and sober consideration” of it. For, he had become increasingly disturbed by a very sensitive, guilty conscience, in light of what He saw as an angry God. He even saw Christ as needing persuasion by his patron saint, Anna -- according to tradition the mother of Mary, Jesus’ mother. Thus he chose to enter the monastery, hoping to gain divine approval. Little did he realize that this would only intensify his guilt as he focused upon himself and his great sin, which he concluded was his lack of love for God and for his fellow men.

Finishing the customary probationary period, Luther was consecrated as a monk in September, 1506 and was assigned to a 6’ by 9’ cell that could not be heated, with a single window facing the cemetery and a door that could not be locked from within, so he could be inspected at any time.

In 1507 he was consecrated priest and on May 2, celebrated his first mass, which terrified him lest he make some mistake. For, “a single mistake either in word or movement constituted a mortal sin.” He especially feared committing blasphemy by spilling Christ’s blood, which the wine was claimed to be.

His mission to Rome in the winter of 1510-1511 was most depressing. Of it he later declared: “No one can believe the scandalous acts which are openly done.” It was of that visit that the story is told of his hearing the voice, “the just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17). But, he did not yet experience freedom; he only became more oppressed by his sense of sin and guilt. Hoping to get his mind off from himself and his sin and to prepare him to take his own place when he retired, Staupitz sent him back to Erfurt to secure his doctorate in theology, which he completed October 19, 1512. Three weeks later he succeeded Staupitz as Professor of Theology at Wittenberg, a position he held until his death in 1546.

Luther Develops Reformation Principles from Scripture
It was while lecturing on Psalms and later Romans and Galatians that Luther developed his Protestant concepts directly from Scripture – concepts that departed in significant ways from those of the theologians he hand studied and thus required major changes in His thinking. This included concepts of the most lauded, Augustine of Hippo, upon which he, an Augustinian monk, had most focused upon and from which he gained insight into divine grace. But it was especially the theology of Occam and Biel, that “man was capable of giving God what man willed to give,” which brought his intense struggle to a climax. In view of his inability to cease sinning, he concluded that his particular trouble was that he did not want to give up sin. “[L]ike Paul of Old he exclaimed, ‘Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death’” (225).

Luther’s inner conflict was further intensified by the impact of Occam’s theology of predestination (of which Augustine is considered father). This led Luther to question why God “did not “do His part and give him the due reward, namely Love.” The motive for the divine redemption of mankind must, he came to believe, “be sought in God’s will and not in God’s love. His problem was further intensified during these years of struggle by his belief “that God had selected some to be lost and some to be saved, and those who were saved must fulfill God’s law and the ordinances of the church in every detail” to be accepted by Him (226; unless otherwise indicated all italics come from the source and all bold is inserted).

While teaching from the Psalms during the winter of 1512 and 1513, Luther began to grasp the gospel principle of justification by faith which assured him of God’s love and freed him from his deep sense of guilt. It is evident from his notes that the transition was gradual. But during the years 1513 and 1517 he solidly developed the basic principles of his future reformation efforts:

1) Man is justified or saved by faith in Christ without any merits of good works. Instead of the Catholic view that justification is a progressive experience following sanctification and conditioned by good works, Luther concluded that “it is a single act of God following conversion and preceding sanctification.” This needs to be remembered in considering the Council of Trent doctrines below.

2) “Every Christian has direct access to God through faith in Jesus Christ. Personal communion with God and the forgiveness of sins are not conditioned by the mediation of a priest, … Hence there is a general priesthood of all believers.”

3) “The Bible is the sole normal authority for faith and life. Tradition has value only in so far as it is based on Scripture.”

4) “God asserts His actual and full presence in the Holy Ghost. The Bible cannot be understood from human speculation but must be interpreted, by the illumination and aid of the Holy Spirit, from the context according to the laws of language.”

5) “The essence of God is love. Religion is not based on a legal contract between God and man, but on God’s gift of grace, or love to the sinner. This gift is free for all and may be accepted by all . . . Consequently, there is no absolute predestination.”

6) “It is the blessed privilege of every Christian to have full certainty of his or her personal salvation in Christ Jesus” (229-230).

Luther Unwittingly Initiates the Protestant Reformation
When on October 31, 1517 Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenberg church door he had no idea of starting a major conflict, but was unknowingly prepared to begin his public work as a Reformer. His was a normal academic step of inviting any who disagreed with him to engage in scholarly debate over the sale of indulgences. This was prompted by John Tetzel’s sale of indulgences on the border of the territory of elector, Frederick the Wise, who did not permit Tetzel to enter his territory of Saxony, lest he take away too much money.

As these copies of these theses were printed and widely circulated Luther’s popularity soared and the Papal and imperial powers raged. To his surprise he soon faced Imperial trials and Papal excommunication. He would surely have died a martyr’s death – which he was quite willing to do, had it not been for divine providences. Among the agencies involved were Mohammedan advances and wars between the Pope and Emperor Charles V, and between the Pope and Francis I, as well as between Charles and Francis I. And between these, frequent intercessions and deliberate interferences by his protector, Elector Frederick, who refused to bow to pressure by Emperor and Pope.

Not yet, however, did Luther have any idea of separating from the Roman Church, which he hoped to reform. Not even when he burned the Papal bull of condemnation in December, 1519 did he entertain any idea of starting a new church. Indeed, he did not consider repudiating the church even when a June 15, 1520 Papal Bull Excommunicated him, declaring him a heretic and demanded that his writings be burned, threatening him with a ban if he did not recant within 60 days. However, before the delayed excommunication went into effect on January 3, 1521, Luther had already burned this second Papal Bull, on December 20. Shortly before that he issued three powerful treatises attacking false Papal doctrine, the last of which was, “The Liberty of the Christian Man” – a proclamation of the third principle of the Reformation, the priesthood of all believers.

Swiss Reformer: Similarities to Luther
There are many parallels between Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, who was born on January 1, 1884, less than two months after Luther’s birth or ten months before, depending on Luther’s actual birth date. Both were very bright, peasant boys, with a background of loyalty to the church, who were eager to learn, became highly education and had a love and talent for music. And “both were excellent scholars, great preachers, and heroic characters” (255)

Among other similarities, they were both consecrated to the priesthood in 1506 as loyal Papists. After that both gradually developed the three great principles of the Reformation: (1) sola Scriptura; (2) sola gratia-sola fide; and (3) the priesthood of all believers. Yet, both ended up undermining and creating conflict over the first two by betraying the third principle -- which Zwingli never did so clearly grasp as did Luther. And both translated the Bible into their mother tongue and emphasized education of the people so they could read Scripture and internalize its principles.

Luther and Zwingli began their public reform efforts within two years of each other. And, just as Luther proclaimed reform principles in the class and in the church for a few years with no idea of becoming a Reformer -- even when he inadvertently began his public reform by nailing his 95 theses to the church door in 1517 in response to the sale of indulgences by Tetzel – so Zwingli also long preached reform as a loyal Papist before inadvertently launching his public reformation ministry in Zurich in 1519, by opposing Bernard Sampson for his scandalous sale of indulgences, with no thought of launching a reformation.

And, while Luther’s formal break with the Papal system came in December/January, 1520-1521, Zwingli’s break came shortly after, in August, 1522 as conflict over Friday fasting ended with his open break, when he repudiated the authority of tradition and proclaimed Scripture as the sole authority for faith and practice. Significantly, even at this point neither as yet had any idea of starting a separate church.

‘Priesthood’ Violation Separates Those Who Needed Each Other
But there were also major differences. Luther was imprinted by the rough, peasant surroundings in which he grew up; while Zwingli revealed the polish received by being surrounded by humanist influences from childhood. Zwingli was thus superior to Luther in refinement, manners, and tolerance; but Luther was superior in originality, force, and ability to inspire others. These differences discouraged the two from becoming close. But other differences were more significant in preventing them from uniting to develop the third (‘priesthood’) principle of the Reformation. Instead, they entered into conflict with each other that greatly weakened the Reformation while aiding a resurgent Catholicism and produced permanent cleavage between their respective movements, which has for nearly five centuries divided their followers. More seriously, it has continued to prevent completion of the reformation that the valid Fourth Reformation attempted to complete.

Declarations of commitment to the mutually agreed upon third reformation principle, the priesthood of all believers, are meaningless unless those making the claim unite in its exercise. The key to unity in that exercise is humility in coming together in the sole authority of Scripture and in prayerful dependence upon the Holy Spirit Interpreter, Who is commissioned to “guide [us] into all truth” (Jn 16:13). In failing to apply these underlying principles of unity in truth, divisions were inevitable. Thus despite common objectives and underlying principles, the two movements not only developed separately, but they soon began to internally divide.

It is tragic that men who needed each other and offered complimentary strengths to overcome their different weaknesses did not humble themselves under the third, ‘priesthood’ principle to which they both agreed, which was essential for the success of their first two principles, sola Scriptura and sola fide-sola gratia. In the power of those two principles, as united with the third, they might have evangelized the entire heathen world. But, instead, their divisions have made it appear that there is no objective truth; and the ensuing conflicts and corresponding heresies have grossly misrepresented the true God and His gospel.

This is sad; for these men might have corrected and balanced each other, as Luther and Melanchthon balanced each other. Indeed, Melanchthon did benefit from Zwingli’s non-mystical interpretations of certain Scriptures for which Luther’s mysticism required be understood over-literally. Yet, Luther’s love for and confidence in Melanchthon was such that he did not react against him, but did violently react against Zwingli. And Melanchthon had to treat the issues very carefully, avoiding full expression of his convictions.

It was Zwingli’s influence over Melanchthon that created the deep conflict between him and ultra-mystical Luther followers that exploded upon Luther’s death, that we address in a later section. Yet, each of these men and all their associates had talents and strengths that would have blessed each other. It was divinely ordained that they unite in a way to correct and be corrected by one another, through the Spirit-interpreted Word. God always intends that His work be blessed by a variety of personalities and approaches and that by priesthood of believer practices we correct each other.

As their various strengths and weaknesses are examined, it becomes evident that every key leader needed some correction in doctrine and/or method that, in a humble context of dependence upon the Spirit, the others might have given. What a mighty and powerful balance would these four men have provided – a balance that would have led, instead to persecuting brave and true Fourth Reformation leaders, to unity in completing the Reformation!

Had Luther gone a step further than protecting Melanchthon and led his associates into humble participation with Zwingli and his colleagues in ‘priesthood’ practices, there might have been one mighty Reformation. Indeed, if Zwingli had accepted Luther’s separation of church and state doctrine he would not have died in the battle of Cappel at the height of his powers, but might have lived to influence Calvin with a desperately needed balance. And together they might have recognized and welcomed valid reformers who were lumped together as ‘radical’ heretics and persecuted to death.

Luther and Zwingli Divided By Differences that Should Unite
The differences between Luther and Zwingli, who set a pattern of alienation and division, need not have divided them and could have united them, as each needed the balance the other could have provided. Indeed, the differences might have stimulated deep and profound interdependence between them. Luther, a profoundly spiritual German mystic, struggled against his mysticism as he came to acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture -- but never quite succeeded in transcending it, needed the insights of Zwingli’s logical and practical rejection of mysticism. And Zwingli, a full blown humanist with political instincts, rather than a theological background and had no prior interest in theology, but was led by his study of Scripture to accept its supreme authority, needed Luther’s deeper spirituality. And while Zwingli, having never been a mystic and immediately set himself to remove mystical elements from worship might have profited from Luther’s greater sensitivity, even while Luther might have been led to distinguish clearly between spirituality and mysticism. As it was, Luther, the mystic, retained rites and ceremonies of the Medieval Church that he decided were not positively anti-Scriptural. Thus, along with, altars, church ornaments, organs, and bells, Luther retained images that a mystical people could only relate to as idols. More significant, in terms of the conflict, was his retention and intense commitment to his doctrine of consubstantiation. He insisted that Christ’s body and blood were mystically and literally present as an auxiliary means of salvation.

Luther’s reformation principles grew out of his struggle with a guilty conscience and were born out of his attempt to know God. Zwingli knew nothing of such intense struggle with conscience. His background of heathen literature was directly replaced by a study of the Bible which, as he gained confidence in its authority, became a code of law expressing the will of God. By contrast, Luther saw in Scripture as an expression of the love of God. “Zwingli’s theology centered around God as the Absolute will; while Luther’s theology centered around God as the absolute love” (256).

Luther’s focus upon love was vital, but he needed a clearer concept of its relation to His will. On the other hand, Zwingli’s focus upon the divine will, unmediated by a deep sense of love as its underlying motive prepared his followers for Calvin’s even more intense focus upon the divine will and his erroneous, deterministic doctrine of predestination.

Luther was primarily concerned with a faith response to the provisions of the gospel (in which he sometimes made mysticism dominant), Zwingli gave more emphasis to its logic (which repudiated mysticism). This, their most basic personal difference, was behind their most serious theological conflict over the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper, which to Luther was a sacrament essential to salvation and to Zwingli was only a symbol of salvation.

Luther rejected the mysticism in the doctrine of trans-substantiation, in which a few Latin words were presumed, when said by a consecrated priest, were believed to change the bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ, so that the lowly priest was declared to have power over His Maker; for he was presumed to “create his Creator.” But Luther could not get rid of his mysticism and thus developed a parallel doctrine of con-substantiation, in which the literal body and blood are declared to be present along with the bread and wine. Zwingli, by contrast, logically declared that the elements did not contain Christ’s presence but were symbols of His presence.

Zwingli Takes the Lead in Persecuting
Yet, as we have seen, Zwingli was in as great need of Luther’s insights as Luther was in need of his. Both Luther and Calvin were earnest, devoted leaders who stood valiantly for very important principles; but both also violated important principles. It was and always is God’s purpose that His workers both help and be corrected by one another. What a balancing team they might have made. We will now consider how they might have been strengthened by each other and helped one another overcome their opposite weaknesses in a manner that would have brought unity instead of strife.

Ironically, Zwingli’s tolerant personality lent itself to personal dialogue in ‘priesthood’ practices in a study in of Scripture; but his political views caused him to take up the sword against those whom he considered ‘heretics’ who would not listen to him. Since he believed in uniting church and state, he saw those who did not accept the state’s views as subversive to the state. He did not see that the state was merely acting according to the dictates of the church -- as he thought they should. Thus differing from the state is merely differing from the church – which echoed his own views and thus was merely differing from him, so that he unwittingly intercepted the authority of Scripture. And the practical result was sola theological – Zwingli’s theology, the Papal principal.

Luther, on the other hand, was rigid and intolerant in dealing with ‘heretics,’ but believed in separation of church and state and insisted that the only weapon to which believers had a right was the sword of the Spirit. Thus he was horrified at Zwingli’s persecution of ‘heretics,’ even though he may have agreed that they were ‘heretics’ – though in some cases he initially agreed or at least seriously entertained their ‘heretical’ views.

The key Papal principle to which Zwingli clung and that Luther repudiated (during most of Zwingli’s life) was the union of church and state – the very foundation stone of Romanism. Indeed, the true practice of the third principle of the Reformation requires separation of church and state. For so long as the two are united, the believer’s conscience is subject to the claims of the state -- as was true in the Swiss union of church and state which Zwingli developed.

Thus, though Zwingli repudiated the authority of tradition and proclaimed the supreme authority of Scripture, he did not see that this requires the separation of church and state. As a result, when he began to oppose further reform movements, stimulated partly because some were extreme, but also because of political considerations -- not all of which were wrong -- he soon began to persecute as traitors to the state those who insisted on “reformation now, without delay.’

These were first warned, but then expelled or imprisoned, and finally many were martyred. Some of these were as truly called of God as were the key Reformers and men of equal courage who willingly risked their lives for principles as they understood them. But all were men of their times, as the darkness of error, superstition, and tyranny was only starting to break before a gradual dawn, who needed each other. Our evaluation of them must be moderated by recognizing that none had even dreamed of religious liberty which we take for granted. Indeed, with all our advantages we still fail to adequately implement ‘priesthood’ principles. How urgent that we have a clear understanding of and internalize the principles of truth.

Luther alone among the major Reformers attempted to maintain civil and religious separation. But he ultimately surrendered his concept of individual responsibility to a corporate concept of unity based on church membership based by state citizenship.

Augsburg and Final Split between All Parties
Until shortly before Zwingli’s death in battle with the Catholics, Protestant leaders retained some hope of reconciliation with a reforming Catholic church. And there was always the possibility of uniting the two Reformations. But at the 1530 Diet of Augsburg, where the Augsburg Confession became officially enforced as a creed to distinguish true Protestantism from heresy, the split between all groups was finalized and all hopes of uniting died.

That was fifteen years before the beginning of the Council of Trent, by which Papists turned the Reformation tide. Yet, that was a time of reprieve during which every effort should have been made to restore the third, ‘priesthood’ principle of the Reformation. Unfortunately, instead, Gnesio Lutherans (Genuine-Lutherans) spent that time preparing to exclude Melanchthon and his followers, only biding their time until Luther either surrendered to their persuasion or passed from the scene. Thus Trent was able to turn the tide, primarily because of divisions within and especially the hostility of ultra Lutherans against Philippists (Melanchthon and followers).

Another sad note is that Lutherans joined the Swiss in persecuting all radicals – that is, any who insisted upon any reformation with which they did not agree, such as adult baptism, the seventh day Sabbath, sleep in death, denial of hell fire, and the soon coming of Christ. Only recently have massive discoveries of primary historical documents caused some historians, at long last, to distinguish true, independent Reformers from radical extremists. Thus these are now dignified by the term, "Fourth Reformation." Baptists and Mennonites are among those now so identified. Among others whose roots go back to that Reformation are Seventh-day Adventists.

Luther’s Political Reversal
Whenever God plans an advanced work, Satan opposes it by external forces. But, more importantly, he immediately seeks to penetrate it with imbalanced or heretical leaders and especially by misdirecting its own leaders. And he effectively did all three of these. Three internal strikes in rapid succession could not help but create a crisis of confusion.

He made his first internal strike while Luther was in friendly captivity in the Wartburg castle and thus unable to prevent the confusion and disorder he planned. In 1521, radicals at Zwikau, 65 miles south of Wittenberg, claimed the Spirit, rather than Scripture, as supreme authority, especially as manifested via dreams and visions. Three of these self-proclaimed prophets came to Wittenberg and urged their radical ideas and demanded reckless actions. These were urged with the claim that their prophetic gift superseded the authority of Scripture. At the same time Satan stirred over-eager individuals bent on reform to move ahead of the leaders, Carlstadt and Melanchthon, who were planning orderly changes. The very principles of the Reformation were placed in question, as disorderly mobs entered churches and convents, smashing idols and destroying all other Papal symbols they could find.

This was totally contrary to the plans of Carlstadt, who chose not to wait for Luther, but, pushing Melanchthon aside (Luther's confidant) he had begun introducing new reforms, which radical elements he could not control intercepted. Not waiting for him and Melanchthon who followed his lead, they used violence in destroying church images, etc. In alarm, Luther left the Castle to put things in order.

To meet this emergency, Luther made a secret visit to Wittenberg and brought order out of chaos by his daily preaching to packed audiences. But serious damage had already been done to an orderly Reformation in which no weapons were used but the sword of the Spirit and no defense but faith in Christ. Of greatest immediate concern to Luther was the rebellion against the Reformation’s greatest defender, Frederick, elector of Saxony.

Meanwhile, in 1524 Luther faced a much more serious problem. His insistence upon individual responsibility and personal choice in matters of conscience stirred the peasants, who were very restive under the severe oppression of an elite nobility. Thus, they were very responsive to men such as Thomas Munzer, who called for violent revolution to overturn the social and civil order.

Luther tried in vain to restrain the peasants and urge the nobles to respond to their just claims. The consequent peasant's war of 1524-1525 so aroused Luther's fears that he became militant and began to advocate the violent measures he had so strongly opposed. No doubt partly to disassociate himself from their political revolution, he urged the civil leaders to put down the uprising by the sword, which they did.

Partly as a result of the exaltation of the spiritual gives over Scripture and also because of the Peasants’ revolt, Luther’s opposition to heretics intensified and he failed to distinguish 1) violent religious radicalism; and 2) an aggressive but non-violent approach to continued reformation, which he would oppose the rest of his life. At first he continued to insisted that there be no resort to the sword. Thus his opposition was only moral--until the peasant's war changed all this. Within five years he would become a militant opponent of all he identified as heretics.

By 1530 Luther would repudiate Zwingli’s Reformation, leaving them open to martyrdom yet join Zwingli in advocating the sword against “heretics.” When at the diet of Augsburg (1530) Lutherans won the right to retain their beliefs all were outlawed as heretics by both Catholics and Lutherans who rejected the Augsburg statement as their creed. So many were put to death in the next two years that Augsburg became known as the Martyr diet.

Luther Identifies Zwingli as an Agent of the Devil
Luther’s greatest cause for antagonism toward Zwingli was theological. He considered him a blasphemous, arch-heretic because he denied his doctrine of consubstantiation and repudiated the mass altogether, which he retained in modified form.

Luther had repudiated the doctrine of transubstantiation, key to Papal authority, as blasphemous. For by Latin words the priest was held to have power to "create his Creator"--transforming bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ! Moreover, by elevating the “host” he was supposed to sacrifice Christ afresh. With such mysticism, the laity were only given the bread and refused the cup both because they were not consecrated priests and for fear they might spill Christ’s blood. Thus the priesthood was itself elevated to a position of divine mediation before largely ignorant, superstitious people. In view of such claims to super-natural power--yea, even power over God and the ability to forgive sins, it is little wonder that the priest was held in awe!

Luther was too much a mystic to repudiate the mysticism itself. Thus he insisted on consubstantiation. Instead of a change of substance ("trans"), he held that Christ's actual body and blood were, nonetheless, present with ("con") or in addition to, the literal bread and wine. And to him the elements were not mere symbols but, along with Scripture, a means of grace.

The final split came in 1530 at the diet of Augsburg, called by Emperor Charles V to crush Protestantism. The occasion was Zwingli's refusal to sign the confession of faith drawn up by Phillip Melanchthon, Luther's closest associate and alter ego, a statement of beliefs to present to the diet, which was signed by all but the Swiss and south German delegates who sympathized with the Swiss view. All who would not sign the confession were refused a part in the Augsburg settlement, thus leaving them subject to Catholic persecution.

A few years before, disciples of Luther and Zwingli sought unity by insisting on a conference to resolve the issue. Zwingli was quite willing, but Luther refused. He finally reluctantly agreed to the meeting; but no avail. At its close Zwingli offered the hand of fellowship, but Luther refused to shake hands with a ‘heretic.’ Meanwhile, Melanchthon, who wrote the Augsburg Confession leaned toward Zwingli’s position, but remained loyal to Luther and his position; yet he did what he could to moderate the language.

Nevertheless, despite his attempt to moderate the language, Zwingli and his followers could not sign, since the Confession contained Luther's doctrine of consubstantiation, that the bread and wine of the Mass remained bread and wine but with it was also the literal body and blood of Christ. Zwingli instead prepared one for the Swiss and the south Germans prepared their own. Thus, three confessions of faith emerged from the Augsburg diet. But the emperor and Diet refused to even examine the two. Thus, rejected by Catholics and fellow Protestants as heretics and refused a part in the peace of Augsburg Treaty, they were persecuted as heretics!

From 1530 on, the Augsburg Confession became the creedal test of Lutheran Protestantism, which meant a permanent split within continental Protestantism, with (1) Lutherans and (2) Zwinglians (later Calvinists) opposing each other and both of these treating the third continental group (3) a wide range of Radicals, as heretics! Thus 1530 marks the year of final separations. Lutherans separated from Zwinglians and also from Catholics and both Lutherans and Zwinglians separated from and persecuted Radicals.

Anglican Church and its Quasi Reformation
Moreover, in that same year Luther bitterly denounced Erasmus, the foremost humanist, which effectually separated Lutherans from humanists. This latter was prompted by Erasmus’ defense of Henry VIII of England in his pamphlet war against Luther. And Luther’s repudiation of Erasmus could only intensify the alienation between him and Henry VIII -- a humanist rather than a real reformer -- and thus the Anglican Church, identified as the Third Reformation. Yet its origin and history are quite unique and related primarily to the British Isles rather than to continental Europe, as were Lutherans and Calvinists, whose conflicts were primarily with each other.

Anglicanism was, moreover, very different in other ways, some have even questioned whether it deserves the honor of being called a Third Reformation. Its break from Papal control actually preceded the Lutheran Reformation, but was primarily political in nature. Instead of being led by a Reformer, it was led by king, Henry VII who was angered by the Pope’s refusal to grant him permission to divorce and remarry. With this last straw in a political power struggle, he repudiated the authority of the Pope and proceeded with the divorce and remarriage. Henry VIII completed the temporary break with Rome.

While this break and Tyndale’s Bible translation gave opportunity for reform influences to develop in the British Isles, the Anglican Church never did make a full break with the Papacy, but retained much of its liturgy and failed to develop a distinctly Protestant theology. Indeed, Anglicanism switched back and forth from Protestant to Catholic -- as determined by the faith of its ruler. Thus there was intense Protestant persecution under Roman Catholic, “bloody Mary,” known as such for her martyrdom of Protestants. Indeed, it was in fleeing from Anglican oppression that the Pilgrims ultimately came to America.

Henry VIII’s angry disputation with Luther revealed that he was a humanist and not a Protestant. Though there were true Anglican reformers, their rulers, who controlled the church, were not motivated by a commitment to reform. The Anglican Church thus arose more as a result of a political battle to wrest Papal control of the church and seize it for themselves. For this reason and since the Anglican party had only peripheral impact on the Lutheran Reformation and its conflict with Calvinism, which is our primary focus, we will not further pursue its course.

Calvin Takes the Place of Zwingle
Since Zwingli died in 1531 he drops out of the picture. Meanwhile, he was succeeded by John Calvin, who, next to Luther, is considered the greatest 16th century Reformer. By many he is considered greater than Luther. And his influence was far greater upon later Protestant churches, the majority of which followed his theology and are known as the “Reformed” churches. Luther, however, is generally given first place on the basis of his direct, dramatic confrontation with both the Papacy and empire and who succeeded, more than any other, in crumbling Papal power. Thus the whole Reformation benefited from and gave impetus to the work he began. Moreover, Calvin did not come on the scene until 1536, nearly two decades after Luther nailed his 95 theses on the church door.

Though John Calvin later had far more impact on the Reformation, He did not form a separate party, but became part of the Swiss party of Zwingli, which he subsumed and transformed, so that it became known as the Calvinist movement.

A year or two after Zwingli’s 1531 death at the battle of Cappel and two or three years after the the 1530 Diet of Augsburg, Calvin, a rabid Papal defender, converted to Protestantism. This was partly because of the Godly influence of his cousin, Olavus Petri, who translated the Scriptures into his mother tongue. Like Saul of Tarsus, Calvin refocused his intense zeal in defense of Protestantism. By 1536 he had written the first edition of his classic, Institutes and also wrote his book, Psychopannychia, ridiculing and castigating as heretics those who believed in the mortality of the soul.

It was also then that he fled to Switzerland, where he emerged as a Protestant leader. After Zwingli's death, no one arose to assume his the Swiss leadership, it was timely for Calvin to discover his gift and receive the honor of leading his movement. At the urging of Farrell, he located in Geneva in 1536 soon became the recognized leader of the Swiss Reformation.

Calvin highly respected Luther, whose writings had strongly impacted him, but strenuously opposed his view of death as a sleep--a view increasingly proclaimed by Radicals. Out of respect for Luther, Calvin did not directly challenge him; but his first published book attacked the Radical, non-immortality doctrine as blasphemous and greatest of heresies. Luther, who was already reacting against any unique radical reform, failed to respond to Calvin’s ‘heresy.’ Some think he changed his non-immortality view.

As did Luther, Calvin held to Augustinian predestination. But while Calvin made this and the divine decrees or election of some to be lost and other’s save before the world began an essential belief, Luther denied double predestination--that God pre-ordained the damnation of all He did not elect to salvation. Moreover, as his moderate view softened, he virtually repudiated Augustine’s doctrine by claiming that all could be saved who chose to believe.

Calvin, on the other hand, not only developed a much more logical predestinarian theology, but his primary focus was on the sovereignty of God and eternal decrees whereby He determined the destiny of all men a destiny no man could alter. Thus, the elect could not be lost and the damned could not be saved.

This difference did not pose nearly so great a problem to Luther, however, as did Calvin's moderating position between his own sacramental, consubstantiation view and Zwingli's view of the bread and wine--with Calvin’s moderation clearly tipped in favor of Zwingli's concept of symbolism rather than Luther’s insistence upon the presence of Christ's literal flesh and blood.

Philip Melanchthon, Luther's dearest friend, was a close friend of Calvin, however and identified with his view. Luther himself admired Calvin as well as Melanchthon and thus continued a friendship that prevented a split during their life time. But Gnesio Lutherans launched an attack on Melanchthon as soon as Luther died. Lutheran furor against both Melanchthon and Calvinism was greatly intensified by the clever work of the Council of Trent which was specifically designed to drive a wedge between them. Indeed, a primary purpose of the Formula of Concord three decades later was to affirm the deliberate implications of the Council of Trent that Philippists were really neo-Papal in doctrine.

Fourth Reformation: Free Church and Born Again Membership
History tells a sad story of great triumphs of a Reformation quickly arrested by a defensive posture on the part of all three major groups, Anglican, Lutheran, and Zwingli-Calvinist. All too soon reform zeal changed into jealous turf defense and opposition to all new reform, which was thus left to those labeled Radicals, who were identified and persecuted as extremists. Thus all their valid reforms were repudiated out of hand as dangerous heresies.

Some of these Fourth Reformation reformers were more aggressive than they should have been. But they too were men of their age, just as were Luther and Calvin. And, with the same sense of urgency, they were ready to lay down their lives for reform principles. Various groups recovered different truths and most groups held several, but none held all recovered truths which were rejected by the main churches. But those truths recovered included:

1) Abolition of the mass and of all images;
2) Denial of sacramentalism, including both trans- and con-substantiation;
3) Adult baptism (as a symbol of grace, not a sacrament of grace);
4) Non-immortality of the soul;
5) Denial of an ever burning hell fire;
6) Restoration of the seventh-day Sabbath; and,
7) Separation of church and state.

The greatest single cause for such intense persecution was the doctrine of a free church in which the church and state are separate, so that the church cannot direct the state and the state cannot interfere with the conscience by imposing any religious test or requirement. This was the primary cause of opposition to adult baptism; for it denies the church-state doctrine that identifies all citizens of the state as members of the church. Thus, instead of membership of born again Christians, all citizens are automatically members. Thus church discipline is exchanged for state enforcement which leads to persecution, with potential exile or even martyrdom.

Besides ‘radicals who represented one or more of the above seven so-called ‘heresies,’ some were anti-Trinitarian, since they identified this as also a Papal dogma. Indeed, since the Papacy and even the Protestant churches view of the Trinity tended to be based on mystical concepts that were heretical. Thus, though this was not the result of belief in a triune God, the theology, as held, was based on a false concept of the Father as without form or parts – a mystical Spirit. It was this which those determined to complete the reformation "without waiting" opposed. But they did not have an adequate concept themselves of the nature of the Father or the Spirit – or even of Christ.

Unity Ruptured By Transferring Scripture Authority to Reformers and Creeds
The four-fold division of Protestantism--Anglican, Lutheran, Zwingli-Calvin, and Radicals, was Catholicism’s great delight and best hope. To exploit this, the Council of Trent did its ingenious best--and was altogether too successful. Not only did their intense and detailed repudiation of Calvinism's double predestination increase tension between Lutherans and Calvinists, but, far more seriously, between Lutherans and Lutherans.

And this tension exploded when Luther’s death coincided with the publication of the Council of Trent decrees, which were deliberately designed to further divide them. Lutherans had no unified view by which to respond to Trent's challenges and were thrown into debate among themselves even on points of difference that were formerly overlooked. With Lutheran’s very existence threatened, they felt something must be done to unify. Unfortunately, failing to see that their splintering was already the result of seeking to enforce a creed, they sought to force unity by creed. Instead of humbly coming together to seek unity by Scripture, their creedal mentality forced them to try to formulate and enforce a creed.

We will first examine the Council of Trent and its decrees on justification and see how these deliberately aimed at dividing Protestantism and then consider Lutheran efforts to unify, which led to a compromise in the Articles of Concord, which are dubbed, the Articles of Discord. Efforts to unify were commendable--essential. But having repudiated Papal authority and with their own authority figure (Luther) dead, they had no way to accomplish this.

So far removed were they from the priesthood of believers principle Luther had identified as the third principle of the Reformation that there was no hope of going to Scripture and studying together, truly listening to one another as they sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thus they ever more intensely sought to define everything in terms of Luther's writings and the Augsburg Confession.

True unity depends on individual and corporate submission to the authority of God's word and the guidance of the Spirit on one hand, and on the other, mutual humbling of ourselves one to another under the authority of the Spirit-directed word.