Luther, Islam, and the End

[Robert R. Higby]

I have been studying Luther's writings on the issue of military involvement in wars against Islam and how his perspective on the matter impacted his eschatology. He really did have a lot of very good and sound things to say & was not the hawkish kook that many critics portray. He definitely taught against active Crusades, stating that Islam was an agent of God to punish the sins of the West and it was useless to try and exterminate it--but maintained a view of the need for a strong military defense nonetheless. This is not a subject discussed all that often when it comes to examining Luther's theology.

I have always believed Luther's 'two kingdom' doctrine to be right on the money and the correct political alternative to the Constantinian state-church system. I have no doubt that Luther opposed a state church even in Germany according to his early beliefs stated in "The Freedom of the Christian" but was forced to accomodate the demand for a Lutheran state-church by the princes.

Anyway, his eschatology is particularly interesting and I find it still very relevant to the world situation today.

For an introductory article go to:

http://www.encyclopedia.com

Type Luther+Turks+Islam in the search area and scroll down to the 'related articles'; select the one by Robert O. Smith. I tried posting the link directly to the html but it does not work. You can try this link (a search engine result) and see if it works

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-169989145.html?Q=Luther%20Turks%20Islam

Comments?

[Brandan Kraft]

Link

[wildboar]

I think Luther's teaching of the two kingdoms is also in harmony with much of what the early church fathers also taught. As I posted in another thread on Christology and Politics, it was the Arians who were looking to the government as a kind of savior.

[Just Grace]

Islam is freaking me right out at the moment.

It is such an obvious copycat.

Try talking on dalnet irc #islam

David

[Robert R. Higby]

My point is that we need to go back and examine what Luther thought to gain a right perspective on what is happening today. From the article:

From the beginning of his writings on the Turks and Islam, Luther's comments had political consequences. The first mention of the Turks in Luther's public writings comes in 1518 with his "Explanations of the Ninety-Five Theses." There, in reference to the fifth thesis, (9) Luther articulates a theological perspective on the Turkish threat that he will hold until his final writings on the subject. In a section discussing "punishment" that is "God's correction and scourging," Luther asserts that, as with the people of Nineveh (Jonah 3:6-10), only repentance can still God's chastising rod. But "the 'big wheels' in the church" who would preach a crusade against the Turks "want to fight, not against iniquities, but against the lash of iniquity and thus they would oppose God who says that through that lash he himself punishes us for our iniquities because we do not punish ourselves for them." (10)
Luther's statement of explanation created yet more contention. Indeed, it was singled out for condemnation in Exsurge Domine, the papal bull of excommunication directed at Luther by Pope Leo X on 15 June 1520. Among the "destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive" errors enumerated in the bull is an essentialized version of Luther's position: "To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them." (11) But even before Exsurge Domine, Luther tied his struggles with Rome to the war against the Turk. Prior to the beginning of the Leipzig Debate with Johannes Eck in June 1519, Luther wrote to his friend Wencenlaus Linck, "I think I can demonstrate that today Rome is worse than the Turk." (12)

The parallel to the Papacy today is those who think they can obliterate God's chastening rod by winning the war against 'radical' Islam (i.e., REAL Islam as opposed to the liberalized versions). They cannot achieve this; God will always use Islam to punish the West for its great sins. 9-1-1 was a judgment of God against the apostasy of the U.S. and other civilized nations away from the gospel. It will happen again!

Of course, Luther maintained the need for a strong defense against the Turks; the Muslims were a far more fearful and immanent threat in his day than they are for us today. They had made their way up the continent invading east of the Danube and were a real force to defend against. Likewise for us today--we can defend ourselves against them to the point that their dreams of world dominion are shattered, however, we can't obliterate their periodic attacks from happening at all.

[rlhuckle]

My point is that we need to go back and examine what Luther thought to gain a right perspective on what is happening today. From the article:

From the beginning of his writings on the Turks and Islam, Luther's comments had political consequences. The first mention of the Turks in Luther's public writings comes in 1518 with his "Explanations of the Ninety-Five Theses." There, in reference to the fifth thesis, (9) Luther articulates a theological perspective on the Turkish threat that he will hold until his final writings on the subject. In a section discussing "punishment" that is "God's correction and scourging," Luther asserts that, as with the people of Nineveh (Jonah 3:6-10), only repentance can still God's chastising rod. But "the 'big wheels' in the church" who would preach a crusade against the Turks "want to fight, not against iniquities, but against the lash of iniquity and thus they would oppose God who says that through that lash he himself punishes us for our iniquities because we do not punish ourselves for them." (10)
Luther's statement of explanation created yet more contention. Indeed, it was singled out for condemnation in Exsurge Domine, the papal bull of excommunication directed at Luther by Pope Leo X on 15 June 1520. Among the "destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive" errors enumerated in the bull is an essentialized version of Luther's position: "To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them." (11) But even before Exsurge Domine, Luther tied his struggles with Rome to the war against the Turk. Prior to the beginning of the Leipzig Debate with Johannes Eck in June 1519, Luther wrote to his friend Wencenlaus Linck, "I think I can demonstrate that today Rome is worse than the Turk." (12)

The parallel to the Papacy today is those who think they can obliterate God's chastening rod by winning the war against 'radical' Islam (i.e., REAL Islam as opposed to the liberalized versions). They cannot achieve this; God will always use Islam to punish the West for its great sins. 9-1-1 was a judgment of God against the apostasy of the U.S. and other civilized nations away from the gospel. It will happen again!

Of course, Luther maintained the need for a strong defense against the Turks; the Muslims were a far more fearful and immanent threat in his day than they are for us today. They had made their way up the continent invading east of the Danube and were a real force to defend against. Likewise for us today--we can defend ourselves against them to the point that their dreams of world dominion are shattered, however, we can't obliterate their periodic attacks from happening at all.

I agree that this "war on terror" bit is foolhardy and was doomed from the start. However, I also believe that people deserve the freedom to educate themselves without the state or religious authorities dictating curriculum. One can only fight ideas with other ideas; there must be the freedom to let this healthy dialogue occur.

Unfortunately, most Americans do not think the Iraqi people's freedom from terror is worth it--while at the same time they believe that the illegal immigrants' freedom from "economic persecution" is. Go figure.

[Robert R. Higby]

Yes, the illegal immigrant 'rights' business is nonsense; they should be granted very basic rights (against being murdered, stolen from, etc.) if they obey the law while they are here. However, I believe they need to be deported when discovered and come in next time only through legal channels.

I was not taking a stand on Iraq or even the war on terror, per se. My only point is that we will never obliterate the threat from Islam to the point where it is not a dangerous force in the world to be reckoned with.

I am going to comment soon on Luther's views on prophecy with regard to a future union of Islam and the Papacy and the ultimate destruction of both.

[rlhuckle]

Yes, the illegal immigrant 'rights' business is nonsense; they should be granted very basic rights (against being murdered, stolen from, etc.) if they obey the law while they are here. However, I believe they need to be deported when discovered and come in next time only through legal channels.

Yes, I agree--but the Democrats want more voters and I think this is going to be one of the first issues they address. If they give all the illegals amesty (with the right to vote), the Democrats just might end up ruling this country for years.

I was not taking a stand on Iraq or even the war on terror, per se. My only point is that we will never obliterate the threat from Islam to the point where it is not a dangerous force in the world to be reckoned with.

I understand--and agree. During this season of politics, it is hard not to inject it into almost every conversation regarding the subject of Islam and terrorism.

I am going to comment soon on Luther's views on prophecy with regard to a future union of Islam and the Papacy and the ultimate destruction of both.

Look forward to it.

[Dorcas]

I agree that this "war on terror" bit is foolhardy and was doomed from the start. However, I also believe that people deserve the freedom to educate themselves without the state or religious authorities dictating curriculum. One can only fight ideas with other ideas; there must be the freedom to let this healthy dialogue occur.

Unfortunately, most Americans do not think the Iraqi people's freedom from terror is worth it--while at the same time they believe that the illegal immigrants' freedom from "economic persecution" is. Go figure.

One thing that most Americans don't realize, and that is NEVER portrayed in the media, is that Iraqis still aren't free. Sure, we may have removed a brutal regime, but in its place we instilled a constitution which keeps Islamic law and does not grant freedom of religion. We know a missionary who was in Iraq before, and any Christians there will attest that things are much harder for them to congregate and to worship now than during Saddam. Afghanistan's "new" constitution is similar; no religious freedom. So I for one definitely do not think that these particular wars are "worth it." What is the point of a "democracy" if you do not have freedom of speech and religion?

[rlhuckle]

One thing that most Americans don't realize, and that is NEVER portrayed in the media, is that Iraqis still aren't free. Sure, we may have removed a brutal regime, but in its place we instilled a constitution which keeps Islamic law and does not grant freedom of religion. We know a missionary who was in Iraq before, and any Christians there will attest that things are much harder for them to congregate and to worship now than during Saddam. Afghanistan's "new" constitution is similar; no religious freedom. So I for one definitely do not think that these particular wars are "worth it." What is the point of a "democracy" if you do not have freedom of speech and religion?

I take this as a growing process. If one examines the beginnings of the American states and the colonies that ran them; one finds that there was little religious freedom in those governments. New states were founded because of differences in doctrine.

Only education can pave the way for religious pluralism and only God can open hearts and minds to the truth. The Imams still hold too much sway over the people--much like the Roman Catholic clergy in the dark ages (and America's puritans). Freedom takes time and must begin somewhere. There is an educated class of Iraqi people that are prepared to pave the way if they can be somewhat assured of their safety. I say let's try to give them a chance--nobody else is.

[Robert R. Higby]

Don't take this the wrong way, Roger, but I would have to respectfully disagree on this one. There is no parallel whatsoever between the early American 'experiment' and the current government in Iraq. The former was founded on at least a significant percentage of right thinking people participating in government. The current Iraqi government is Islamo-fascist and the only growth desired is to increase the dominion of Islam once the Americans leave.

The educated people that you speak of can only continue to be assured of their safety if the Americans stay forever--at the cost of at least 250+ billion dollars a year in current valuation.

Perhaps the U.S. should state that all costs of their presence must be paid for after a certain date (which the Iraquis will refuse), then demand an offer of political asylum in the U.S. to any non-Muslum Iraqi that doesn't want to stay--as a condition of any continued U.S. presence after that date. That way we can get all of the freedom loving people out of the country before we turn it back over completely to Islamic fascists. After that, who cares which faction wins a civil war? If we definitely know where terrorist camps are located we can bomb them!

[Brandan Kraft]

I have no problem with the U.S. being in Iraq if it means our safety will be increased. I also think the U.S. should take the natural resources of Iraq to pay for its occupation.

[Robert R. Higby]

Even at the most optimitic estimate of revenues from the Iraq oil industry (95 billion annually), if the U.S. confiscated ALL of it by force, it would only pay for one third of the annual cost of occupation.

[Brandan Kraft]

Even at the most optimitic estimate of revenues from the Iraq oil industry (95 billion annually), if the U.S. confiscated ALL of it by force, it would only pay for one third of the annual cost of occupation.

Over time the occupation will be less and less, and we can make the Iraqi government pay off its debt with future oil.

[rlhuckle]

Don't take this the wrong way, Roger, but I would have to respectfully disagree on this one. There is no parallel whatsoever between the early American 'experiment' and the current government in Iraq. The former was founded on at least a significant percentage of right thinking people participating in government. The current Iraqi government is Islamo-fascist and the only growth desired is to increase the dominion of Islam once the Americans leave.

The educated people that you speak of can only continue to be assured of their safety if the Americans stay forever--at the cost of at least 250+ billion dollars a year in current valuation.

Perhaps the U.S. should state that all costs of their presence must be paid for after a certain date (which the Iraquis will refuse), then demand an offer of political asylum in the U.S. to any non-Muslum Iraqi that doesn't want to stay--as a condition of any continued U.S. presence after that date. That way we can get all of the freedom loving people out of the country before we turn it back over completely to Islamic fascists. After that, who cares which faction wins a civil war? If we definitely know where terrorist camps are located we can bomb them!

No problem, Bob. I know the war is costing a fortune and it looks pretty bleak: Kinda reminds me of the southern frame of mind during the dog days of the Civil War.

[rlhuckle]

Over time the occupation will be less and less, and we can make the Iraqi government pay off its debt with future oil.

When gas begins to retail at about 4 bucks a gallon, even the Democrats do an about face and welcome all the Iraqi oil we can get!

[Craig kennedy]

I have been studying Luther's writings on the issue of military involvement in wars against Islam and how his perspective on the matter impacted his eschatology. He really did have a lot of very good and sound things to say & was not the hawkish kook that many critics portray. He definitely taught against active Crusades, stating that Islam was an agent of God to punish the sins of the West and it was useless to try and exterminate it--but maintained a view of the need for a strong military defense nonetheless. This is not a subject discussed all that often when it comes to examining Luther's theology.

I have always believed Luther's 'two kingdom' doctrine to be right on the money and the correct political alternative to the Constantinian state-church system. I have no doubt that Luther opposed a state church even in Germany according to his early beliefs stated in "The Freedom of the Christian" but was forced to accomodate the demand for a Lutheran state-church by the princes.

Anyway, his eschatology is particularly interesting and I find it still very relevant to the world situation today.

For an introductory article go to:

http://www.encyclopedia.com

Type Luther+Turks+Islam in the search area and scroll down to the 'related articles'; select the one by Robert O. Smith. I tried posting the link directly to the html but it does not work. You can try this link (a search engine result) and see if it works

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-...0Turks%20Islam

Comments?

Hi Bob,

Again, you have provided a deeply thought provoking subject and opened up the correct issues to be explored in arriving at a true biblical eschatology.

At this time, I hold to a 'futurist' type amillennial eschatology along the lines of AA Hoekema and William Hendriksen. Obviously, this type of eschatology posits a future "man of sin" ie the Antichrist who will be a powerful worldwide dictator.

Your excellent article has got me thinking however. If, in fact, God has pre-determined that Islam is His agent to punish the west for their sins then I can see, most readily, that the amillennial historicist position does full justice to this phenomena. I am seriously considering the adoption of the amillennial historicist position as the true biblical eschatology.

It also seems to me that if Islam has been raised up by God for this purpose - and I think you are right - then this would be reflected in a major part of biblical prophecy. Furthermore, a discerning interpreter would be alert to look for such references in the Book of Revelation itself.

Could you please explain where Islam is referred to in the Book of Revelation? Could you further explain under what imagery Islam is referred to in the Book of Revelation? Could you also outline what you consider the chronology of the Book of Revelation to be?

In gratitude for your excellent insights,

Craig

[Robert R. Higby]

Soon! One thing I can say for sure is that I reject the notion of a future personal antichrist as a likely phenomenon; this is something I changed my mind on in 2002 after a more intense study of the New Testament. Once the historicist fulfillment of the man of lawlessness is realized, the idea of one person fulfilling that prophecy in the future becomes a moot point!

As a start on the issue of Islam and its role in the fulfillment of prophecy, I would recommend that you read our thread in the Churchianity section on 'The Family Tree of the Great Whore.'

Thanks for your interest! --Bob