Come now. I am the most milquetoast of Lutherans. With deep sighing I despair that the church has fragmented so. I get irritated when my Lutheran brethren strive to be more baptist rather than more catholic. I proudly declare I would rather drink blood with the Pope than wine with Zwingli. While the Boomers in my congregation agitate to get guitars and 24/7 songs into the liturgy, I fight for incense and maybe even a smackerel of Latin.
But if I thought Rome was correct, I would join her church.
And if Rome is wrong, ipso facto the defiance of her error is worthy of celebration. Athanasius contra mundum, and all that.
I am not so milquetoast as to apologize for believing that which I think to be true.
Logic Monkey Media 
I’m afraid I have no respect for Luther, though I do sympathize with his scrupulous condition that ultimately led him to redesign theology.
Declaring that Scripture was authoritative, but then removing the books of Scripture that he didn’t like, and also inserting “alone” into his translation so that he could say “faith alone” are not the marks of an honest man.
Also his urging the local lords to use force against people he didn’t like.
https://www.newoxfordreview.org/documents/a-trialogue-with-c-s-lewis-martin-luther-thomas-aquinas-2/ (Yes it requires a free trial account to read the lot of it, which I did in order to read it. And yes, the slightly odd quote from Luther near the beginning is something he actually said.)
LikeLike
I’ve actually read it and it is really good. Much better than that little bit I wrote above might lead one to believe. Luther and Aquinas both get a lot of great arguments.
If you have time on your hands and don’t want to sign up for a free trial, this is freely viewable, and very good, though long: http://www.scifiwright.com/apologetics/universal-apologia/
LikeLike
Thank you kindly for the resources and the response. I am loathe to engage further, as I’m afraid I’ve lost my taste for the hammer and tongs of debate in my dotage. I will say John Wright (and Peter Kreeft) have, in the past, shaken my faith in my dogmas, and made good, robust defenses of Rome.
I would say the root disagreement between Rome and the Lutheran Creeds is a dispute over who has divine authority. There are many other disputes, of course. Perhaps the debate over the role of good works is more fatal to the soul. But we can get nowhere on that debate so long as we differ on what constitutes acceptable data sources.
So, then. If my root error is I reject lawful authorities, including the whole Magisterium of Rome, and the heir of St. Peter himself…
..why should I give a fig for what Luther said or did or how honest he was?
“Luther didn’t like Jews. Luther didn’t like James. Luther wanted to bang a nun.” My root problem is I reject popes. Attempts to solve my problem by unseating Luther as my pope will prove fruitless, I’m afraid.
LikeLike