# Luther, Charles V and Hyper-preterism



## re4med (Sep 22, 2009)

On another site the following quotes were offered to somehow make the argument that those who oppose hyper-preterism are akin to Charles V in his response to Luther's "Here I Stand" speech. What are your thoughts?

A nice quote find by John Scargy (regarding Martin Luther)

*NOTE FROM MB: MOST OF US KNOW THE QUOTE BELOW.*

Luther responded to their questions:
"Since your majesty and your Lordships ask for a plain answer, I will give you one without either horns or teeth. Unless I am convicted by Scripture or by right reason (for *I trust neither in popes nor in councils, since they have often erred and contradicted themselves*)--unless I am thus convinced, I am bound by the texts of the Bible, my conscience is captive to the Word of God, I neither can nor will recant anything, since it is neither right nor safe to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.

*BUT ADD THIS QUOTE THAT JOHN SCARGY FOUND AND IT REALLY MAKES OUR* _(W.Hill: "our" meaning the hyper-preterists)_ *POINT (NICE FIND JOHN).*

Consequently, on May 8 Charles V drafted an edict, and on May 26 he signed it. In this edict he referred to Luther's doctrine as a "cesspool of heresies." He declared: *"A single monk, led astray by private judgment*, has *set himself against the faith held by all Christians for more than a thousand years*. He believes that *all Christians up to now have erred*. Therefore, I have resolved to stake upon this cause all my dominions, my friends, my body and blood, my life and soul."


----------



## Skyler (Sep 22, 2009)

Umm... Is he trying to say that hyper-preterism has been held to by all Christians for more than a thousand years?


----------



## Poimen (Sep 22, 2009)

The judgment of Charles V does not establish their argument because it is a statement from a man who was opposed to Luther; not a statement of fact nor Luther's opinion about what he was doing. Besides we do not believe that Luther was correct simply because he opposed tradition (for there were many before him who did that on the basis of heretical <read: anti-trinitarian> doctrines). He was correct because he derived his teaching from scripture over and against what was or was becoming the *C*atholic church. 

And, furthermore, in no way did Luther _contradict_ catholic or received doctrine. Not until after the Protestants upheld the biblical gospel did the Western church reject it and then only through its rejection did she become a false church. Those who oppose the preterists of our day do not do so _primarily_ on grounds of tradition or church history but on scripture. Nor do we try to persuade others by force. Thus the comparison fails. 

Indeed for someone to suggest that a group of rogue theologians who teach a doctrine that contradicts the Apostle's Creed are somehow in the line and spirit of Luther is quite laughable and ignorant besides.


----------

