As I was driving to a meeting yesterday I thought I would listen in on what Mr. Bill O’Reilly had to say. The topic of the day was the Da Vinci Code and specifically the idea propagated in it that says Jesus was married and had children. Several callers were making the point that some people might draw their theology from such a movie. Now here is where things got interesting. Mr. O’Reilly was correct in the assessment that anyone who gets his theology from a movie is a “moron” (his terminology). Many callers still expressed their concerns about how the movie might impact people’s ideas concerning Christianity. So, in typical, provocative O’Reilly fashion, Bill made the following statement (this is my best paraphrase):
“Look, Dan Brown (author of the Da Vinci Code) wrote a theory, his opinion about what might have happened with Jesus – but it is just a theory and anyone who believes this theory is a moron. It’s like a man named Martin Luther. He had a theory about Christianity and thus broke away from the church (the Catholic Church).
In one fell swoop, Mr. O’Reilly linked those who would draw their theology from Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” with those who draw their theology from Martin Luther (i.e. Calvinism; Sovereignty of God in salvation, etc). In other words, just as those who believe in the Da Vinci Code theory are “morons”, so are all those of the Protestant Church, who believe in the Martin Luther “theory.” The only problem is that Luther’s “theory” was not a “theory” or opinion at all. With regard to the salvation of man, Luther sought not the contrivings of men, but the very Word of God. Read Luther’s statement when called upon to recant his position in order to follow the traditions and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, teachings that stood against God’s revealed Word:
“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture or by clear reason (for I trust neither pope nor council alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have cited, for my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since to act against one’s conscience is neither safe nor right. I cannot do otherwise. Here I stand, may God help me.”
I find O’Reilly’s statement to be “moronic.” While I understand that he, being Catholic, does not agree with Luther’s apologetics, Luther’s apologetics concerning the nature of salvation and justification by faith alone are nonetheless based upon the Scriptures and sound Biblical interpretation. This is not something that Dan Brown can claim for his book.
If I had been in a position to call in to O’Reilly’s program, I would have in order to “set the record straight” and so that I might fulfill the Scripture saying:
“but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence…” (1 Peter 3:15)
I might have to refrain from using the word “moron” (for that might be without gentleness and reverence) but the truth of salvation by faith alone, by grace alone and by Christ alone, a teaching that adheres to the clear teaching of Scriptures and is opposed the Catholic doctrine, must be declared. So, “what say you?”
“Look, Dan Brown (author of the Da Vinci Code) wrote a theory, his opinion about what might have happened with Jesus – but it is just a theory and anyone who believes this theory is a moron. It’s like a man named Martin Luther. He had a theory about Christianity and thus broke away from the church (the Catholic Church).
In one fell swoop, Mr. O’Reilly linked those who would draw their theology from Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” with those who draw their theology from Martin Luther (i.e. Calvinism; Sovereignty of God in salvation, etc). In other words, just as those who believe in the Da Vinci Code theory are “morons”, so are all those of the Protestant Church, who believe in the Martin Luther “theory.” The only problem is that Luther’s “theory” was not a “theory” or opinion at all. With regard to the salvation of man, Luther sought not the contrivings of men, but the very Word of God. Read Luther’s statement when called upon to recant his position in order to follow the traditions and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, teachings that stood against God’s revealed Word:
“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture or by clear reason (for I trust neither pope nor council alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have cited, for my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since to act against one’s conscience is neither safe nor right. I cannot do otherwise. Here I stand, may God help me.”
I find O’Reilly’s statement to be “moronic.” While I understand that he, being Catholic, does not agree with Luther’s apologetics, Luther’s apologetics concerning the nature of salvation and justification by faith alone are nonetheless based upon the Scriptures and sound Biblical interpretation. This is not something that Dan Brown can claim for his book.
If I had been in a position to call in to O’Reilly’s program, I would have in order to “set the record straight” and so that I might fulfill the Scripture saying:
“but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence…” (1 Peter 3:15)
I might have to refrain from using the word “moron” (for that might be without gentleness and reverence) but the truth of salvation by faith alone, by grace alone and by Christ alone, a teaching that adheres to the clear teaching of Scriptures and is opposed the Catholic doctrine, must be declared. So, “what say you?”
Soli Deo Gloria,
Pastor Ed
2 comments:
Dan Brown's book is a work of fiction. He might say that parts of it are true, but many of those parts can be disproven. Luther never said that his work was a work of fiction...he actually really struggled with the things of scripture a great deal. These things are easily researchable.
To me, linking the two shows a real lack of research. And shame on Mr. O'Reilly for not doing more of it.
To be fair, Mr. O'Reilly made this comment on the fly. It was not part of a monologue. However, he should have been far more careful than to make such a link between the Da Vinci Code and Martin Luther's dispute with the Catholic Church.
Post a Comment