The love of truth fires three great drives. First, it wants to know the truth. Second, it wants to align itself with truth. Third, it wants to exalt the truth. It is not a love for truth that does not possess these passions.

This article is not focused on whether one is right or wrong. It is not a study trying to determine truth on some doctrinal matter. It is rather concerned with the desire to be right. And they are different things. They have distinct effects. A man may be right on a subject but have no passion or love for it. He may only half-heartedly present it, defer to defend it, and find little or no pain if and when it is rejected. And likewise he may be wrong and have such a passion that he is ever talking about it, urging it upon others and defending it as the occasion arises with earnest fervor.

Martin Luther manifested a strong enough love for truth to break with his ancestors, his spiritual and hierarchical overseers, financial and social security, and to risk his life itself. He studied for himself, reached convictions as to what he believed was the will of God as set forth in the scriptures. He boldly declared what he saw and held to be truth, both from the pulpit and in print. It cost him dearly. He who zealously believes and boldly preaches what is not popular is necessarily destined to be a controversial figure. Only the preacher who takes the generally accepted way can avoid fierce confrontations and be popular. He who avoids taking opposition to error or discourages the open and free discussion of doctrine betrays either a lack of love for truth, or a love of popularity, or both.

It mattered to Luther whether or not you agreed with what he taught. He had no "let's not argue religion" view, for he esteemed the truth as valuable enough to both fight and die for it. He sought no tepid compromise. Those who took up the struggle with Luther learned early that they had not joined some social club. They had no incentive to be there simply because they had friends there. The appeal was to Scripture and the deep conviction of the heart.

He rejected a great deal of what he had been taught by his religious teachers, for he could not find it in the Bible. He deemed it more important to be personally right than to violate his conscience to go along with whatever the Roman hierarchy said. In a single word, he was in no sense a traditionalist. As all honest Bible students do, he taught himself out of many errors. The same spirit also promotes healthy controversy, that is, a vigorous discussion of Bible principles and applications. After all, this spirit has already challenged the generally accepted doctrines it "inherited," measured them by God's word, found them wanting, and rejected them.

Why then would it think it a strange thing that it's conclusions are challenged by others and subjected to the same rule it has used?

Personally, I have a great respect and admiration for Luther and other reformers that I do not have for the Lutheran Church and the major protestant bodies that resulted from the reformation. There is a distinct reason.

Luther was in the arena, testing and being tested, advocating the supremacy of scripture, and accordingly changing his position commensurate with his increasing understanding. In the Lutheran Church Scriptures are subordinated, an official catechism spells out the official position and constitutes the final authority. "We are satisfied" replaces any continual search for truth. Such smugness implies that truth has been found, but the finder has no desire to share it with anyone by convincing them that it is indeed the truth. Nor does it deem that truth to be deserving of an earnest defense. In effect it says, "If you dissent from the church's position, go and join the church of your choice." And the whole tenor of Protestantism is that it does not matter what you choose—one is as good as another. There is no conviction. There is no persuasion. There is no pointing to Scripture.

Now I have used Luther as the example here for several reasons. First, because of his prominence and the genuine respect I have for him as a man. Second, because I disagree with all my heart with some of his conclusions. I am persuaded he was wrong. But I am persuaded that, were he alive, he would not say he was "satisfied" and focus his energies on organizing or running his religious movement while refusing to challenge others or be challenged by what the Word of God says.

The real essence of being a Christian is not finding a "church home" or joining some organization. It is following Christ and pursuing truth. Everything else is secondary or, put another way, is an effect as opposed to a cause. 1 am a member of the body of Christ and work and worship with a local church as a result of my personal understanding of certain Scriptures. I am not the converse, namely, a member of a religious organization and pleased to go along with certain doctrines and to maintain fellowship independently of plain Bible authority.

Love the truth! Those who do not love truth will certainly perish in error of one kind or another (2 Thess. 2:10). Worse than any single error they embrace is the lack of love itself! Let us dedicate ourselves to the seeking, following, and exaltation of divine truth.