Follow up on SS

[marywarfield]

Part 3: Luther/SS+PI/Protestant Doctrinal Dissention Connections

Next we have the great Calvinist Theologian R. C. Sproul:

“Two of the great legacies of the Reformation were the principal of private interpretation and the translation of the Bible into the vernacular. The two principals go hand in hand and were accomplished only after great controversy and persecution. Scores of persons paid with their lives by being burned at the stake (particularly in England) for daring to translate the bible into the vernacular. One of Luther’s greatest achievements was a translation of the Bible into German so that any literate person could read it for himself.” R.C. Sproul, (Protestant Theologian) “Knowing Scripture”, pg. 33

First of all, if Private Interpretation is one of the two great legacies of the Protestant Reformation, then doesn’t it follow that Protestant Doctrinal Confusion has been a positive development? After all, it is a direct result of PI. As for the other half of the ‘legacy’ – Protestantism did not translate the Bible into the vernacular. There were at least 26 different German Bibles prior to Luther’s ‘translation’.

Sproul continues:

“It was Luther himself who brought the issue of private interpretation of the Bible into sharp focus in the sixteenth century. Hidden beneath the famous response of the Reformer to the ecclesiastical and imperial authorities at the Diet of Worms was the implicit principal of private interpretation.

When asked to recant of his writings, Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by Sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.” Notice that Luther said “unless I am convinced…….” In earlier debates at Leipzig and Augsburg,** Luther had dared to presume to interpret Scripture contrary to interpretations rendered by Popes and by church councils. That he would be so presumptuous led to the repeated charge of arrogance by church officials. Luther did not take these charges lightly but agonized over them.** He believed that he could be wrong but maintained that the Pope and councils could also err. For him only one source of truth was free from error. He said, “The Scriptures never err.” Thus, unless the leaders of the church could convince him of his error, he felt duty-bound to follow what his own conscience was convinced Scripture taught. With this controversy the principal of private interpretation was born and baptized with fire.” R.C. Sproul, (Protestant Theologian) “Knowing Scripture”, pg. 33-4

What baffles me to no end is how Sproul could depict PI as a positive development. Did he not read either Scripture or any of the Fathers on the subject? Doesn’t he realize what the results of PI have been? Or, alternatively, does he believe that doctrinal diversity is (somehow) a ‘good thing’?

“He really substituted for all external authorities the enlightened conscience of the individual Christian. The Bible he read for himself and admitted the claim of no council or body of men to read it for him. This, in principle, though he never fully realized it, and seldom acted upon it, meant the right of private judgment in religious things, and in it lay the promise of a new age.” Presbyterian Theologian Arthur Cushman McGiffert, “Martin Luther, the Man and His Work”, pg. 144-5 Ibid

I have to disagree with McGiffert on one point. Luther relied constantly on private judgment. Of course he would claim that his teachings were Scriptural, but of course all they really were were his Private Interpretations of Scripture, which is exactly what has created an uncountable number of denominations. He certainly did not rely on the teachings of the Catholic Church, which he hated beyond reason. He used HIS Private Interpretation to decide what was correct and what was incorrect.

In regards to Luther’s teaching that all were Priests: “**Such a view was fraught with far-reaching consequences for the theory of the Church, **and Luther’s own view of the Church was derivative from his theory of the sacraments. His deductions however, were not clear-cut in this area, because his view of the Lord’s Supper pointed in one directly and his view of baptism in another. That is why he could be at once to a degree the father of the congregationalism of the Anabaptists and of the territorial church of the later Lutherans.” Bainton, pg. 130

Bainton is probably the most ‘generous’ of Luther’s more recent biographers (towards Luther), and yet……he calls him at least to a degree, the ‘father of the Anabaptists’. It seems to me that all of these respected (mostly Protestant) Scholars are much more interested in presenting the Truth and their professional reputations than they are in protecting the false Legend of Martin Luther, which has, for centuries been depicting him in an excessively favorable light. These people seem to be able to admit the truth and still remain Protestants, including still remaining Lutherans, although as we have learned, Lutheran Scholars seem to ‘defect’ at a greater rate than Lutheran laypeople.

So why can’t Lutheran apologists admit the truth also?

God Bless

I’m not so sure of that Topper. I believe Luther was
rather reserved or conservative on matters of private
interpretation. Wasn’t it the Anabaptists that took off
running on private interpretation so the Lutherans
and us took turns doing them in?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

I think he would be horrified, also, Joe, but I don’t think he would lay the blame on sola scriptura. AFAIK, the quote below is directed at the devil.

“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgement; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”- Martin Luther

Jon, your comment does not fit with the facts. Luther railed against the devil constantly, but mostly he saw the devil in his opponents. In this particular case, he was railing against Protestant doctrinal dissention. He of course blamed it on the devil, but in truth, it was Luther himself who was the ‘agent’ who introduced SS and PI into Western Christianity.

As you know, Luther had a rather ‘special’ and intimate relationship with the devil, a relationship that should be explored. Protestant Biographer Heiko Oberman, who is generally very ‘generous’ towards Luther makes the following comment:

“One delicate question – one that might even be unfitting for any respectable home – may lead back to Luther’s upbringing. The problem cannot be ignored: if a man is so obviously preoccupied with ideas about and visions of the Devil, does he not require a psychiatrist, or might he not be at least subject to psychological inquiry?” (Reformed) Oberman, “Luther, Man between God and the Devil”, pg. 106

As we move forward, we should remember that it was a Protestant who advises us to subject Luther to a psychological inquiry. There is much in the historical record which would provide evidence in such an analysis.

The question should not be whether Luther admitted that SS was responsible for doctrinal dissension, but whether it was. Personally, I don’t think Luther was emotionally or psychologically capable of accepting blame for virtually anything. But I have to admit that I have heard this ‘Luther wouldn’t agree’ argument from Lutherans before. How in the world is it necessary for Luther to admit guilt in order for us to find him guilty? Wouldn’t an examination of the facts be more revealing than whether Luther himself was capable of believing that he was wrong to rebel against the Church.

It has always been my contention that the divisions within His Church, be it among protestant communions, between them and Rome, within the Catholic communion itself, and between Rome and Constantinople, are the result of human sin.

Again, what you have always contended, while it may be true in a very generalized fashion, does not go far enough in that it is not at all anywhere near specific enough, and as I have said before, the truth is normally revealed in the specifics. Your statement doesn’t assign guilt or responsibility whatsoever, in fact, it infers that none can be.

If SS is responsible for doctrinal dissension, then that aspect of it simply cannot be the responsibility of the Catholic Church because it has NEVER taught SS. All it has ever done is battle SS. Martin Luther, as we are learning, is responsible for SS, and PI, and the combination of those two things has had an extremely negative effect on the unity of Western Christianity.

Jon, the respected Scholars we are reading have been very clear as to the fact of the connections from ML to SS+PI to Protestant Doctrinal Dissension. So far we have read 8 different Scholars. I have to ask:

**How many Scholars will you need to see before you will be able to attribute Protestantism’s doctrinal dissension to SS and Martin Luther? 10? 15? 20?

In other words, what is the level of evidence that will be necessary in order for you to admit what all of these Professional Scholars have concluded?

What quantitative and qualitative weight of proof that will cause you to doubt as to Luther’s culpability for Protestantism’s doctrinal disagreements?

**
God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[marywarfield]

Interesting quote re: tradition vs. written word.

“From Explanation of the sayings of the Lord by Papias written ca. 130AD “I shall not hesitate to set down for you along with my interpretations whatever I learned well from the presbyters and recall clearly, being thoroughly confident of their truth.* Unlike most people, I do not delight in those who talk a great deal, but in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate the commandments of others, but in those who relate the commandments given by the Lord to the faith, and which are derived from Truth itself.* And then too, when anyone came along who had been a follower of the presbyters, I would inquire about the presbyters’ discourses; what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, for by John or Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples; and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. *It did not seem to me that I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from a living and abiding voice.” *Eusebius, Fragments of Papias’ works in History of the Church, Book III chapter 39”.

 

[JonNC]

I’m not so sure of that Topper. I believe Luther was
rather reserved or conservative on matters of private
interpretation. Wasn’t it the Anabaptists that took off
running on private interpretation so the Lutherans
and us took turns doing them in?

I believe, Mary, that generally you are correct. The quote from Luther’s letter to Antwerp s sometimes used as evidence that Luther regretted sola scriptura, and the like. When one reads the letter, one can see that’s just not the case.

As for personal interpretation, the Lutheran practice of it is always, or should always be within the framework of the doctrine of the Church, which is why we see Martin Chemnitz’s reference to it in the quote I my signature.

James Swan, a Reformed apologist, provides the letter on his blog, along with his commentary about the letter.

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/11/luther-sola-scriptura-had-devastating.html

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response.

I’m not so sure of that Topper. I believe Luther was rather reserved or conservative on matters of private interpretation. Wasn’t it the Anabaptists that took off running on private interpretation so the Lutherans and us took turns doing them in?

What you say is true, but it is not the whole story. With Luther the key is always WHEN did he say this or that. Depending on who you believe, Luther either developed or invented SS somewhere between 1508 and 1518. Clearly though at the very latest he was espousing the whole of SS+PI in 1519. Right from 1519 (the Leipzig Debate), other people began to ‘use’ the very radical principles that Luther was teaching. But, they were using SS+PI to justify their non-Lutheran teachings, which was a shock to Luther. He actually expected that people would agree with him on doctrinal matters once they had been broken free from the false teachings of the Church. When Luther finally caught on he began to backtrack, not on SS or PI, but on the right of anybody who disagreed with him to use them. About 1525, or at least 6 years after he had publically proclaimed SS+PI, he began to ‘qualify’ that teaching such that only those who agreed with him could ‘use’ those ‘rights”. This will become very clear as we move through the quotes from the Scholars that are planned.

So – while is true that Luther steered a ‘middle course’ between the Church and the ‘radicals’, he did not do so until what he had been warned about (doctrinal disunity) had become clear, even to him. In fact, all the ‘radicals’ were doing was following the teachings that Luther had so cluelessly proclaimed without thinking about how somebody else could use them to arrive at ‘false’ doctrinal beliefs. Several Scholars speak to this change in Luther’s teaching.

Dr. Christopher Dawson, another Harvard Professor, comments on this change, speaking about how Anabaptism forced Luther to re-evalute his teaching on SS+PI:

“….the effect of Anabaptism on Luther and the Protestant Reformation in Germany was conservative. After the Peasant’s War (of 1525), Luther became much more chary of making direct appeals to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the freedom of the Christian man. He no longer advocated the congregational principle of the autonomous Christian congregation, which had been his original pattern for the evangelical Church (cf. his letter to the of Leipig), and came to depend more and more on the support of the secular authority, primarily on that of his own prince, the Elector of Saxony, and the support of the other Protestant princes beginning with Philip of Hesse in 1524.” Dawson, “The Dividing of Christendom”, pg. 100

Here Dawson informs us that in 1525, Luther was not so inclined to make direct appeals to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that he changed the organizational model for his Church.

(The Great) Alister McGrath tell us:

**“The idea that lay at the heart of the sixteenth-century Reformation, which brought about Anglicanism and the other Protestant churches into being, was that the Bible is capable of being understood by all Christian believers – and that they all have the right to interpret it and to insist upon their perspectives being taken seriously. Yet this powerful affirmation of spiritual democracy ended up unleashing forces that threatened to destabalize the church, eventually leading to fissure and the formation of breakaway groups. ** Anglicanism may yet follow the pattern of other Protestant groups and become a “family” of denominations, each with its own way of reading and applying the Bible.

The dangerous new idea, firmly embodied at the heart of the Protestant revolution, was that all Christians have a right to interpret the Bible for themselves. However, it ultimately proved uncontrollable, spawning developments that few at the time could have envisaged or predicted. The great convulsion of the early sixteenth century that historians now call “the Reformation” introduced into the history of Christianity a dangerous new idea that gave rise to an unparalleled degree of creativity and growth, on the one hand, while on the other causing new tensions and debates that, by their very nature, probably lie beyond resolution. The development of Protestantism as a major religious force in the world has been shaped decisively by the creative tensions emerging from this principal.

The Dangerous Idea

……Yet from it’s outset, the movement was seen by its opponents as a menacing development, opening the way to religious mayhem, social disintegration, and political chaos. It was not simply that Protestantism seemed to revise, corrupt, or abandon some of the traditional beliefs and practices of the Christian faith. Something far more significant – and ultimately much more dangerous – lay beneath the surface of the Protestantism criticisms of the medieval church. At its heart, the emergence and growth of Protestantism concerned one of the most fundamental questions that can confront any religion: Who has the authority to define its faith? Institutions or individuals? Who has the right to interpret its foundational document, the Bible?”

McGrath to be continued….

 

[Topper17]

McGrath Continued:

**“Protestantism took its stand on the right of individuals to interpret the Bible for themselves **rather than be forced to submit to “official” interpretations handed down by popes or other or other centralized religious authorities. For Martin Luther, perhaps the most significant of the first generation of Protestant leaders, the traditional authority of clerical institutions had led to the degradation and distortion of the Christian faith. Renewal and reformation were urgently needed. And if the medieval church would not put its own house in order, reform would have to come from its grass roots – from the laity. **Luther’s radical doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” empowered individual believers. It was a radical, dangerous idea that bypassed the idea that a centralized authority had the right to interpret the Bible. There was no centralized authority, no clerical monopoly on biblical interpretation. A radical reshaping of Christianity was inevitable, precisely because the restraints on change had suddenly – seemingly irreversibly – been removed. **

**The outbreak of the Peasants’ War in 1525 brought home to Luther that this new approach was dangerous and ultimately uncontrollable. If each individual was able to interpret the Bible as he pleased, the outcome could only be anarchy and radical religious individualism. Too late, Luther tried to rein in the movement by emphasizing the importance of authorized religious leaders, such as himself, and institutions in the interpretation of the Bible. **But who, his critics asked, had “authorized” these “so-called” authorities? Was not the essence of Luther’s dangerous new idea that there was no such centralized authority? That all Christians had the right to interpret the Bible as they saw fit?”, McGrath, “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, p. 2-4

Here we see, among other things, that it was (again) in 1525, as the result of the Peasant’s War, that Luther realized that SS+PI (for everbody) was a really, really bad idea. He hadn’t listened to the (much better Catholic) Theologians who had been warning him of exactly this problem for 7 years (since the Leipzig Debate). As McGrath puts it, Luther tried to “tried to rein in the movement by emphasizing the importance of authorized religious leaders, such as himself, and institutions in the interpretation of the Bible”. No longer was he teaching that everyone could use THEIR PI to interpret the Scriptures. What McGrath is telling us is that the Reformation was founded on a principle that was wrong, even in Luther’s mind, although he did not realize it until it was too late. The ‘radicals’ and the Anabaptists had already used his principles to forge their own path.

The question then turns to what Luther did after 1525 when it finally became apparent, even to him, that SS+PI for everyone was not going to work out very well in the real world.

“Since Luther and his opponents both appealed to the authority of Scripture but reached different conclusions about its meaning, Luther found it expedient to supplement his theological arguments with appeals to personal authority as the one whom God had used to initiate the Reformation.” (Lutheran Professor) Mark U. Edwards, “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, pg. 200

What exactly did Edwards mean by “personal authority”?

“Mark Edwards has suggested that before 1522 Luther had never presented himself as anything other than a doctor of theology expounding Scripture. Afterward Luther saw himself increasingly as a prophet raised up by God in a special time.”, Marius, pg. 329

I would suggest that if Luther was a prophet raised up by God, then it must be that God wanted Christianity divided, because that is exactly what Luther’s Reformation and his SS+PI accomplished.

So Mary, while Luther did eventually (in 1525) turn back more towards a more ecclesiastical model of the Church, he taught SS+PI exclusively for a fateful 7-8 years. During that time, the cows had left the barn and when Luther finally realized how bad his teachings were working in the real world, it was too late to get the cows back in. SS+PI had been unleashed on Christianity.

Especially Lutherans are prone to explain to us that Luther steered a ‘middle course’ between the radicals and the Church, but they are not as prone to explain that the radicals were really only using the exact radical teachings that Luther first taught. This is exactly what is meant by Luther being to some degree the ‘father’ of the Anabaptists.

All of this begs the question as to how Luther could have justified his Revolt against Catholic Authority if all he was was one of many Doctors of Theology?

I hope this information helps Mary. If you have any questions, please let me know.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[marywarfield]

McGrath Continued:

**“Protestantism took its stand on the right of individuals to interpret the Bible for themselves **rather than be forced to submit to “official” interpretations handed down by popes or other or other centralized religious authorities. For Martin Luther, perhaps the most significant of the first generation of Protestant leaders, the traditional authority of clerical institutions had led to the degradation and distortion of the Christian faith. Renewal and reformation were urgently needed. And if the medieval church would not put its own house in order, reform would have to come from its grass roots – from the laity. **Luther’s radical doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” empowered individual believers. It was a radical, dangerous idea that bypassed the idea that a centralized authority had the right to interpret the Bible. There was no centralized authority, no clerical monopoly on biblical interpretation. A radical reshaping of Christianity was inevitable, precisely because the restraints on change had suddenly – seemingly irreversibly – been removed. **

**The outbreak of the Peasants’ War in 1525 brought home to Luther that this new approach was dangerous and ultimately uncontrollable. If each individual was able to interpret the Bible as he pleased, the outcome could only be anarchy and radical religious individualism. Too late, Luther tried to rein in the movement by emphasizing the importance of authorized religious leaders, such as himself, and institutions in the interpretation of the Bible. **But who, his critics asked, had “authorized” these “so-called” authorities? Was not the essence of Luther’s dangerous new idea that there was no such centralized authority? That all Christians had the right to interpret the Bible as they saw fit?”, McGrath, “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, p. 2-4

Here we see, among other things, that it was (again) in 1525, as the result of the Peasant’s War, that Luther realized that SS+PI (for everbody) was a really, really bad idea. He hadn’t listened to the (much better Catholic) Theologians who had been warning him of exactly this problem for 7 years (since the Leipzig Debate). As McGrath puts it, Luther tried to “tried to rein in the movement by emphasizing the importance of authorized religious leaders, such as himself, and institutions in the interpretation of the Bible”. No longer was he teaching that everyone could use THEIR PI to interpret the Scriptures. What McGrath is telling us is that the Reformation was founded on a principle that was wrong, even in Luther’s mind, although he did not realize it until it was too late. The ‘radicals’ and the Anabaptists had already used his principles to forge their own path.

The question then turns to what Luther did after 1525 when it finally became apparent, even to him, that SS+PI for everyone was not going to work out very well in the real world.

“Since Luther and his opponents both appealed to the authority of Scripture but reached different conclusions about its meaning, Luther found it expedient to supplement his theological arguments with appeals to personal authority as the one whom God had used to initiate the Reformation.” (Lutheran Professor) Mark U. Edwards, “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, pg. 200

What exactly did Edwards mean by “personal authority”?

“Mark Edwards has suggested that before 1522 Luther had never presented himself as anything other than a doctor of theology expounding Scripture. Afterward Luther saw himself increasingly as a prophet raised up by God in a special time.”, Marius, pg. 329

I would suggest that if Luther was a prophet raised up by God, then it must be that God wanted Christianity divided, because that is exactly what Luther’s Reformation and his SS+PI accomplished.

So Mary, while Luther did eventually (in 1525) turn back more towards a more ecclesiastical model of the Church, he taught SS+PI exclusively for a fateful 7-8 years. During that time, the cows had left the barn and when Luther finally realized how bad his teachings were working in the real world, it was too late to get the cows back in. SS+PI had been unleashed on Christianity.

Especially Lutherans are prone to explain to us that Luther steered a ‘middle course’ between the radicals and the Church, but they are not as prone to explain that the radicals were really only using the exact radical teachings that Luther first taught. This is exactly what is meant by Luther being to some degree the ‘father’ of the Anabaptists.

All of this begs the question as to how Luther could have justified his Revolt against Catholic Authority if all he was was one of many Doctors of Theology?

I hope this information helps Mary. If you have any questions, please let me know.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

Yes this is how I understand it as well. In a nutshell
Luther opened a Pandora’s box as the Holy See
had warned him and so he was in the unenviable
position of trying to shut it again with our help.
Unfortunately we all failed as people especially
free thinkers, most reasonably
become more stubborn when they are executed.

What I find interesting with this “reform” is Luther
did not reform the tendency of the Church to knock
heads off heretics and joined right in. He would
have been great as a Crusader in the Middle East!

 

[joe371]

JonNC
It has always been my contention that the divisions within His Church, be it among protestant communions, between them and Rome, within the Catholic communion itself, and between Rome and Constantinople, are the result of human sin.

Jon

Hey Jon, sin from all sides, is certainly the reason for disunity, as per the CCC. However, I must believe that sin can never stop God from guiding and preserving the fullness of truth in the church He founded. I believe that truth is found everywhere and in all churches to some degree, regardless of denomination, but it seems reasonable to conclude - and biblical - that the fullness of truth can be found in just the one church - the one where Jesus said: I will build my church.

 

[joe371]

I believe, Mary, that generally you are correct. The quote from Luther’s letter to Antwerp s sometimes used as evidence that Luther regretted sola scriptura, and the like. When one reads the letter, one can see that’s just not the case.

As for personal interpretation, the Lutheran practice of it is always, or should always be within the framework of the doctrine of the Church, which is why we see Martin Chemnitz’s reference to it in the quote I my signature.

James Swan, a Reformed apologist, provides the letter on his blog, along with his commentary about the letter.

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/11/luther-sola-scriptura-had-devastating.html

Jon

You once mentioned that sola scriptura was not taught by Jesus or his apostles or their successors. Doesn’t that make it a man-made tradition, as opposed to an apostolic tradition, if it is not a command from Jesus i.e. “neglecting the commandment of God, you [sola scriputura advocates] hold to the tradition of men.” Mark 7

 

[JonNC]

You once mentioned that sola scriptura was not taught by Jesus or his apostles or their successors. Doesn’t that make it a man-made tradition, as opposed to an apostolic tradition, if it is not a command from Jesus i.e. “neglecting the commandment of God, you [sola scriputura advocates] hold to the tradition of men.” Mark 7

Hi Joe,
What I’ve said is that the practice of sola scriptura is a post-apostolic practice. There are plenty of man-made practices and traditions in both our communions. This one, like many others, is not a doctrine that binds the conscience of the believer, nor in our view does it do harm to the Gospel. It isn’t a neglecting of the command of God.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response.

Yes this is how I understand it as well. In a nutshell Luther opened a Pandora’s box as the Holy See had warned him and so he was in the unenviable position of trying to shut it again with our help. Unfortunately we all failed as people especially free thinkers, most reasonably become more stubborn when they are executed. What I find interesting with this “reform” is Luther did not reform the tendency of the Church to knock heads off heretics and joined right in. He would have been great as a Crusader in the Middle East!

Maybe for a change we could turn to a Catholic only (Solo Catholico) for the substance of a post. Msgr. George Aguis, D.D, J.C.D, from his excellent book “Tradition and the Church”, the best book I have ever read on the nature of and proof for Catholic Tradition.

**“Now, if we consider the fundamental tenet of Protestantism – that is, private judgment – at first sight, we are inclined to conclude that such a deleterious principle must unavoidably lead to a dissolution of all creeds and to a complete destruction of all non-Catholic faiths. ** Our conclusion is right.

However, we are faced by the fact that, if private judgment broke the unity of faith, Protestantism has lived several centuries, and until lately, it has been active at home and abroad. This seems an incongruity – which, however, is only apparent – for private judgment was never allowed full play in the life and course of any religion.

From the beginning of the Protestant Reformation down to our own times, the exercise of private judgment has been limited to those who, by dint of strong character, have been able to create new denominations and creeds. ** “Private Judgment” – that is, ‘the open Bible and nothing else but the Bible, with a free interpretation for all’ – is nothing but a lure to entice the masses. ** It only serves to flatter the pride and to deceive the ignorant people. In reality, it does not belong to the masses, but is the privileged few. ** The masses are always moved and led to do the work of others. Their reflection and conscience are too often formed by adventurers, who have much to gain and not much to lose. As time lends stability and the color of truth to their achievement, particularly when they are born and brought up in such unhappy surroundings, the people take for granted that they are right and others are wrong. ** The lack of serious reflection and of a sound consciousness is nowhere better revealed than in the belief and practices of our Separated Brethren……Finally, our Separated Brethren have somehow evolved a system of distinguishing what articles of faith are fundamental and not fundamental to be necessarily believed. Such a system is nowhere found in the Scriptures…….There is only one way out if it: a speedy return to Old Mother Church.” Agius, pg. 144-7

In other words, in only the least organized portions of Protestantism do we actually find individuals who openly pronounce PI, for themselves. In essence though ALL Protestants depend on, to at least some extent, their PI. As Agius points out, and especially with the more ‘Confessional’ end of the Protestant spectrum, PI is limited to those who have the power to make other people believe what they themselves believe.

Of course Luther claimed that both Popes and Councils had erred - as he had supposedly proven, at least to himself. So what did he do after he finally realized that his invention of SS+PI wasn’t working out so well? Answer – he established his own church, with him at the head and as the source of doctrinal certainty – a Prophet so to speak. Then he established an ecclesiastical organization (the Lutheran church) which eventually presumed and taught that it’s Confessions were to be believed by their faithful. So all Luther really did was replace the authority of the Bishop of Rome and the Councils of the Church with his own personal self-professed authority and that of various ‘councils’ of second generation Lutherans.

Mary, what do you think of this? By what subjective evidence should we conclude that Luther and the Lutheran Confessions are any more in line with God’s Absolute Truth than Catholic teaching?

“All of the Protestant denominations of today, although each differs from the others, may belong broadly to two classes: those who have retained the fundamental principal of private judgment; and those who, seeing the pernicious consequences of private judgment, have set up an authority. To the first class belong all those who carry the principal of private judgment to its furthest end. They are the genuine Protestants and by far the more numerous, especially among the intelligent classes.** They practically deny that the Scriptures are really the only Rule of Faith…….Thus has the principal of private judgment slowly but surely paved the way to unbelief. It is the Father of Atheism.”** Agius, pg. 69-70

It is granted that the Confessional brands of Protestantism are better able to slow the slide down what AmbroseSJ calls the continuum between Catholicism and Atheism. But Confessional Protestantism simply cannot compete long term with those ‘belief systems’ which allow the ego much more free reign. As a result we see the Confessional versions slipping in terms of percentage of overall Protestantism. The only solution is

"There is only one way out of it: a speedy return to the Old Mother Church.” Aguis, DD. J.C.D.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[joe371]

Hi Joe,
What I’ve said is that the practice of sola scriptura is a post-apostolic practice. There are plenty of man-made practices and traditions in both our communions. This one, like many others, is not a doctrine that binds the conscience of the believer, nor in our view does it do harm to the Gospel. It isn’t a neglecting of the command of God.

Jon

OK. I know that sin divides. Do you also believe that sola scriptura (not as you understand it) via individual interpretation (which is how many understand it) divides? To me it seems like it is the primary cause of division within Christendom i.e. people starting their own churches and teaching, based on the practice of SS.

 

[JonNC]

OK. I know that sin divides. Do you also believe that sola scriptura (not as you understand it) via individual interpretation (which is how many understand it) divides? To me it seems like it is the primary cause of division within Christendom i.e. people starting their own churches and teaching, based on the practice of SS.

Hi Joe,

I think it is possible for solo scriptura, which is what is usually talked about here, to have a divisive effect. Typically, those who old to that model either ignore, or intentionally exclude the writings and thoughts of the ECF’s. councils and creeds, etc., that have informed the Church Catholic for centuries. This has the impact of narrowing the view of things.
Some might disagree, however, with your use of the term primary cause, noting that since the term primary means first, and there were significant divisions in the Church long before the Reformation. Others might say that doctrine is the primary cause of division (less doctrine, less division).

Jon

 

[marywarfield]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response.

Maybe for a change we could turn to a Catholic only (Solo Catholico) for the substance of a post. Msgr. George Aguis, D.D, J.C.D, from his excellent book “Tradition and the Church”, the best book I have ever read on the nature of and proof for Catholic Tradition.

**“Now, if we consider the fundamental tenet of Protestantism – that is, private judgment – at first sight, we are inclined to conclude that such a deleterious principle must unavoidably lead to a dissolution of all creeds and to a complete destruction of all non-Catholic faiths. ** Our conclusion is right.

However, we are faced by the fact that, if private judgment broke the unity of faith, Protestantism has lived several centuries, and until lately, it has been active at home and abroad. This seems an incongruity – which, however, is only apparent – for private judgment was never allowed full play in the life and course of any religion.

From the beginning of the Protestant Reformation down to our own times, the exercise of private judgment has been limited to those who, by dint of strong character, have been able to create new denominations and creeds. ** “Private Judgment” – that is, ‘the open Bible and nothing else but the Bible, with a free interpretation for all’ – is nothing but a lure to entice the masses. ** It only serves to flatter the pride and to deceive the ignorant people. In reality, it does not belong to the masses, but is the privileged few. ** The masses are always moved and led to do the work of others. Their reflection and conscience are too often formed by adventurers, who have much to gain and not much to lose. As time lends stability and the color of truth to their achievement, particularly when they are born and brought up in such unhappy surroundings, the people take for granted that they are right and others are wrong. ** The lack of serious reflection and of a sound consciousness is nowhere better revealed than in the belief and practices of our Separated Brethren……Finally, our Separated Brethren have somehow evolved a system of distinguishing what articles of faith are fundamental and not fundamental to be necessarily believed. Such a system is nowhere found in the Scriptures…….There is only one way out if it: a speedy return to Old Mother Church.” Agius, pg. 144-7

In other words, in only the least organized portions of Protestantism do we actually find individuals who openly pronounce PI, for themselves. In essence though ALL Protestants depend on, to at least some extent, their PI. As Agius points out, and especially with the more ‘Confessional’ end of the Protestant spectrum, PI is limited to those who have the power to make other people believe what they themselves believe.

Of course Luther claimed that both Popes and Councils had erred - as he had supposedly proven, at least to himself. So what did he do after he finally realized that his invention of SS+PI wasn’t working out so well? Answer – he established his own church, with him at the head and as the source of doctrinal certainty – a Prophet so to speak. Then he established an ecclesiastical organization (the Lutheran church) which eventually presumed and taught that it’s Confessions were to be believed by their faithful. So all Luther really did was replace the authority of the Bishop of Rome and the Councils of the Church with his own personal self-professed authority and that of various ‘councils’ of second generation Lutherans.

Mary, what do you think of this? By what subjective evidence should we conclude that Luther and the Lutheran Confessions are any more in line with God’s Absolute Truth than Catholic teaching?

“All of the Protestant denominations of today, although each differs from the others, may belong broadly to two classes: those who have retained the fundamental principal of private judgment; and those who, seeing the pernicious consequences of private judgment, have set up an authority. To the first class belong all those who carry the principal of private judgment to its furthest end. They are the genuine Protestants and by far the more numerous, especially among the intelligent classes.** They practically deny that the Scriptures are really the only Rule of Faith…….Thus has the principal of private judgment slowly but surely paved the way to unbelief. It is the Father of Atheism.”

God Bless You Mary, Topper**

Subjective proof? There isn’t anya anymore than objective.

My understanding of Luther is in so far as “setting up his own church”
I don’t believe that was his original intent.
At one point he did realize he had gone too far
and tried to reconcile with Rome but he was so
floppy floppy at that point he couldn’t make it all
the way. So basically I think he determined that the
best defense was a good offense. Lol.
I mean in for a penny in for a pound?

We can’t forget also that Luther didn’t do this by himself.
He had lots of support and help from those even less
theologically based then himself.

What is one man’s ego is another’s narcissism.
Luther, viewing himself as the model Catholic set up
a new Church in his own Catholic image. Which from
that standpoint Lutherans of course are very close to
Catholics in doctrine. Problem is they still reflect Luther
and I believe it has to be rationalized away through
each generation. And as more break away from the
Lutherans the more the image blurs- like a house of
mirrors. So the Cornerstone Bible Church on A st
in Anytown, USA, ends up looking more like the
Church of Pastor XYZ instead of Christ.
The simple point of fact is the narcissistic cannot reflect
Christ- they are polar opposites. So atheism is the
only finality for narcissism.
But that is NOT new in Christianity.

 

[marywarfield]

Topper:

We are also the unhappy victims of converts FROM
Protestantism who come in full of the spirit of
reform. As opposed to the converts from say Buddhism
or Islam or whatever. Protestant converts to Catholicism
love to moan and groan about those awful
badly catechized cradle Catholics and set about
like a new broom sweeping the Church clean of us
cradle types. Lol.
However the Lutherans very rarely engage in that
when converting. They are too closely aligned
with us old guard. Lol.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response.

Subjective proof? There isn’t anya anymore than objective. My understanding of Luther is in so far as “setting up his own church” I don’t believe that was his original intent. At one point he did realize he had gone too far and tried to reconcile with Rome but he was so floppy floppy at that point he couldn’t make it all the way. So basically I think he determined that the best defense was a good offense. Lol. I mean in for a penny in for a pound? We can’t forget also that Luther didn’t do this by himself. He had lots of support and help from those even less theologically based then himself. What is one man’s ego is another’s narcissism. Luther, viewing himself as the model Catholic set up a new Church in his own Catholic image. Which from that standpoint Lutherans of course are very close to Catholics in doctrine. Problem is they still reflect Luther and I believe it has to be rationalized away through each generation. And as more break away from the Lutherans the more the image blurs- like a house of mirrors. So the Cornerstone Bible Church on A st in Anytown, USA, ends up looking more like the Church of Pastor XYZ instead of Christ. The simple point of fact is the narcissistic cannot reflect Christ- they are polar opposites. So atheism is the only finality for narcissism. But that is NOT new in Christianity.

I agree, and think that the most shocking thing is the impact that all of this ‘doctrinal competition’ has had on Western Christianity, especially of course, Protestantism. Christopher Dawson does an excellent job of describing the damage done in his excellent book “The Dividing of Christendom”.

“Religion never exerted greater influence in Europe than in the period of 1560 to 1660, but religion proved a source of division and strife rather than unity and was thereby discredited. Progressive exclusion from culture was the price Christianity had to pay for its disunity, as Christianity came to be viewed as the cause of civil strife rather than as the spiritual basis of society.” Dawson, pg. 16-17

How could it have been any different? Luther was warned but he didn’t heed that warning. The only result possible was the reduced importance of Christianity and Christian doctrine. That trend continues today. Many Protestants today are much more interested in ‘getting along’ than they are in doctrine. The Reformers would be ashamed. Back in their day they were willing to die for what they believed. The last thing they were concerned about was ruffling a few feathers.

There are things worth standing up for and God’s Absolute Truth is at the very top of that list.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Part 5: Luther/SS+PI/Protestant Doctrinal Dissention Connections

Protestant Scholar Keith A. Mathison wrote a book specifically to address Sola Scriptura:

“If the early sixteenth century Western Church was in an unstable and volitile condition, Martin Luther was the catalyst that caused it to explode. His conflicts with Rome ignited what is called the Protestant Reformation. The concern here is with only one particular aspect of Luther’s thought – his view of Scripture and tradition, but it is almost impossible to understand why Luther said and did the things he did without some understanding of his personal background and the social and ecclesiastical context in which he found himself……..He had been acutely depressed over the prospect of death since his youth……As he began to recite the first words of the mass, terror struck him as he realized his unworthiness to stand before the infinitely holy God………He would confess his sins daily, sometimes for periods as long as six hours, but his torment continued………

We find the first public hints of Luther’s concept of Sola Scriptura at the Leipzig debate between himself and John Eck. ** At this debate Luther defended the proposition that Scripture was the supreme authority – above the pope and above council**s. It was at the Diet of Worms, however, where Luther made his most famous speech regarding the authority of Scripture. After being challenged by the magistrates to repudiate his books and recant his views. Luther said:

“Since then Your Majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and teeth. Unless I am convicted to Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right or safe. God help me. Amen.” Keith Mathison, “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”, pg. 86-94

Here we learn that it was Luther who was the catalyst that caused the Western Church to explode. In addition, we learn that, at least according to Mathison, Luther’s first espousal of SS was at the Leipzig Debate of 1519, which of course was long after his doctrinal revolt against the Church had begun. If this is true and it was not much earlier as indicated by Schwiebert, then it would mean that Luther developed SS because the Church would not go along with his radical teachings.

Mathison also inform us that at the Diet of Worms that Luther makes a very public profession of SS and PI. BTW, the thing about 6 hour a day confessions should not make us feel confident about Luther’s psychological health.

Lutheran Professor James Kittleson points out that it wasn’t until 1519 that Luther gave much thought to the nature of the Church.

“Indeed, it is at least arguable that, save for one early disputation, which he mentioned in his memoir but which has been lost,** he did not even think about the church as such until he was forced to it in 1519 **by the impending debate with Johannes Eck at Leipzig.” Lutheran Professor of Church History James Kittleson, in “Companion”, pg. 262

From what I have been able to learn, I think Kittleson is correct and it is especially significant that a Lutheran Scholar is honest enough to make such a damning accusation. If Kittleson is correct, it means that Luther was 18 months or so into his revolt against the Church without having considered what the nature of the thing was that he was revolting against. The results of the Reformation bear out Luther’s completely lack of understanding as what he was doing when he began his ‘reformation’. IF it had been properly thought out, he would not have had to completely go back on so much of what he originally taught.

“Like German troops Luther was best in taking the offensive. These early years when he was standing almost alone and attacking one abuse after another were the finest of his whole career. Later, when he came to reconstruct a church, he modified or withdrew much of what he had at first put forward,** and reintroduced a large portion of the medieval religiousity which he had once so successfully and fiercely attacked.”** Preserved Smith, PhD, ‘The Age of the Reformation’, pg. 70

Here Smith informs us that at the beginning Luther was almost alone. This means that the doctrinal views that he formed, he formed on his own, which would also mean that it is he alone that is responsible for them.

At Leipzig and at Worms, before the whole of the Empire, Luther declared that Popes and Councils could not be trusted in that they both had erred. Previously some had questioned one or the other, but what made Luther’s challenge so radical was that never before had anyone (other than a heretic of course), challenged both. Luther also claimed that the Fathers were prone to error. ** So what does he ‘produce’ to take the place of the Pope and Councils after he finally realized that SS+PI had led to disaster? Answer – a church with Himself as the head and various ‘councils’ which wrote supposedly authoritative Confessions. **

He developed his own church, which over the years has come to view itself as being authoritative. Go figure! What evidence is there that would cause us to conclude that the Lutheran church is more reliable than the Catholic Church when it comes to reflecting God’s Absolute Truth?

God Bless, Topper

 

[marywarfield]

Topper: 6 hour Confessions!

There is no doubt that Luther suffered from scruples.
He admits as much and it was scruples that drove him
to question since he could find no relief even with six
hour confessions.

So let’s take a look at scruples. Many of our greatest
saints suffered from them.

Now there are holy scruples and not so holy scruples.
Holy scruples eventually resolve when the person discovers
there is more to Christ then condemnation. There is
also forgiveness of sin. Lol. Very important for a
Christian to believe that.

And I am just amazed that the Church allowed Luther
to feed his own sin (scruples become sinful since one
is getting awfully close to the unforgivable sin) by
letting Luther wallow in a six hour Confession. Whatever,
man. I can only assume he’d made enemies since we
all detest the self righteous judgements of the scrupulous.

Anyway unholy scruples are scruples that don’t resolve
to a state of grace. And the person is frantic, terrified,
and depressed and ultimately confused and out of control.
And so frequently they just jump ship claiming
the confusion is because the Church has made it all confusing.

We know Luther began in scruples with a fear of purgatory
concerning his own parents. His knee jerk reaction
to calm his nerves was the elimination of it.

Sola Scriptura AND PI provide enormous relief
for people with unresolved scruples because it gives
them a feeling of control and simplifies belief.

I’ve seen it in action with Catholics with unresolveable
scruples who have gone OSAS. Nothing can be simpler
and more worry free than OSAS. Of course they come to
dinner talking like fruitcakes but at least they are
calm fruitcakes.

Problem is people refuse to examine Luther’s doctrines
from the actual view of the really over the top extreme
scruples he suffered from. And that is a real difficulty
cause every Catholic blows the discussion by asking:
How can you trust a crazy man? Not a good basis
for an ecumenical dialogue.

 

[joe371]

Hi Joe,

I think it is possible for solo scriptura, which is what is usually talked about here, to have a divisive effect. Typically, those who old to that model either ignore, or intentionally exclude the writings and thoughts of the ECF’s. councils and creeds, etc., that have informed the Church Catholic for centuries. This has the impact of narrowing the view of things.
Some might disagree, however, with your use of the term primary cause, noting that since the term primary means first, and there were significant divisions in the Church long before the Reformation. Others might say that doctrine is the primary cause of division (less doctrine, less division).

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response. As always, you are right on the mark.

Topper: 6 hour Confessions!
There is no doubt that Luther suffered from scruples. He admits as much and it was scruples that drove him to question since he could find no relief even with six hour confessions.

Yes. In fact, Luther was so scrupulous that he would finish a six hour confession and would think as he left “That was a good confession!” Then he would turn around and have to go back in to confess the sin of pride.

“Luther would repeat a confession and, to be sure of including everything, would review his entire life until the confessor grew weary and exclaimed, “Man, God is not angry with you. You are angry with God. Don’t you know that God commands you to hope?
This assiduous confessing certainly succeeded in clearing up any major transgressions. The leftovers with which Luther kept trotting in appeared to Stauptiz (his superior and confessor) to be only the scruples of a sick soul. ‘Look here,’ said he, ‘if you expect Christ to forgive you, come in with something to forgive – paracide, blasphemy, adultery – instead of these peccadillos. But Luther’s question was not whether his sins were big or little, but whether they had been confessed. ** The great difficulty which he encountered was to be sure that everything had been recalled.** He learned from experience the cleverness of memory in protecting the ego, and he was frightened when after six hours of confessing he could still go out and think of something else which had eluded his most conscientious scrutiny.” Bainton (who is as ‘kind’ to Luther as any modern writer), pg. 35-6

Here we learn that Father Staupitz, Luther’s superior and confessor considered his confessional habits to be evidence of a ‘sick soul’. And yet………………it was Staupitz who decided that Luther should study for his doctorate (as a cure for his emotional problems), and THEN, it was (John) Staupitz who assigned Luther to be a Professor at University of Wittenberg.

(Thanks Father Staupitz – that was REAL ‘helpful.’) Luther’s ‘issues’ with confession are a rich treasury from which to determine the truth about Luther’s mental health and the validity of his radical doctrines. Marius for example states that he babbled out every sin he could think of, driving his confessors crazy. (pg. 59) Lutheran Professor and Biographer Kittleson has said that Luther’s conscience was an ‘unforgiving monster’, and that** in response to Luther’s ‘outright hatred of the righteous God’, “Stauptiz once commanded him to go out and commit a real sin.”** (pg. 84) Marius calls this an** ‘extreme form of scrupulosity’ (pg. 59). Lutheran Professor Albrecht Beutel wrote that “Luther tormented himself with an almost maniacal urge to confess…**” (Companion, pg. 6) Heiko Oberman states:

“Luther’s reminiscences permit one to conclude that he was the very sort of person to fall into the fearful self-doubt the handbooks describe as the sickness of scurpiulosity. A man with these proclivities should not have become a monk and certainly not an Observant mendicant monk, one would assume today.” Pg, 177

So let’s take a look at scruples. Many of our greatest saints suffered from them. Now there are holy scruples and not so holy scruples. Holy scruples eventually resolve when the person discovers there is more to Christ then condemnation. There is also forgiveness of sin. Lol. Very important for a Christian to believe that.

First of all, none of the great Saints started their own version of Christianity. Unfortunately Luther didn’t at all ‘connect’ with a God who was anything other than punishing and vengeful. He could not imagine how a righteous God could accept him or forgive him. This is not a Christian belief and leads to extreme scrupulosity.

And I am just amazed that the Church allowed Luther to feed his own sin (scruples become sinful since one is getting awfully close to the unforgivable sin) by letting Luther wallow in a six hour Confession.

Father Stauptiz was vicar General of Aug Hermits and also the Dean of Theology at the Univerisity of Wittenberg. His duties as vicar General took up so much of his time that he did not have time to teach at UW. He needed to find a replacement and ended up recommending Luther for the Doctorate and then assigning him to each at UW.

Whatever, man. I can only assume he’d made enemies since we all detest the self righteous judgements of the scrupulous.

As a matter of fact, Luther had made enemies at the Erfurt chapter of the Augustinians, and in a move that is not well understood, was ‘reassigned’ to UW (the first time). This had to be something of a demotion given the relative statures of Erfurt and UW. Erfurt was one of the best universities in Europe and UW was arguably the worst. In fact, Luther’s deparature from Erfurt for UW was rather sudden and is involved with a dispute between Luther and the other monks. (imagine that!)

Part two to follow