How would you respond re: Reformation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ginkgo100
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Ginkgo100

Guest
How would you respond to this quote, posted on Facebook by a Lutheran pastor friend?

“The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar full of fifteen-hundred-year-old, two-hundred proof Grace–bottle after bottle of pure distilate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the Gospel–after all those centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your bootstraps–suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home before they started…Grace has to be drunk straight: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale; neither goodness, nor badness, not the flowers that bloom in the spring of super spirituality could be allowed to enter into the case.”
― Robert Farrar Capon, Between Noon & Three: Romance, Law & the Outrage of Grace (HT: Donavon Riley)

Seems like a distortion and an oversimplification of the state of the Church through the medieval period. But I’m no history expert (and my pastor friend is) so I’m not sure where to start.
 
Respond by letting him know what the Church teaches concerning salvation/justification, starting with paragraph number 987 of the catechism. It’s ALL GRACE. Jesus Christ died for our sins; we do not earn our salvation; it is His gift. This is the Church’s teaching: “Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us…” (CCC #1996)
 
catholic1seeks said:
Respond by letting him know what the Church teaches concerning salvation/justification, starting with paragraph number 987 of the catechism. It’s ALL GRACE. Jesus Christ died for our sins; we do not earn our salvation; it is His gift. This is the Church’s teaching: “Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us…” (CCC #1996)
Click to expand...
What the quote seems to imply is that the Catholic Church strayed from this teaching prior to the Reformation. Do you know of any examples of good teaching regarding grace that date from this period?
 
From the Pastor’s quote, it seems like the issue is more theological, for the Church’s teaching has not changed. I was just reading the “Salvation” section of Dave Armstrong’s book *The Church Fathers were Catholic, *and I found it very remarkable how strongly they rejected the views that belief alone–apart from love–is enough to save. Many explicity say that good works are required alongside faith. No one can say they had a corrupted view of grace, or viewed salvation as something “earned,” for often in the same passages they would be very adament on salvation being precisely a gift from God. Listen to what Protestant church historian Philip Schaff has to say on the matter:
If any one expects to find in this period [100-325], or in any of the church fathers, Augustin himself not excepted, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, . . . he will be greatly disappointed. (History of the Christian Church 2, 588-589)
So medieval Catholicism did not change anything, concerning the fact that grace, faith, and justification all go together.

Augustine relates the Catholic view quite well in the following section from his treatise On Grace and Free Will. It explains how salvation is a gift–a gift which our good works done by God’s grace lead to. In the previous section not shown, Augustine asks the question how salvation is both “a reward for service and a free gift of grace,” and then he answers:
Chapter 20.— The Question Answered. Justification is Grace Simply and Entirely, Eternal Life is Reward and Grace.

This question, then, seems to me to be by no means capable of solution, unless we understand that even those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, because of what is said by the Lord Jesus: “Without me you can do nothing.” And the apostle himself, after saying, “By grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast;” saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them; and again, the possibility of men’s boasting of their good works, as if they were of themselves capable of performing them. To meet, therefore, these opinions on both sides, he immediately added, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.”…It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God’s grace, so also the eternal life which is the* recompense of a good life is the grace* of God; moreover it is given gratuitously, even as that is given gratuitously to which it is given. But that to which it is given is solely and simply grace; this therefore is also that which is given to it, because it is its reward—grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God shall reward every man according to his works.
Click to expand...
 
Ginkgo100 said:
What the quote seems to imply is that the Catholic Church strayed from this teaching prior to the Reformation. Do you know of any examples of good teaching regarding grace that date from this period?
Click to expand...
The Council of Trent made firm what the Church’s view is regarding justification.
 
Ginkgo100 said:
How would you respond to this quote, posted on Facebook by a Lutheran pastor friend?

“The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar full of fifteen-hundred-year-old, two-hundred proof Grace–bottle after bottle of pure distilate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the Gospel–after all those centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your bootstraps–suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home before they started…Grace has to be drunk straight: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale; neither goodness, nor badness, not the flowers that bloom in the spring of super spirituality could be allowed to enter into the case.”
― Robert Farrar Capon, Between Noon & Three: Romance, Law & the Outrage of Grace (HT: Donavon Riley)

Seems like a distortion and an oversimplification of the state of the Church through the medieval period. But I’m no history expert (and my pastor friend is) so I’m not sure where to start.
Click to expand...
I agree–men went blind during the Reformation by leaving the Catholic Church. 😃

But seriously, Catholicism teaches that God’s grace comes “straight from the bottle”. I don’t see his point there. And Christ promised the gates of hell would never overcome his Church and that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of all Truth. Like many Protestants, he seems to believe that the Church went corrupt in the middle ages–not distinguishing sinfulness of members from the sinlessness of the Holy Church.
 
From a Lutheran perspective, the account is mostly accurate - In the space of ten years a German peasant went from listening to a mass in a language he didn’t understand, to having the word of God in his hands that he could read for himself. I doubt you could convince him otherwise.

If you’re wanting to build a bridge with your Lutheran friend, I would suggest discovering the similarities you have now 500 years later. In my opinion, that would be more fruitful and more enjoyable.
 
The passage your friend cited is (as he said) by Robert Capon, who is an Episcopal priest.

Capon’s views on salvation are extreme, even by the standards of protestants and fundamentalists. For example, in this interview, he said,
One of the problems with any authentic pronouncement of the gospel is that it introduces us to freedom. The point is that as long as the world runs this show what it tries to say is that if you do something wrong God will get you. What it said in Jesus is, by the blanket absolution of everybody in the death of Christ, that God is not going to get anybody.
Click to expand...
For example, who is in heaven? People think it is good guys. There is nobody in heaven but forgiven sinners because there was nobody available to go to heaven except forgiven sinners and there is nobody in hell except forgiven sinners. The difference is that in heaven they accept the forgiveness, in hell they reject it. That’s it. You can’t get into hell by being bad. You get into heaven by being bad and accepting forgiveness. Now, that does in a way mean you have permission to be bad. If you want to stick your hand in a meat grinder, you are free to do that. It’s stupid, but God isn’t going to run the universe that way. God is not going to punish. He cares more about relationships than behavior.
Click to expand...
In Capon’s view, everyone is saved by default - no need to accept Jesus. Both sin and good works are irrelevant (he goes on to say that love is irrelevant). To Capon, the only way we can wind up in hell is if we know about - but deliberately reject - forgiveness (exactly how one might do that, Capon does not say).

If you re-read the passage that your friend sent you, with this in mind, its meaning will be more clear (and I doubt your Lutheran pastor guy would concur).

Which is one of the problems with engaging in a conversation with someone who is using someone else’s words. Neither of you may even be fully aware of what those words intend to say. For this reason, I won’t participate in conversations unless someone is using his own thoughts and words. It’s too easy for someone to pummel you with quotes he found on the internet, and expect you to give the matter thought and response of your own accord.
 
Ginkgo100 said:
How would you respond to this quote, posted on Facebook by a Lutheran pastor friend?

“The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar full of fifteen-hundred-year-old, two-hundred proof Grace–bottle after bottle of pure distilate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the Gospel–after all those centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your bootstraps–suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home before they started…Grace has to be drunk straight: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale; neither goodness, nor badness, not the flowers that bloom in the spring of super spirituality could be allowed to enter into the case.”
― Robert Farrar Capon, Between Noon & Three: Romance, Law & the Outrage of Grace (HT: Donavon Riley)

Seems like a distortion and an oversimplification of the state of the Church through the medieval period. But I’m no history expert (and my pastor friend is) so I’m not sure where to start.
Click to expand...
Replying, as a Catholic, to someone like this is futile. It would by like talking to a stone. The most learned Catholic Theologian could not convince such a person, who as Christ says, has a “hardened heart”.
Regardless of the religious title of this person, Satan has full sway sway with him and those like him.
 
benjohnson said:
From a Lutheran perspective, the account is mostly accurate - In the space of ten years a German peasant went from listening to a mass in a language he didn’t understand, to having the word of God in his hands that he could read for himself. I doubt you could convince him otherwise.

If you’re wanting to build a bridge with your Lutheran friend, I would suggest discovering the similarities you have now 500 years later. In my opinion, that would be more fruitful and more enjoyable.
Click to expand...
How many German peasants read? Most were illiterate. I’m sure most understood what was being said in a Latin Mass. Books were cheaper than handwritten manuscripts but how many illiterate peasants were able or interested in purchasing any?
 
DavidFilmer said:
To Capon, the only way we can wind up in hell is if we know about - but deliberately reject - forgiveness (exactly how one might do that, Capon does not say).
Click to expand...
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but that reminded me of this quote from Annie Dillard:
I read about an Eskimo hunter who asked the local missionary priest, ‘If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?’ ‘No,’ said the priest, ‘not if you did not know.’ ‘Then why,’ asked the Eskimo earnestly, ‘did you tell me?’
Click to expand...
Also, I heard she recently converted to Catholicism, I wonder if that’s true.
 
aicirt said:
How many German peasants read? Most were illiterate. I’m sure most understood what was being said in a Latin Mass. Books were cheaper than handwritten manuscripts but how many illiterate peasants were able or interested in purchasing any?
Click to expand...
You make a good point. Peasants didn’t read, but then I doubt they fully understood Latin, either. I suspect it is one of the reasons, historically, for paintings and statues and stained glass, etc., as a supplement for those who could not read. And Lutherans did well to reject iconoclasm. Hearing the word and the Mass in the native tongue must have been a blessing.

Jon
 
Hm, hard alcohol analogy…

Sounds like he one trip away from swimming the Tiber.
 
JonNC said:
You make a good point. Peasants didn’t read, but then I doubt they fully understood Latin, either. I suspect it is one of the reasons, historically, for paintings and statues and stained glass, etc., as a supplement for those who could not read. And Lutherans did well to reject iconoclasm. Hearing the word and the Mass in the native tongue must have been a blessing.

Jon
Click to expand...
Absoultely. The paintings, statues, stained glass told the Bible stories. Imagine being a peasant or whomever entering a cathedral back then. You came into a piece of heaven on earth.

Did Lutherans reject iconoclasm? I’m not sure I understand because Lutherans have statues etc. It did destroy a lot but more was destroyed by the Calvinists.

Latin was also used by diplomats too. It is the language used to worship God. I grew up with it and although I understood some but not all it became clearer when I could read the translation in my missal.

Aren’t there times when Lutherans use Latin?
 
Rainaldo said:
I would respond with a quote.

** “The Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic monk rediscovered a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book.”**
Click to expand...
The reason I have difficulty with Luther is because God would not have allowed His Church to go on with the Catholic doctrine for 1500 plus years waiting for Luther to change it. If Luther was right, it means all were wrong and there was no Church. That can’t be. What was taught was the same as the apostles and the Church Fathers. The Church was what it was at the time of Peter, the Church fathers, in 1500, and now.
 
aicirt said:
How many German peasants read?
Click to expand...
Peasants was a poor word choice on my part, tradesmen would have been better.

The research I’m seeing is that 16th century Germany had a 7% literacy rate - basically due to having the printing press for a hundred years. `Luther’s bible seemed to be responsible for literacy rates going up to 20% by the end of the 17th century.

From here: jstor.org/discover/10.2307/461557?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47699072396067

`
 
benjohnson said:
Peasants was a poor word choice on my part, tradesmen would have been better.

The research I’m seeing is that 16th century Germany had a 7% literacy rate - basically due to having the printing press for a hundred years. `Luther’s bible seemed to be responsible for literacy rates going up to 20% by the end of the 17th century.

From here: jstor.org/discover/10.2307/461557?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47699072396067

`
Click to expand...
Okay. Luther did what St. Jerome did when he translated the Bible into common Latin, the Vulgate. I give Gutenberg credit for the printing press making it easier and quicker for the men to access printed material. But Luther did spend a lot of time getting common German into his Bible he was translating and so it would have wide appeal to the new Protestants.

However, before Luther there were 198 editions of the Catholic Bible in the languages of the laity all of which had full approval of the Catholic Church.

Luther focused on the Bible. Christ established the Church. The Bible came almost 400 yrs. after his death. The Church isalso built on tradition and the Magisterium. Luther, as a priest, was to be obedient. He wasn’t. Granted, it is not easy and he had a point re. Tetzel and the selling of indulgenes. So Luther establishes his own church and soon that splinters into others such as the Calvinists etc. Today, there are 30,000 plus “true” churches in the US alone.

A lot has been written about Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and the confiscation of Church property in England. Who was backing Luther and who benefited from the confiscation of lands in Germany?
 
aicirt said:
. Today, there are 30,000 plus “true” churches in the US alone.
Click to expand...
And the vast majority of those are not Lutheran. I only account my church - not the others. Just as Catholics don’t have to account for the Lutheran church.

I’m certain that there was political backing for the Lutheran church that sought it’s own aims, however I don’t think there was much monitory backing of the Lutheran church. We’re rather famous for our humble structures and we do try to be generous as Christ commanded us. Monetary avarice is hopefully not one of our sins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top