T
Thorolfr
Guest
Why do you think that Catholicism and/or Orthodoxy is at the center of Christianity and what does it mean exactly to be at the center?
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
Continuity, for one thing. Also fullness. Protestantism, by and large, consists of various forms of taking one particular aspect of the Faith and focusing on it. But the key is that Catholicism and Orthodoxy have not at any time said, “OK, we used to believe this, but now we decisively reject it.” Also apostolic succession.
S
spina1953
Guest
Because he wanted to convert them and thought that they would based on his teachings
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Does it mean that Catholicism is more correct than Protestantism because it has not said, “OK, we used to believe this, but now we decisively reject it”? Sticking to certain beliefs that might turn out to be wrong is not necessarily a good thing unless you are convinced that the Catholic church is indeed infallible.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Infallibility would be the claim. The fact that the Church has never said “OK, we used to believe this, but now we decisively reject it” is evidence that the claim is true; not a single doctrine of the Catholic Church has ever been changed.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Randy,
While Luther may not have taught Once Saved Always Saved, his Salvation by Faith Alone was radical enough that when ‘combined’ with his also radical teaching on Sola Scriptura, alongside his ‘Right of the Individual to Interpret’, Salvation by Belief Alone was inevitable.
Anglican Scholar Alister McGrath comments on Luther’s ‘progression’ on Salvation.
“The central changes in Luther’s thought centered, in the first place, on how Christian theology arrives at its core ideas and, in the second, on how humanity secures salvation. By about 1516, Luther was clear that the primary source of Christian theology was not the scholastic tradition, still less the philosophy of Aristotle. It was the Bible, especially as interpreted through the writings of the Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo (354-430). Luther increasingly came to speak of “the Bible and Augustine” as the source of his ideas. Although the importance of the Bible had always been recognized in Christian theology, Luther began to accentuate it in a manner that would ultimately lead into dangerous new theological territory."
McGrath to be continued -
I think you are right on the mark here Randy. The literature is full of references to Luther’s ‘rather unique’ psychological issues and how they played a role in his ‘need’ to find Salvational Assurance. As you know, in Luther’s time there were, to some extent, different ‘versions’ of ‘Salvational requirements’, but NONE of them, even if Luther had known them, would have satisfied the need for assurance of his everlasting Salvation, and no matter what ‘happened’ in the future.
While Luther may not have taught Once Saved Always Saved, his Salvation by Faith Alone was radical enough that when ‘combined’ with his also radical teaching on Sola Scriptura, alongside his ‘Right of the Individual to Interpret’, Salvation by Belief Alone was inevitable.
But, we are, as Catholics, called to follow the teachings of the Church on matters that have been settled as dogma. There are a plethora of issues on which we are allowed to exercise our personal judgment. But again, NOT on matters of doctrine and faith. That is where Luther ran afoul of the Church. He respected NO boundaries unless he had personally established them, which he BTW did - for others.I’ll let Topper speak for himself, but it seems to me that where the Catholic Church can agree with Luther, she will. And if Luther’s theology speaks powerfully to people, that is all well and good…provided that it does not amount to a blanket “Get out of jail free” card to any and all who embrace it. I sort of have in mind that sola fide has opened the door to the false ideas of OSAS theology.
If anything, the Catholic experience demonstrates that we do not have to be in perfect lock-step to sit together at the communion table.
Anglican Scholar Alister McGrath comments on Luther’s ‘progression’ on Salvation.
“The central changes in Luther’s thought centered, in the first place, on how Christian theology arrives at its core ideas and, in the second, on how humanity secures salvation. By about 1516, Luther was clear that the primary source of Christian theology was not the scholastic tradition, still less the philosophy of Aristotle. It was the Bible, especially as interpreted through the writings of the Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo (354-430). Luther increasingly came to speak of “the Bible and Augustine” as the source of his ideas. Although the importance of the Bible had always been recognized in Christian theology, Luther began to accentuate it in a manner that would ultimately lead into dangerous new theological territory."
McGrath to be continued -
T
Topper17
Guest
**"Yet even more dangerous was the idea that Luther developed over the period 1513 to 1516 as he wrestled with the text of the Bible, anxiously trying to discern what it says about salvation. There were few ideas with the capacity to dismantle great institutions and invert the judgments of previous generations. ** For Luther, the great question of life was simple and profound: how could he find a gracious God? ** As a younger man, terrified of hell and convinced of his own sinfullness, Luther gave an answer that was widespread in German theological circles, as it was in popular Christian culture; if he wanted to get in with God, he had to make himself into a good person. **Like other Christians of the time, he believed that humanity has the capacity to make itself righteous, that when this happens God endorses this transformation, and accepts the transformed person into a relationship with him, and that his only happens through the institution of the church, which provides the God-given structures that lead securely and inevitably to salvation. By developing his doctrine of justification by faith, however, Luther would dismantle such ideas and offer a radical, alluring alternative.
Luther found at least part of this alternative idea, which he began to develop around 1516, in earlier writers of the Christian tradition, such as Augustine of Hippo. When Paul speaks of the “righteousness of God,” being revealed in the gospel, he does not mean that we are told what standards of righteousness we must meet in order to be saved. Rather, we are confronted with the stunning, disarming, overwhelming declaration that God himself provides the righteousness required for salvation as a free, unmerited gift. God’s love is not conditional upon transformation; rather, personal transformation follows divine acceptance and affirmation.
**More radically still, Luther insisted that the believer is “at one and the same time a righteous person and a sinner.” **While Luther admired Augustine for his emphasis and on unconditional love of God in justification, he suggested that Augustine had become muddled in relation to the location of the gift of righteousness. **Augustine located his gift within humanity, as a transforming reality; Luther argued that it is located outside us, being “reckoned” or “imputed” to humanity, not imparted. **
**Perhaps the chief beneficiary of this insight was Luther himself. ** Convinced of his sinfulness and frustrated by his own impotence to free himself from the power of his sinful nature, Luther set out a theology of divine acceptance (Luther generally used the Pauline image of “justification”) of sinners that made personal transformation and renewal the consequence, not the precondition, of God’s love. Humanity, in this conception, is like a patient who is under the care of a wise physician and on the way to recovery. The decision to treat does not pre-suppose the desired outcome but rather brings it about.
Perhaps the most radical aspect of Luther’s doctrine of justification is its conceptualization of the relationship between humanity and God. How does humanity find God and enter into a relationship with him – a relationship that delivers humanity once and for all from fear of death, hell, or damnation? Luther is adamant: this relationship is made possible through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and is appropriated through faith. For Luther, faith is fundamentally an attitude of trust in God that enables the believer to receive and benefit from the promises of God. But where does the institution of the Church come into this?
The most radical element of Luther’s doctrine of justification is the conception of salvation as a matter affecting God and the individual.” McGrath, “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, pg. 42-3
As you know Randy, Luther should not have been surprised that people disagreed with him on Salvation or any other topic. After all, he GAVE them the authority to disagree with EVERYONE by the precedent of his doctrinal Revolt against the Church. He ‘legitimized’ their ‘right’ to be decide doctrinal matters for themselves.
God Bless You Randy, Topper
Luther found at least part of this alternative idea, which he began to develop around 1516, in earlier writers of the Christian tradition, such as Augustine of Hippo. When Paul speaks of the “righteousness of God,” being revealed in the gospel, he does not mean that we are told what standards of righteousness we must meet in order to be saved. Rather, we are confronted with the stunning, disarming, overwhelming declaration that God himself provides the righteousness required for salvation as a free, unmerited gift. God’s love is not conditional upon transformation; rather, personal transformation follows divine acceptance and affirmation.
**More radically still, Luther insisted that the believer is “at one and the same time a righteous person and a sinner.” **While Luther admired Augustine for his emphasis and on unconditional love of God in justification, he suggested that Augustine had become muddled in relation to the location of the gift of righteousness. **Augustine located his gift within humanity, as a transforming reality; Luther argued that it is located outside us, being “reckoned” or “imputed” to humanity, not imparted. **
**Perhaps the chief beneficiary of this insight was Luther himself. ** Convinced of his sinfulness and frustrated by his own impotence to free himself from the power of his sinful nature, Luther set out a theology of divine acceptance (Luther generally used the Pauline image of “justification”) of sinners that made personal transformation and renewal the consequence, not the precondition, of God’s love. Humanity, in this conception, is like a patient who is under the care of a wise physician and on the way to recovery. The decision to treat does not pre-suppose the desired outcome but rather brings it about.
Perhaps the most radical aspect of Luther’s doctrine of justification is its conceptualization of the relationship between humanity and God. How does humanity find God and enter into a relationship with him – a relationship that delivers humanity once and for all from fear of death, hell, or damnation? Luther is adamant: this relationship is made possible through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and is appropriated through faith. For Luther, faith is fundamentally an attitude of trust in God that enables the believer to receive and benefit from the promises of God. But where does the institution of the Church come into this?
The most radical element of Luther’s doctrine of justification is the conception of salvation as a matter affecting God and the individual.” McGrath, “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, pg. 42-3
As you know Randy, Luther should not have been surprised that people disagreed with him on Salvation or any other topic. After all, he GAVE them the authority to disagree with EVERYONE by the precedent of his doctrinal Revolt against the Church. He ‘legitimized’ their ‘right’ to be decide doctrinal matters for themselves.
God Bless You Randy, Topper
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Is that true that not a single doctrine of the Catholic Church has ever been changed? What about this:
nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/22STEINFE.html?sq=&_r=0
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi ben,
Not all Protestants consider us Catholics to be Christians.
All that being said ben, what do you think about people who consider Catholics to be ‘not Christian’ because of the fact that we are Catholic?
God Bless You ben, Topper
I want to make it perfectly clear that we Catholics, myself included, consider Protestants to be ‘separated brothers’ in Christ, and fully Christian.
Not all Protestants consider us Catholics to be Christians.
All that being said ben, what do you think about people who consider Catholics to be ‘not Christian’ because of the fact that we are Catholic?
God Bless You ben, Topper
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Edwin,
God Bless You Edwin, Topper
I think that we are getting closer and closer, with maybe the differences being in emphasis more than substance.I agree to a great extent (though Luther did not think he could control faith–that’s a misunderstanding of Luther–what he told himself, or Satan, in those moments of torment was, “I am baptized”). That is to say, Luther was unable to accept any causal role for good works in our final standing before God because of his anxiety that if we did this, it would mean that we would go around in fear that God was “standing behind us with a club,” to use one of his wonderful metaphors. And that isn’t, I think, a reasonable position. If we don’t start from the assumption that God is vengeful and harsh, then it’s quite possible to say, “God is transforming us into holy people, and if we refuse definitively to let God do this we will go to hell, but God loves us and will forgive us if we repent, so we have no need to worry that we somehow won’t measure up in spite of being repentant believers.” That is, basically, the Wesleyan position as I understand it. And it’s essentially the Catholic position too. There were plenty of people in the late Middle Ages and throughout Catholic history since who have thought this way.
One can say this, I think, and still value much of what Luther has to say about God’s grace. But there’s a difference between looking at Luther’s writings and saying, “Yes, this is true and powerful, but this claim here doesn’t make sense except in light of an excessive, obsessive fear that God is at bottom not really gracious and merciful,” and simply writing it all off because of “Luther’s personal demons.”
That for me is the dividing line between legitimate analysis of Luther’s problems and sterile polemic. I’m still not really sure that Topper and I fall on opposite sides of that line, though it’s clear that Luther speaks to me more than he does to Topper
**
Yes. Luther’s sola fide had to mutate quite a bit to turn into what we know as “OSAS theology” today, but it certainly opened the gate. ****And of course the potential for “antinomianism” was there from the start, **in things like Luther’s infamous pastoral counsel to “sin boldly.” Luther could say that, in his early years, because he was confident that believers would naturally want to do good works and would not want to sin. In his later Galatians commentary he says explicitly that if people do not struggle against the works of the flesh they will lose faith and will be damned if they don’t repent. And after his death Lutheranism was torn by controversy over just how to talk about faith and works. So clearly Topper is right that Luther didn’t think ahead very carefully about how his ideas would be interpreted and what their possible implications were. I cut him a lot more slack for that than Topper does, but he has a valid criticism.
God Bless You Edwin, Topper
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Spina,
Thanks for your response and your kind words.
Martin Luther did not come from what we would consider to be a ‘well-formed’ Catholic background. His parents were certainly pious and devout Catholics in their own way, but they also held some very pagan beliefs which were fairly common to the peasants of the time, especially those on the fringes of Christianity.
In describing the “religion” in which those of Luther’s class were raised, Roland Bainton makes the following comments:
“Certain elements even of old German paganism were blended with Christian mythology in the beliefs of these untutored folk. For them the woods and winds and water were peopled by elves, gnomes, fairies, mermen and mermaids, spirits and witches. Sinister spirits would release storms, floods, and pestilence, and would seduce mankind to sin and melancholia. Luther’s mother believed that they played such minor pranks as stealing eggs, milk, and butter; and Luther himself was never emancipated from such beliefs. “Many regions are inhabited,” said he, “by devils. Prussia is full of them, and Lapland of witches. In my native country on the top of a high mountain called the Publsberg is a lake into which if a stone is thrown a tempest will arise over the whole region because the waters are the abode of captive demons.” Roland Bainton “Here I Stand”, , pg 26
“Fully as much by bodily hardship the boy’s life was rendered unhappy by spiritual terrors. Demons lurked in the storms, and witches plagued his good mother and threatened to make her children cry themselves to death. God and Christ were conceived as stern and angry judges ready to thrust sinners into hell. “They painted Christ,” says Luther – and such pictures can be still seen in old churches – “sitting on a rainbow with his Mother and John the Baptist on either side as intercessors against his frightful wrath.” Preserved Smith, “The Age of the Reformation”, pg 62
As in many things, we see the ‘results’ of Luther’s beliefs in Protestantism, especially early Protestantism.
According to Harvard Professor and Reformation Scholar Steven Ozment, Protestantism actually increased the superstitions of the people:
“If scholars of popular religion in Reformation England are correct, Protestants success against medieval religion actually brought new and more terrible superstitions to the surface. By destroying the traditional ritual framework for dealing with daily misfortune and worry, the Reformation left those who could not find solace in its message – and there were many – more anxious than before, and especially after its leaders sought by coercion what they discovered could not be gained by persuasion alone. **** Protestant ‘disenchantment’ of the world in this way encouraged new interest in witchcraft and the occult, as the religious heart and mind, denied an outlet in traditional sacramental magic and pilgrimage piety, compensated for new Protestant sobriety and simplicity by embracing superstitions even more socially disruptive than the religious practices set aside by the Reformation……
**The great shortcoming of the Reformation was it’s naïve expectation that the majority of people were capable of radical religious enlightenment and moral transformation, whether by persuasion or by coercion. ** **Such expectation directly contradicted some if its fondest convictions and the original teaching of its founder [Luther of course]. Having begun in protest against allegedly unnatural and unscriptural proscriptions of the medieval church and urged freedom in place of coercion, the reformers brought a strange new burden to bear on the consciences of their followers when they instructed them to resolve the awesome problems of sin, death, and the devil by simple faith in the Bible and ethical service to their neighbors. The brave new man of Protestant faith, ‘subject to none (yet) subject to all’ in Luther’s famous formulation, was expected to bear his finitude and sinfulness with anxiety resolved, secure in the knowledge of a gratuitous salvation, and fearful of neither man, God, or the devil. But how many were capable of such self-understanding?” **Ozment, “The Age of the Reformation”, pg. 436-7
The Reformation was based on Luther’s self confidence in his own abilities and his being ‘led’ by God to rebuke the Church. In justifying his own authority, Luther, at least at first, granted to all the same privileges. How else could he initially justify his own ‘authority’. It was on this ‘confidence’ in the common (and illiterate) man that Sola Scriptura (and thus the Reformation) were established.
The ‘naïve expectation’ that Ozment mentions was actually Luther’s naïve expectation. When he finally realized that the warnings were correct, there were too many cows out of the barn. Even then, rather than returning to the Mother Church, he set out to establish his own.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
Thanks for your response and your kind words.
I agree. You cannot fault people who have simply believed what they were taught. But somewhere ‘back there’ there was someone who KNEW that what they were teaching, historically, was false. I have a problem with ‘that guy’, the guy who intentionally misrepresented the facts.
Luther himself was extremely superstitious.
Martin Luther did not come from what we would consider to be a ‘well-formed’ Catholic background. His parents were certainly pious and devout Catholics in their own way, but they also held some very pagan beliefs which were fairly common to the peasants of the time, especially those on the fringes of Christianity.
In describing the “religion” in which those of Luther’s class were raised, Roland Bainton makes the following comments:
“Certain elements even of old German paganism were blended with Christian mythology in the beliefs of these untutored folk. For them the woods and winds and water were peopled by elves, gnomes, fairies, mermen and mermaids, spirits and witches. Sinister spirits would release storms, floods, and pestilence, and would seduce mankind to sin and melancholia. Luther’s mother believed that they played such minor pranks as stealing eggs, milk, and butter; and Luther himself was never emancipated from such beliefs. “Many regions are inhabited,” said he, “by devils. Prussia is full of them, and Lapland of witches. In my native country on the top of a high mountain called the Publsberg is a lake into which if a stone is thrown a tempest will arise over the whole region because the waters are the abode of captive demons.” Roland Bainton “Here I Stand”, , pg 26
“Fully as much by bodily hardship the boy’s life was rendered unhappy by spiritual terrors. Demons lurked in the storms, and witches plagued his good mother and threatened to make her children cry themselves to death. God and Christ were conceived as stern and angry judges ready to thrust sinners into hell. “They painted Christ,” says Luther – and such pictures can be still seen in old churches – “sitting on a rainbow with his Mother and John the Baptist on either side as intercessors against his frightful wrath.” Preserved Smith, “The Age of the Reformation”, pg 62
As in many things, we see the ‘results’ of Luther’s beliefs in Protestantism, especially early Protestantism.
According to Harvard Professor and Reformation Scholar Steven Ozment, Protestantism actually increased the superstitions of the people:
“If scholars of popular religion in Reformation England are correct, Protestants success against medieval religion actually brought new and more terrible superstitions to the surface. By destroying the traditional ritual framework for dealing with daily misfortune and worry, the Reformation left those who could not find solace in its message – and there were many – more anxious than before, and especially after its leaders sought by coercion what they discovered could not be gained by persuasion alone. **** Protestant ‘disenchantment’ of the world in this way encouraged new interest in witchcraft and the occult, as the religious heart and mind, denied an outlet in traditional sacramental magic and pilgrimage piety, compensated for new Protestant sobriety and simplicity by embracing superstitions even more socially disruptive than the religious practices set aside by the Reformation……
**The great shortcoming of the Reformation was it’s naïve expectation that the majority of people were capable of radical religious enlightenment and moral transformation, whether by persuasion or by coercion. ** **Such expectation directly contradicted some if its fondest convictions and the original teaching of its founder [Luther of course]. Having begun in protest against allegedly unnatural and unscriptural proscriptions of the medieval church and urged freedom in place of coercion, the reformers brought a strange new burden to bear on the consciences of their followers when they instructed them to resolve the awesome problems of sin, death, and the devil by simple faith in the Bible and ethical service to their neighbors. The brave new man of Protestant faith, ‘subject to none (yet) subject to all’ in Luther’s famous formulation, was expected to bear his finitude and sinfulness with anxiety resolved, secure in the knowledge of a gratuitous salvation, and fearful of neither man, God, or the devil. But how many were capable of such self-understanding?” **Ozment, “The Age of the Reformation”, pg. 436-7
The Reformation was based on Luther’s self confidence in his own abilities and his being ‘led’ by God to rebuke the Church. In justifying his own authority, Luther, at least at first, granted to all the same privileges. How else could he initially justify his own ‘authority’. It was on this ‘confidence’ in the common (and illiterate) man that Sola Scriptura (and thus the Reformation) were established.
The ‘naïve expectation’ that Ozment mentions was actually Luther’s naïve expectation. When he finally realized that the warnings were correct, there were too many cows out of the barn. Even then, rather than returning to the Mother Church, he set out to establish his own.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
M
MaryT777
Guest
This most certainly is true.
Mary.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Dr. Tait,
While I appreciate the insights into the clarity of texts and the need for interpreters that you offered, the reason I used the examples I did was not to explore whether or not those particular examples were clear in and of themselves. The examples were such to establish a point that you were able summarize more precisely as the distinction between responsibility and causality. Certainly Luther’s view of sola fide played its role in the causality of the stream of development of historical theology (from my theological camp, obviously Luther’s view of sola fide impacted Calvin view). Responsibility for such things though as “OSAS theology” and “potential for antinomianism” is something quite different, which is where my previous concerns / comments / questions to you were directed.
In the context of my previous comments / questions, I used the phrase “sufficient source” in regard to the extant body of Luther’s written corpus (see my fifth paragraph). From my readings of Luther, I’ve found him fairly consistent on his expounding of sola fide and its relation to works-obviously, in his developed form- thus for the bulk of his Reformation career. Certainly there was development in Luther’s view, or perhaps more precisely in the way he worked out the application of the righteousness of Christ applied to the Christian and his subsequent interrelations in the kingdom of the world. You summarized this aptly by stating, “he emphasized different things at different times within a basically consistent framework.” I would apply this to his mature preaching, writing, and application of sola fide and it’s relation to works. This is why I stated of Luther’s expounding that, “it’s almost overkill.” The mantra from Luther’s detractors (and some of his defenders as well) is that his theology lacks a cohesive continuity. To bring this back to my point, I don’t see Luther responsible for those who arrived at sola fide views contrary to Luther. So when you previously stated to Mr. Topper that Luther “didn’t think ahead very carefully about how his ideas would be interpreted and what their possible implications were,” I perceive this is unfair, and even in his extant writings, he rails against those he thinks are using his theology imprecisely or deviously. I don’t think he had any real need to think about the implications in regard to those who might later deviate from his view. Ironically, knowing Luther’s penchant for virtually writing everything he was thinking, I would not be surprised to find he may have actually speculated somewhere about his later interpreters
I do think there are a number of things Luther was not clear on or consistent with, but sola fide and its relation to works is not in that category, unless someone wants to quibble on emphasis, nuances, or particular historical situations Luther occasionally (that is, on the event of an occasion) had to work it out. Perhaps this is where our differences lie: for those after Luther looking back at his extant body of writing, I think it is possible for a competent theologian in virtually any camp to understand what Luther meant by sola fide, even with such things like your comments on the Eight Wittenberg Sermons. He therefore is not culpable for interpreters veering off into either antinomianism or OSAS theology, and most certainly Luther’s not to be culpable for not thinking “ahead very carefully about how his ideas would be interpreted and what their possible implications were.”
Once again, thanks for your comments. I hesitated to post these comments until you verified whether or not my earlier summary of your words was accurate. It is refreshing, even if we disagree, to interact with someone beyond the usual “Luther even kicked the cat on the way to nailing (or mailing) the 95 Theses.”
JS
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
What I’m about to say I hope does not come across as proselytizing, but rather will be perceived as an honest response to what I’ve read over and over within this thread- that the Reformation was this awful historical event with severe negative ramifications:
I would go so far to say that if Luther was correct that the righteousness of Christ covers a sinner so that he has peace with God, I would take whatever other negative results flowed from the Reformation. In fact, I would not find it surprising at all that if Luther was correct on this one thing, that the way things are… is the way things are.
The CA rules state “It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice,” so this is my take on the effect of the Reformation, as opposed to many of the views expressed here.
Interestingly, the rules also state, “Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously” and also, “It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they ‘prove’ a particular religion is false.” These are well-constructed rules for this forum.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Some people actually believe the reformation WAS indeed an awful historical event with severe negative consequences. I certainly do.What I’m about to say I hope does not come across as proselytizing, but rather will be perceived as an honest response to what I’ve read over and over within this thread- that the Reformation was this awful historical event with severe negative ramifications:
I would go so far to say that if Luther was correct that the righteousness of Christ covers a sinner so that he has peace with God, I would take whatever other negative results flowed from the Reformation. In fact, I would not find it surprising at all that if Luther was correct on this one thing, that the way things are… is the way things are.
The CA rules state “It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice,” so this is my take on the effect of the Reformation, as opposed to many of the views expressed here.
Interestingly, the rules also state, “Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously” and also, “It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they ‘prove’ a particular religion is false.” These are well-constructed rules for this forum.
Mary.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
From the few sentences of yours I’ve read throughout this thread, I never had any question this was your view.
On the other hand, there is parallel between what I posted previously and perhaps your beliefs that puts us in the same sort of predicament. As a protestant, I have to live with whatever atrocities or negatives that can be honestly pinned to my belief system. I suspect the same would be true for you- that you have to live with whatever atrocities or negatives that can be honestly pinned to your belief system.
On some level, I suspect for all us, we function with a basic unstated presupposition that despite whatever provable negatives can be charged to our belief system, we maintain adherence to our belief system because (in our thinking) the positives either outweigh it or negate it.
Forums like these are often a back-and-forth of folks using the negatives of someone’s belief system to overthrow one’s adherence to a belief system.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Yes, of course but this is sharing opinions on what the reformation has done “looking back.”From the few sentences of yours I’ve read throughout this thread, I never had any question this was your view.
On the other hand, there is parallel between what I posted previously and perhaps your beliefs that puts us in the same sort of predicament. As a protestant, I have to live with whatever atrocities or negatives that can be honestly pinned to my belief system. I suspect the same would be true for you- that you have to live with whatever atrocities or negatives that can be honestly pinned to your belief system.
On some level, I suspect for all us, we function with a basic unstated presupposition that despite whatever provable negatives can be charged to our belief system, we maintain adherence to our belief system because (in our thinking) the positives either outweigh it or negate it.
Forums like these are often a back-and-forth of folks using the negatives of someone’s belief system to overthrow one’s adherence to a belief system.
Mary.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Jesus said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan.” That’s an embarrassing incident that does not disprove the papacy or Catholicism. To think otherwise would be fallacious reasoning.What I’m about to say I hope does not come across as proselytizing, but rather will be perceived as an honest response to what I’ve read over and over within this thread- that the Reformation was this awful historical event with severe negative ramifications:
I would go so far to say that if Luther was correct that the righteousness of Christ covers a sinner so that he has peace with God, I would take whatever other negative results flowed from the Reformation. In fact, I would not find it surprising at all that if Luther was correct on this one thing, that the way things are… is the way things are.
The CA rules state “It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice,” so this is my take on the effect of the Reformation, as opposed to many of the views expressed here.
Interestingly, the rules also state, “Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously” and also, “It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they ‘prove’ a particular religion is false.” These are well-constructed rules for this forum.
Luther had serious personal demons that forced him to seek relief by the formulation of previously unknown theology. That’s not an embarrassing incident; that is a fact about Luther that calls into question the truth of Luther’s theological innovations. To think that it DOES disprove Luther’s theology would be fallacious; however, it should cause one to pause to consider carefully the reasons behind Luther’s actions. If Luther’s novelties are judged to be the products of his own tortured reasoning, then one might be well-advised to consider that factor before swallowing anything that Luther had to say.
Consider the source. That’s all I’m saying.
M
MaryT777
Guest
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Spina,
As you know, the ‘Legend of Luther’ normally depicts him as being generally ‘favorable’ towards the Jews, that is, until his later, more ‘cranky years’, when he uncharacteristically developed a ‘negative attitude’ towards them.
An example of a more balanced overall assessment by modern Protestant writers, in this case, Dr. Brooks Schramm and Dr. Krisi I. Stjerna, both Professors at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, PA:
**“A grim problem at the heart of Lutheran (and Protestant) origins, that of Luther and the Jews…… While efforts to absolve Luther as simply a man of his times – as one who merely passed on and perpetuated what he himself had already received from his cultural and theological tradition – have generally been jettisoned, there still persists even among the educated public the perception that the truly problematic aspects of Luther’s anti-Jewish attitudes are confined to the final stages of his career……Luther’s theological evaluation of Judiasm and the Jewish people remains essentially unchanged from the earliest stages of his career….When one reads Luther with a careful eye toward ‘the Jewish question’ (and without a predisposition to exonerate him), it becomes apparent that, far from being tangential, the Jews are a central, core component of his thought and that this was the case throughout his career, not only at the end. If this is in fact so, then it follows that it is essentially impossible to understand the heart and building blocks of Luther’s theology (justification, faith, salvation, grace, freedom, Law, and Gospel, and so on) without acknowledging the crucial role played by ‘the Jews’ in his fundamental thinking.” ** “Martin Luther, the Bible, and the Jewish People”, pg. 3-4
In other words, if he have any hope of understanding Luther’s beliefs, it is essential that we understand his ‘theology’ on the Jews.
The most forgiving of Luther’s “defenders” typically represent his later writings against the Jews as being out of place in the whole of his thoughts on the subject. This approach forces a more positive view of Luther than the historical record would suggest. Was Luther only negative towards the Jews toward the end of his life or was he only more or less “negative” at almost all of the times in his life?
In one of this earliest known letters, to his friend George Spalatin in 1514, Luther demonstrates that his views of the Jews were very negative, even this early in his career:
**
“’I have come to the conclusion that the Jews will always curse and blaspheme God and his King Christ, as all the prophets have predicted. ** He who neither reads nor understands this, as yet knows no theology, in my opinion. And I also presume the men of Cologne cannot understand the Scripture……If they are trying to stop the Jews blaspheming they are working to prove the Bible and God liars…’……
Luther concluded the letter with the observation that the wrath of God has made the Jews incorrigible; such people become worse when others are trying to make them better.” Eric Gritsch, “Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism”, pg. 50-1
Here Lutheran Professor Eric Gritsch suggests that it even Luther’s very earliest writings early attitudes towards the Jews were relatively negative.
My concern here Spina, is not that you will be mislead, as you are far to knowledgeable about the actual history of the period, but that others might be.
As you know, the ‘Legend of Luther’ normally depicts him as being generally ‘favorable’ towards the Jews, that is, until his later, more ‘cranky years’, when he uncharacteristically developed a ‘negative attitude’ towards them.
An example of a more balanced overall assessment by modern Protestant writers, in this case, Dr. Brooks Schramm and Dr. Krisi I. Stjerna, both Professors at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, PA:
**“A grim problem at the heart of Lutheran (and Protestant) origins, that of Luther and the Jews…… While efforts to absolve Luther as simply a man of his times – as one who merely passed on and perpetuated what he himself had already received from his cultural and theological tradition – have generally been jettisoned, there still persists even among the educated public the perception that the truly problematic aspects of Luther’s anti-Jewish attitudes are confined to the final stages of his career……Luther’s theological evaluation of Judiasm and the Jewish people remains essentially unchanged from the earliest stages of his career….When one reads Luther with a careful eye toward ‘the Jewish question’ (and without a predisposition to exonerate him), it becomes apparent that, far from being tangential, the Jews are a central, core component of his thought and that this was the case throughout his career, not only at the end. If this is in fact so, then it follows that it is essentially impossible to understand the heart and building blocks of Luther’s theology (justification, faith, salvation, grace, freedom, Law, and Gospel, and so on) without acknowledging the crucial role played by ‘the Jews’ in his fundamental thinking.” ** “Martin Luther, the Bible, and the Jewish People”, pg. 3-4
In other words, if he have any hope of understanding Luther’s beliefs, it is essential that we understand his ‘theology’ on the Jews.
The most forgiving of Luther’s “defenders” typically represent his later writings against the Jews as being out of place in the whole of his thoughts on the subject. This approach forces a more positive view of Luther than the historical record would suggest. Was Luther only negative towards the Jews toward the end of his life or was he only more or less “negative” at almost all of the times in his life?
In one of this earliest known letters, to his friend George Spalatin in 1514, Luther demonstrates that his views of the Jews were very negative, even this early in his career:
**
“’I have come to the conclusion that the Jews will always curse and blaspheme God and his King Christ, as all the prophets have predicted. ** He who neither reads nor understands this, as yet knows no theology, in my opinion. And I also presume the men of Cologne cannot understand the Scripture……If they are trying to stop the Jews blaspheming they are working to prove the Bible and God liars…’……
Luther concluded the letter with the observation that the wrath of God has made the Jews incorrigible; such people become worse when others are trying to make them better.” Eric Gritsch, “Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism”, pg. 50-1
Here Lutheran Professor Eric Gritsch suggests that it even Luther’s very earliest writings early attitudes towards the Jews were relatively negative.
- Status