Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Randy_Carson]

If Luther could have foreseen clearly what has happened to western Christianity over the past 500 years, would Luther have said and done the things that history records of him?

If you had been Luther, would you have followed the same course he took?

Why or why not?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Perhaps Luther was so convinced in his views that nothing could stop him from separating from dividing what he thought would be necessary to divide. Luther was a passionate man and followed through with what he believed.

Doesn’t justify Luther as it were, to quote G.K. Chesterton, destroying Christianity in his enterprise.

 

[brian_custer]

If Luther could’ve known of the horribe consequences of his actions, I don’t see how he could possibly repeat his actions

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that from reading the history of Luther and what he believed I do not think that he would have changed anything. he would have argued over it all and declare that all were wrong and that he was correct and that he is the only authority to decide what is correct interpretation of Scripture and anyone who does not agree with his authority and interpretations are wrong. At least that is how it appears to me from reading so much of his writings.

 

[JonNC]

If Luther could have foreseen clearly what has happened to western Christianity over the past 500 years, would Luther have said and done the things that history records of him?

If you had been Luther, would you have followed the same course he took?

Why or why not?

Knowing of the divisions would have been valuable information, not only for Luther, but the whole of the western Church. Mistakes on both sides could have been avoided

Jon

 

[christofirst]

If Luther could have foreseen clearly what has happened to western Christianity over the past 500 years, would Luther have said and done the things that history records of him?

If you had been Luther, would you have followed the same course he took?

Why or why not?

I can’t possibly speak for Luther, but since you asked what I would have done had I been Luther, I would not have caused further division within the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church, if I could help it.

 

[truetofaith]

If I were Martin Luther, I would want to change the abuse by the Church of selling Indulgences…but not start my own church.

 

[hn160]

From my own point of view of Luther and the conditions of the Church and the political conditions of his time, I really think that Luther would have stayed the course. Rome wasn’t interested in reform, they thought that Luther was a threat and Rome used the power of the state against him and his followers. Reform in the Roman Church didn’t come until the Council of Trent and by then it was too late. Lutherans were not invited to the party.

 

[John_Martin]

Peter once stood in front of Jesus to change Jesus’ direction (away from Jerusalem). Jesus told Peter to get behind him, where his followers were, and not stand in front as if he were the leader.

Peter got back behind Jesus. And when it was time he became an obedient leader.

Luther refused to get back behind and do his reform exhortations with obedience. St Paul is the example of how Luther could have exhorted reform, when arguing with Peter about Gentile inclusion in the Church. He argued with the Church, not by garnering public outcry and political pressure against Peter. Paul could have gathered a large number of Gentiles together to demand recognition as a political move, but he did not. The Gentiles did not know of the argument with Peter, nor most of the Jewish Catholics, until they read about it in later times. Luther refused obedience, and I believe he would have today as well. And obedience is the primary vow of a priest or religious.

By the way, my middle name is Luther, and I have seriously studied most of his writings in my pre-Catholic past, believing everything he said. Pope St. Martin I is my chosen Saint at Confirmation. So, I came into communion with the Church as John Martin Luther, returning myself to where he should have stayed.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Randy,

If Luther could have foreseen clearly what has happened to western Christianity over the past 500 years, would Luther have said and done the things that history records of him?

If you had been Luther, would you have followed the same course he took?

Why or why not?

Hi Randy,

First of all, thanks for an interesting thread topic. The question you address is not unknown in Lutheran circles. In fact, Lutheran Professor Robert Jenson states the following:

**“Luther was indeed one of ‘the Reformers,’ whose proposals triggered lasting schism in the Western church. Whether he would have pressed his convictions in quite the same way had he been able to look farther into the future, we cannot know. **In any case, the aspects of Luther’s work over which the church divided – whatever they may in fact have been – have long since had their effect for good and ill.” Jenson, “Luther’s Contemporary Theological Significance”, in “Companion”, pg. 272-3

First of all, we see a Lutheran Professor stating that that it was Luther ‘whose proposals triggered lasting schism……”, which I think is quite an admission. It also brings out the point that it is acceptable, at least to Lutheran academics, to discuss Luther’s ‘role’ in the Western Schism.

On another thread recently there was some discussion of a book written about Sola Scriptura by Keith Matthison, who by the way, very much defends SS, but at the same time, looks at Luther as ‘the catalyst that caused the Western Church to explode’.
**
“If the early sixteenth century Western Church was in an unstable and volatile 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 councils. **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

All that being said, the OP question is whether Luther would have stayed the course if he would have been able to see the future results with more certainty. Personally, I think he would not have changed course even if he had known in advance what the results were going to be. He was after all, warned as to exactly what the results were going to be, and still he was not deterred. Unfortunately, those warnings turned out to be extremely accurate, but then how could they not be? What could the results of Sola Scriptura have possibly have been but what they are?

It seems to me though that the question as to what Luther would have done ‘if he had known’, has a lot to do with what Luther thought at the time, and his motives. Protestant Mathison after all tells us that we need to understand Luther’s ‘personal background’ if we are to “understand why Luther said and did what he did.”

God Bless You Randy, Topper

 

[powerofk]

It’s strange. Really, Luther got most of what he wanted from the Council of Trent, but by then, it was too late - he had dug in his heels, the train had left the station. It’s always appeared to me that Luther never really wanted to start his own congregation, it just happened due to Luther (1) having gained a lot of followers, (2) being excommunicated, and (3) secular leaders wanting a Church land-grab.

Never forget the huge part that secular leaders had in the Reformation, especially in Northern Europe. Many ordinary people who Protestantized at the time were initially pretty much forced to, as their secular leaders, in order to confiscate Church property chose a specific Protestant congregation as “official” and outlawed all other Christian faith communities. As the Catholic Church was now “banned” in these areas, the secular leaders were able to confiscate Church property. In time, after being forced to hear how evil the Catholic Church was, the common people were able to be brainwashed into believing it.

 

[Peter_J]

If Luther could have foreseen clearly what has happened to western Christianity over the past 500 years, would Luther have said and done the things that history records of him?

if I know anything about Protestant posters on CA, it’s that threads like this are red meat on the floor to them. Heck, I’m surprised there are only eleven responses so far.

 

[benjohnson]

It’s strange. Really, Luther got most of what he wanted from the Council of Trent, but by then, it was too late - he had dug in his heels, the train had left the station.

If by “the train had left the station” you mean thoroughly dead, then you’re quite correct

Luther was worm food for twenty years before Trent finished.

…

In my opinion, the political aspects reformation would have happened without Luther. The revolt of the Calvinist in Switzerland sort of prove the point - Luther opposed Zwingli almost more than the abuses in the western church.

 

[cmodrmac]

Luther was not the only one involved in the Reformation -if he had not done it-John Knox or Calvin or others would have-the Catholic CHurch had “issues” -things could not continue without some reform being attempted

As the USA was settled by Protestants and this ethic drove the development of my country I could not imagine the USA without the reformation having occured

a better question would be what would western civilization look like without the Reformation?

 

[7_Sorrows]

In the beginning, Luther wanted reform. How much did he feel it was needed? Maybe he thought the Catholic church could not be reformed.
If he could have looked into the future to see the world of Christianity today and all of the protestant denominations and female bishops and priests he would be shocked.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Long time - little see. It’s really good to see you here.

It seems to me that from reading the history of Luther and what he believed I do not think that he would have changed anything. he would have argued over it all and declare that all were wrong and that he was correct and that he is the only authority to decide what is correct interpretation of Scripture and anyone who does not agree with his authority and interpretations are wrong. At least that is how it appears to me from reading so much of his writings.

Hi Spina,

I think you are right. As we have learned, Luther was warned that his teaching on Sola Scriptura and the right of the individual to interpret was going to lead to doctrinal dissension and confusion.

(In regards to the Leipzig Debate of 1519) – “**Men of Eck’s conviction foresaw – rightly , as it turned out – **that once the individual conscience was granted freedom to seek its own definition of truth, Christian faith would become so fragmented that no consensus would be possible and that uncertainties inherent in any religion would then become part of the spiritual equipment of humankind.” ** ** Marius, pg. 186

In truth, Luther was warned by many, many Theologians that his teachings would lead to doctrinal fragmentation, which he himself experienced early in his reformation and from then until his death. Even after experiencing the results of his teaching, he could have turned back to the Church, but he didn’t.

The question is as to what Luther would have done ‘if he had known’, but maybe it is not all that hypothetical. In fact he DID know, not as much as we do now about the fracturing of Western Christendom, but he saw ENOUGH of it to be greatly distressed over it. And yet, he did not turn back. It seems that the question then becomes – Why not?

God Bless You Spina, It’s good to see you back here, Topper

To Jon post number 5

 

[Topper17]

Hi Powe,

Excellent summary.

It’s strange. Really, Luther got most of what he wanted from the Council of Trent, but by then, it was too late - he had dug in his heels, the train had left the station. It’s always appeared to me that Luther never really wanted to start his own congregation, it just happened due to Luther (1) having gained a lot of followers, (2) being excommunicated, and (3) secular leaders wanting a Church land-grab.

Never forget the huge part that secular leaders had in the Reformation, especially in Northern Europe. Many ordinary people who Protestantized at the time were initially pretty much forced to, as their secular leaders, in order to confiscate Church property chose a specific Protestant congregation as “official” and outlawed all other Christian faith communities. As the Catholic Church was now “banned” in these areas, the secular leaders were able to confiscate Church property. In time, after being forced to hear how evil the Catholic Church was, the common people were able to be brainwashed into believing it.

He really didn’t want to start his own church originally and was very distressed when he realized that he had to. He actually thought that once people would understand his teachings, they would flock to him and leave the Church. It didn’t really happen that way.

God Bless You Powe, Topper

 

[brian_custer]

i abhor what martiin luther did; but the premise of this poll is that father martin could see into the future and observe the results of his hammer-banging

I don’t think think that father martin would be OK with our one true Church splintering into thousands of pieces

 

[MaryT777]

It seems to me that from reading the history of Luther and what he believed I do not think that he would have changed anything. he would have argued over it all and declare that all were wrong and that he was correct and that he is the only authority to decide what is correct interpretation of Scripture and anyone who does not agree with his authority and interpretations are wrong. At least that is how it appears to me from reading so much of his writings.

I completely agree with this answer.
Mary.

 

[TarkanAttila]

“Peace if possible; truth at all costs”, so he once said. I take him at his word.

So I can only wonder what he must think (assuming he made it to Heaven, and he might have) about the thousands of fundamentalisms, psuedo-Christianities, heresies, all of which attribute to themselves at least two of his five solas: sola fide, and sola scriptura. Some of these do not even so much as believe in God.

Who knew a two-word principle could do all that damage?