Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Chong]

I think there are degrees of this. Lutherans, for example, are bound to the creeds, and value the early ecumenical councils. While we view scripture as the final norm, that doesn’t mean that we exclude Tradition.

Jon

Nevertheless, not all tradition otherwise there would be no difference between Lutherans and Catholics. Tradition if supporting the Scriptures, then it would something else. The tradition am talking about is the one which has equal authority with the Scriptures.

 

[Chong]

.

From another thread (“Bible All We Need”) "Bingo. That is the “Tradition” (my interpretation , CC interpretation of Scripture). Not just that scripture is supremely authoritative, but one’s (church’s) interpretation of it is equally supremely authoritative. Kind of like the Pahrisees declaring their interpretation correct, on all things, all the time, for all Judaism, almost in an institutional way. The fact is they did not do this, yet were held in high esteem by Judaism, for their allegiance to the Written Law, like no other group, or school, or sect but informally, allowing "other views’’ to be equally Jewish.

So Luther and the Church agree to Writ ,and councils and offices. The disagreement was infallibility, and Tradition/Church/Councils overriding individual revelation. Authority was not automatic or institutional, but conditional, on being right, on having the right interpretation and the right conclusions and the right decrees.
To Luther, Scripture was the least evolving (if at all except for universal acceptance/canonization) and therefore the most reliable source for Holy Spirit revelation (at least for guidance on his 95 points, which to Luther the other institutional authorities got wrong)."

You write like a lawyer.
First, I’d say every person is unique; even the Popes, each has a unique characteristic. The protestant preachers are the same, I see Myles Munroe, TD Jakes, John Hagees etc each preaching differently but the fundamental doctrines of Christian faith remains unchanged. If one would change the doctrines substantially, then ‘his church’ would become a cult.

There is something we don’t know about Luther.

1. What forces bombarded him to think differently about his catholic faith
2. How long he had thought about the catholic doctrine before citing the 95 theses
3. Whether his list increased or decreased later in his life
   The Word of God abides for ever. Behaviors and perceptions may change over time, but the Word of God controls the mind to remain focused on the ways of God. Whether a council or a church, it should be subject to the word of God.

 

[Contarini]

I am assuming that this is what you mean by the ‘Whig narrative’, which by the way I wish you would formally define.

Actually no–my advisor is the person from whom I learned to use the term this way, as shorthand for a triumphalistic Protestant narrative. He and scholars like him are trying to approach the period as fairly as possible, empathizing with all sides, taking their ideas seriously, and putting them in their late medieval context. He wasn’t suggesting that Luther’s ideas were necessarily right (though certainly he is very influenced by Luther in his own theology, even though he’s a Methodist) but just that Luther’s ideas were more consistently brilliant and insightful than Muntzer’s. And it was a quip, not a dogmatic proposition.

OK, so what is the Whig narrative? I use it probably too loosely, but basically it looks like this:

The Middle Ages were a time of darkness and stagnation, culturally and spiritually, because the Church dominated everything and didn’t let people think for themselves.
The Renaissance was a time of greater individual freedom, leading to a great cultural “rebirth.”
The Reformation expressed this rebirth in the religious sphere. It was primarily about the freedom of the individual conscience over against both church and state. It led to religious freedom, democracy, and the wonders of the modern world generally.

This is a bit of a broad caricature, but you find elements of this narrative pretty much any time Protestants tell the story of the Reformation in a nonspecialist context. And it’s hard to fight, because often the specific claims made are accurate, but they’re selected and narrated in such a way as to reinforce this narrative.

This I think is the narrative you are fighting against. But a lot of Catholics, traditionally, had fundamentally the same narrative but with the values flipped. In this narrative, the Middle Ages were a time of wonderful unity under the authority of the Church, that Luther broke this up by his rebellion, and that this led to all the evils of the modern world.

Now if anything, my own sympathy is with the second narrative more than with the first. But I think both of them fail to do justice to what was going on in the sixteenth century.

My own narrative is more influenced by the likes of John Bossy. In this narrative, the Reformation (in both its Protestant and Catholic forms) led to a greater emphasis on obedience and conformity and social control.

Or, at more length: the Middle Ages were a dynamic, creative period in which authority was highly decentralized. Thus, there were persistent problems with violence, and people increasingly came to fear chaos. The Church was a voice calling for unity and peace, but it did so by establishing itself as a worldly authority in its own right. Hence, it became a rival to the civil governments, and as the welter of decentralized civil governments began to assemble themselves into the modern centralized state, this emerging state found the Church to be a dangerous rival. The Reformation shattered the unity (always existing more fully in ideal than in reality, but real and powerful nonetheless) of Western Christendom, creating rival confessional bodies that had to “bid” for the favor of the state. Ultimately, this led to modern secular democracy, which has both good and bad points, but in the short run it led to greater tyranny, repression, and violence. Most of what people react against today as “religion” is in fact the post-Reformation confessional order, which served as the foil for the Enlightenment. But the Whig idea of continual progress leads people to blame the poor Middle Ages, thus failing to grasp how zig-zag and ironic history really is.

Of course, the basic problem I see as a historian is that any grand narrative tends to distort history. (But we can’t live without narratives, of course.) The narrative above is much more complicated than the Whig narrative and its Catholic inversion, but it’s still far too simple and only accounts for a fraction of the evidence. . . .

 

[Contarini]

If you will remember Edwin, it was Dave Armstrong who chronicled a list of 50 doctrines of the Catholic Church that Luther challenged/refuted/denied even BEFORE his excommunication. If that is not evidence that he was not AT ALL loyal to the teachings of the Church, then what could be?

I already answered this: denial of infant baptism, the Trinity, etc.

Dave’s list refutes nicely the common Protestant claim that Luther was kicked out of the Church for questioning abuses.

So are you defending the ‘right’ of an individual Theologian who was not a systematic thinker to ‘blow up the system’ and replace it with something of his own making? Wouldn’t a good Theologian have anticipated the ways in which his radical teachings would be ‘reinterpreted’? Don’t you think Luther should have thought a couple of moves ahead rather than just assuming that whatever he wrote was automatically correct?

I am not defending his right to do anything. I was describing why Protestants do not necessarily regard Leipzig as a loss.

There are many kinds of “good theologians.” And my experience as a historian of theological ideas is that very few people see ahead in that way. Enemies are often more clear-sighted about the unintended implications of one’s ideas than one is oneself, and that makes sense. Luther’s ideas remain fruitful and powerful and interesting. That’s all I’m saying. My major frustration with you is that it seems as if you want to talk about everything except Luther’s actual ideas. Protestants do the same. The Whig narrative leads people to ignore Luther’s actual content, because what really matters is Luther the icon of freedom.

I have a hard time with the whole thing about Luther’s ‘caliber’, given the fact that he unleashed Sola Scriptura + Private Interpretation on Western Christendom and REFUSED to heed the warnings that it would cause doctrinal confusion and dissension. It seem to me that a Theologian of ‘small caliber’ (like a 22) would have recognized that that was EXACTLY going to happen.

You have an idea in your head of what a good theologian looks like, and you judge Luther by that. Fine. I really don’t much care, except that you keep dismissing or ignoring the actual reasons why Protestants admire Luther.

This is why, yet again, I wish you would lay out your thesis clearly so we aren’t flailing around in the dark.

My impression is that your argument is basically: “Luther was a brash, thoughtless person who attacked Church authority and didn’t have the scholarship or theological acumen to understand the implications of his own ideas. Hence, his ideas are obviously bad and should not be taken seriously, no matter how appealing they may seem.” That’s what I think I’m getting from your posts. But I don’t know, because you won’t just lay it all out there as an argument with a thesis and supporting points.

What mystifies me is how people today can simply dismiss the fact that Luther was so foolish to dismiss these warnings and that the Catholics making them were in fact correct.

I agree that this is a major point. When your opponents say, “X will happen,” and you say, “No it won’t,” and then it does, the supposedly boring and corrupt opponents need a second look. (By the way, do you know David Bagchi’s book Luther’s Earliest Opponents? I think you would find it interesting, and no doubt useful to cite since Bagchi is a Protestant!).

And yes, the Whig narrative has a lot to do with why people ignore this. In the Whig narrative, liberty is the ultimate good, so the fact that Luther’s Reformation led to what you call “chaos” isn’t necessarily seen as a bad thing. One of the points to drive home is that the Reformers (the Reformed more so than Luther himself) cared deeply about unity. The pre-Reformation era was not an era of uniformity–it was an era of what most people found terrifying diversity and conflict. Calvin claimed that the Reformation was bringing unity to this chaotic, fractious religious world. And obviously he was wrong. People in 1500 had no idea just how chaotic and conflict-ridden the world of 1600 would be. If they had, they probably would have just fallen down and died en masse and there would have been no Reformation at all. (OK, that’s massive hyperbole!)

As you can see, we have a lot of agreement. Part of my frustration with your posts is that you are deeply invested in having Protestant antagonists. I get this, since there are a lot of Protestants who are smug and triumphalist. But as I keep saying, it isn’t really clear what your basic argument is and what Protestants would need to do in order not to fall under your condemnation. Become Catholic, obviously, but you seem to be aiming at something more limited than that

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

You have an idea in your head of what a good theologian looks like, and you judge Luther by that. Fine. I really don’t much care, except that you keep dismissing or ignoring the actual reasons why Protestants admire Luther.

Which are?

If anything, I gather that Lutherans admire the ideas but distance themselves from the man.

My impression is that your argument is basically: “Luther was a brash, thoughtless person who attacked Church authority and didn’t have the scholarship or theological acumen to understand the implications of his own ideas. Hence, his ideas are obviously bad and should not be taken seriously, no matter how appealing they may seem.” That’s what I think I’m getting from your posts. But I don’t know, because you won’t just lay it all out there as an argument with a thesis and supporting points.

And how is Topper wrong?

Edwin-

Allow me to say a word of thanks for your contributions and interactions with Topper in the last few posts. I have enjoyed reading the exchange very much, because the level of discussion has clearly gone up a few notches.

It is interesting, btw, that this has happened between two Catholics while the Lutherans themselves (including one Lutheran pastor) have fallen silent. Someone will claim that this is because they are no longer following the thread, but I seriously doubt that. And if they aren’t lurking, then they are missing out on a great discussion.

Thanks again.

 

[JonNC]

Which are?

If anything, I gather that Lutherans admire the ideas but distance themselves from the man.

And how is Topper wrong?

Edwin-

Allow me to say a word of thanks for your contributions and interactions with Topper in the last few posts. I have enjoyed reading the exchange very much, because the level of discussion has clearly gone up a few notches.

It is interesting, btw, that this has happened between two Catholics while the Lutherans themselves (including one Lutheran pastor) have fallen silent. Someone will claim that this is because they are no longer following the thread, but I seriously doubt that. And if they aren’t lurking, then they are missing out on a great discussion.

Thanks again.

Sometimes just listening, or in this instance reading, is a good thing.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sometimes just listening, or in this instance reading, is a good thing.

Jon

:yup:

 

[Contarini]

And how is Topper wrong?

The position I summarized (which is probably not exactly Topper’s position–I continue to invite him to state his position more clearly for himself to deal with the inevitable inaccuracies in my interpretation) is wrong because it’s silly to dismiss people’s ideas because of their person faults or even their intellectual faults, if those faults are clearly compatible with having powerful and interesting ideas. As they are in Luther’s case.

I think our discussion has revealed that Topper and I value very different things in theologians. And I agree with him, in fact, that originality isn’t a virtue in and of itself. But Luther isn’t just original–many of Luther’s ideas clearly convey Christian truth in ways that are powerful and rich beyond anything said along those lines before. And that’s an important part of why Protestantism was successful–defining success as the ability to shape the lives of millions of people over the past five centuries. Luther’s proclamation of God’s grace in Jesus Christ speaks to people in a profound way, even in its various mutations in Reformed, Wesleyan, dispensationalist and many other traditions. There’s something there. Something powerful. Topper shows no interest in this. He just sweeps it aside as unimportant.

If Topper is right and becoming Catholic makes one no longer value that something, then that would be a reason not to be Catholic.

But since Pope Benedict and Raniero Cantalemessa clearly see value in that something, I think Topper is wrong

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

The position I summarized (which is probably not exactly Topper’s position–I continue to invite him to state his position more clearly for himself to deal with the inevitable inaccuracies in my interpretation) is wrong because it’s silly to dismiss people’s ideas because of their person faults or even their intellectual faults, if those faults are clearly compatible with having powerful and interesting ideas. As they are in Luther’s case.

My concern, and I welcome your feedback and correction if you think I am off base, is that Luther’s personal demons drove him to develop a theology (sola fide) that was unknown prior to his day. Perhaps the issues were psychological, perhaps they were the result of intense scruples, but Luther needed to be able to extricate himself from self-damnation and his means of escape was faith alone - something that he felt he could control. IOW, Luther could salve his burning conscience by declaring, “I have faith, I am saved by faith alone, and therefore, God cannot send me to hell.”

I think our discussion has revealed that Topper and I value very different things in theologians. And I agree with him, in fact, that originality isn’t a virtue in and of itself. But Luther isn’t just original–many of Luther’s ideas clearly convey Christian truth in ways that are powerful and rich beyond anything said along those lines before. And that’s an important part of why Protestantism was successful–defining success as the ability to shape the lives of millions of people over the past five centuries. Luther’s proclamation of God’s grace in Jesus Christ speaks to people in a profound way, even in its various mutations in Reformed, Wesleyan, dispensationalist and many other traditions. There’s something there. Something powerful. Topper shows no interest in this. He just sweeps it aside as unimportant.

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 Topper is right and becoming Catholic makes one no longer value that something, then that would be a reason not to be Catholic.

But since Pope Benedict and Raniero Cantalemessa clearly see value in that something, I think Topper is wrong

Edwin

If anything, the Catholic experience demonstrates that we do not have to be in perfect lock-step to sit together at the communion table.

 

[Contarini]

My concern, and I welcome your feedback and correction if you think I am off base, is that Luther’s personal demons drove him to develop a theology (sola fide) that was unknown prior to his day. Perhaps the issues were psychological, perhaps they were the result of intense scruples, but Luther needed to be able to extricate himself from self-damnation and his means of escape was faith alone - something that he felt he could control. IOW, Luther could salve his burning conscience by declaring, “I have faith, I am saved by faith alone, and therefore, God cannot send me to hell.”

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

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.

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.

Edwin

 

[benhur]

When you believe that the Holy Spirit leads you, personally, to understand the doctrinal teachings of Scripture correctly, then automatically those who disagree with you, at the very least, are LESS ‘led’ than you are, and very much in need of your correcting of them. At that ‘point’ it is very much your Spirit led ‘duty’ to oppose them, whoever they might be.

Hi Topper

Are you strictly speaking of Luther or of yourself, or actually all involved (myself included) in the Protestant/Catholic debate, where P’s are "less’’, imperfect union but yet “brothers” ?

 

[benhur]

The first reformers were themselves traditional clergy and quite a few, like Luther, renegade monks.” Steven Ozment, “Protestants, the Birth of a Revolution”, pg. 20-21

Good. Then no one can say they were merely poorly catechized, or ignorant, or misunderstanding of the Catholic Church. There noses were to the grinding wheel, where the rubber meets the road, on the front line.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Edwin

Thank you for all of this.

I’m intrigued by the baptism thing if there is anything more you can add to this.

It seems to me that instead of sola fide, this is sola baptismi.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Thank you for all of this.

I’m intrigued by the baptism thing if there is anything more you can add to this.

It seems to me that instead of sola fide, this is sola baptismi.

For sure. Sola fide, at least within a Lutheran context, is not faith in faith. It is faith in the promises of Christ in the gospel. Where are those promises more clearly realized than in the sacraments, esp. baptism? As Contarini pointed out, Luther would never have said “I am saved because I believe.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

For sure. Sola fide, at least within a Lutheran context, is not faith in faith. It is faith in the promises of Christ in the gospel. Where are those promises more clearly realized than in the sacraments, esp. baptism? As Contarini pointed out, Luther would never have said “I am saved because I believe.”

This seems to make sense, but isn’t it curious that 500 years later, we have folks who admire Luther as a hero of Christianity who deny that water baptism does anything other than provide a symbol of the interior conversion that has already taken place.

IOW, Luther would have stood upon the assurance of his baptism, whereas these sons of Luther would deny that his baptism had any real significance at all.

At the risk of being repetitious, this is the result of sola scriptura and private judgment.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi Topper, Even the title is intriguing, though I don’t expect the conclusion to be that hyperbolic. Perhaps when we have both finished it, we can discuss it. Who knows, we might even find some areas of agreement. Jon

Once again, if anything, the book is helpful in demonstrating the wide range of scholarly Catholic opinions of Luther. I appreciate the book for its overview on a vast topic. More recent Catholic scholarship by no means has given Luther a complete free pass. What one will find though is that in many cases their criticisms are meaningful rather than vilifications. some of my favorite Catholic scholars are critical of Luther- but’s its not that silly anachronistic stuff or the sort of thing that doesn’t take the pre-Reformation period into account.

Here’s another helpful book that is not an overview per se, but written by Catholic scholars: Catholic Scholars Dialogue with Luther (Jared Wicks, S.J, Editor. 1970, Loyola University Press). There may be some used copies around. The book is a series of articles from some of the leading Catholic voices in Luther scholarship in the late 1960’s- early 70’s. I’ve had this book for years, and still find the articles fascinating enough to revisit from time to time.

 

[TertiumQuid]

There is of course the ‘remote’ possibility that the two people who wrote those scathing reviews of that book actually believed what they wrote about it. I mean it COULD like that. After all, this now 15 year old book has not exactly become a ‘standard’ in Luther literature.

There is actually an art to a successful book review. In fact if you Google “how to review a book” you’ll get a lot of hits. What’s missing in the two negative reviews from Amazon that you appear to be smitten with (perhaps because I recommended the book?) is substance. The reviews are typical of cyber-trolls that don’t know how to be critical without being offensive- or how to demonstrate that the facts and conclusions of a particular writing don’t follow or are in error.

 

[spina1953]

This seems to make sense, but isn’t it curious that 500 years later, we have folks who admire Luther as a hero of Christianity who deny that water baptism does anything other than provide a symbol of the interior conversion that has already taken place.

IOW, Luther would have stood upon the assurance of his baptism, whereas these sons of Luther would deny that his baptism had any real significance at all.

At the risk of being repetitious, this is the result of sola scriptura and private judgment.

Hi Randy: I agree with you statement! It also seems me that because of Sola Scriptura some or many denominations say all is needed is the Jesus prayer in order to be saved nothing more.

 

[JonNC]

This seems to make sense, but isn’t it curious that 500 years later, we have folks who admire Luther as a hero of Christianity who deny that water baptism does anything other than provide a symbol of the interior conversion that has already taken place.

IOW, Luther would have stood upon the assurance of his baptism, whereas these sons of Luther would deny that his baptism had any real significance at all.

At the risk of being repetitious, this is the result of sola scriptura and private judgment.

Randy,
Why do you think that those who rejected then, or reject now, baptism as you and I understand it are sons of luther, or think him a hero? The Anabaptists, for example, thought neither.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Thank you for all of this.

I’m intrigued by the baptism thing if there is anything more you can add to this.

It seems to me that instead of sola fide, this is sola baptismi.

It would be solo baptismo. Sola fide is ablative (“by means of faith”). Which is an important point. It doesn’t mean that other things aren’t involved, but that faith is the means by which people are justified.

Luther did not set faith over against the sacraments as most other Protestants do. He did insist that you couldn’t receive grace from the sacraments unless you believed that you were receiving grace. In that sense he could be accused of “faith in faith.” But he didn’t think that this act of faith was directed at your own faith as a psychological event. He didn’t think that you should look inside yourself to see if you really had faith. That would take you right back into the morass that rigorist late medieval nominalist theology had left Luther stuck in. Faith looks to the promise of Christ, which is made concrete and real to us in the sacraments.

Faith is the act of saying to the devil, “I am baptized!” (That’s actually how Luther put it–as you probably know, he talked to the devil all the time, or spoke as if he did.)

This is indeed very different from how other Protestants tend to think about faith. The problem, as many of the early Reformed saw it, was that Luther’s position didn’t hold up logically. Martin Bucer, for instance, criticized the position (as taught by Luther’s friend Melanchthon) by pointing out that logically people who were reprobate and did not have faith received sacraments too. Bucer worried that telling such people just to believe that they were receiving grace would give them false hope. But from Luther’s point of view, only those who had true faith would respond in this way. (Also, Luther did not believe in perseverance of the saints/eternal security, so he accepted that some people who weren’t among the elect would have true faith for a time, which Bucer and Zwingli and later Calvin didn’t think was possible.)

Lutheranism requires a high tolerance for paradox. I have no problem with this if Lutheranism is seen as a particular pastoral/rhetorical way of talking about grace. But I’ve never been able to see that the differences between Lutheranism and Catholicism on this point ought to be dogmatic and thus church-dividing (and the JDDJ would agree with me!).

Edwin