Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Randy_Carson]

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.

James-

I’m curious. What is your opinion of the efforts by Catholics and Lutherans to find common ground? And how would you feel if Lutherans and Catholics are able find a path of reconciliation that leads to reunification at some point?

Thanks.

 

[Contarini]

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

But most other Protestants do. (One reason I probably am less impressed by Topper’s claims about the excessive adulation of Luther than I ought to be is that in the last few years before I went off to grad school my family made the acquaintance of quite a few folks who could be described as neo-Anabaptists.From them I heard all about how awful Luther was. So there wasn’t much left to shock me on that score. . . . )

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

But most other Protestants do. (One reason I probably am less impressed by Topper’s claims about the excessive adulation of Luther than I ought to be is that in the last few years before I went off to grad school my family made the acquaintance of quite a few folks who could be described as neo-Anabaptists.From them I heard all about how awful Luther was. So there wasn’t much left to shock me on that score. . . . )

Edwin

Hi Edwin,
I understand, though I think there is far less praise of Luther among American evangelicals, fundamentalists, etc. than some think. Further, I also think any admiration is because he stood up, and not because of what he stood up for. I admire President Obama for being the first African American president, but not for what he stands for.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

I admire President Obama for being the first African American president, but not for what he stands for.

Jon

<what did he say? did he really say that? out loud?>

 

[JonNC]

<what did he say? did he really say that? out loud?>

Which part?

 

[TertiumQuid]

James-
I’m curious. What is your opinion of the efforts by Catholics and Lutherans to find common ground? And how would you feel if Lutherans and Catholics are able find a path of reconciliation that leads to reunification at some point?
Thanks.

Hi Randy,

Your question may be a bit off topic to what most of the people here are discussing (and likewise, I have enjoyed watching the interactions). But for a quick answer so as to not distract from the actual topic: I think that Catholic and Lutherans finding “a path of reconciliation that leads to reunification” would be wonderful. I also thing that Catholics and the Reformed finding "a path of reconciliation that leads to reunification" would be wonderful as well. So as to abide by CA’s rules, let’s just say that my explanation of what must happen for this “reconciliation that leads to reunification” is a lot different than yours probably is.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,

Your question may be a bit off topic to what most of the people here are discussing (and likewise, I have enjoyed watching the interactions). But for a quick answer so as to not distract from the actual topic: I think that Catholic and Lutherans finding “a path of reconciliation that leads to reunification” would be wonderful. I also thing that Catholics and the Reformed finding "a path of reconciliation that leads to reunification" would be wonderful as well. So as to abide by CA’s rules, let’s just say that my explanation of what must happen for this “reconciliation that leads to reunification” is a lot different than yours probably is.

Ya think?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for the heads up.

Just a heads up that if you post on this thread you may have it reposted on James Swan’s “Beggars All” blog. I noticed Topper’s post was posted there for comment on his blog.

Mary.

PS Topper can I have your autograph?

Honestly I am not thrilled at having my posts dragged off to be used for those purposes, but I guess on the positive side, there probably wont be a lot of people who see them there.

I am going to try to change the font here, but you might have to be satisfied with my friendship.

Topper17

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

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

We have MUCH in common. One of the first books on Apologetics I read was by Carl Keating. (it was the first Catholic Apologetics book I read). If I remember correctly, he make the point that we Catholics agree with Protestant (in general) on about 80% of the faith.

The problem as I see it though, is that that “other 20%” is extremely important. It is that 20% which has resulted in Protestantism becoming so fractured. That 20% also involves the nature and identity of the Church. That is a BIG DEAL.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

I am still waiting for your to finish Bouyer’s book. Maybe we could discuss that.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

I didn’t say it didn’t, and generally we don’t know about your views on the CC since they are not part of your apologia, other than your criticism of their participation in ecumenical dialogue.

That, as you know, is a misrepresentation of my actual position. I am dissatisfied with the pace of the ‘progress’.

My speaking up, OTOH, is typically in defense of my communion, and not often an attack on others or their members, past or current.

Jon, it was you who proclaimed that the ELCA is ‘misguided’. If that is not an ‘attack’ on them then it is close enough. They of course would probably say that the LCMS is ‘misguided’ also. Which of you then speaks for the ‘True Lutheranism’. It seems to me that it is very presumptuous for any of the ‘brands’ of Lutheranism to proclaim themselves to be ‘True’ and the other to be ‘misguided’. But then that conflict is exactly what Luther baked into the cake.

Not me, obviously, but certainly and clearly not you. ISTM, however, that one could look at the historic practice and understanding of Lutheranism, Lutheran orthodoxy if one will, to see which synod has held more closely to that historic teaching. I am not aware of there being female ordination during or following the Reformation era, for example.

Couldn’t all the Lutheran communions make that same statement Jon?

This reminds me of Luther’s position on interpretation of the Scriptures. He basically said that the Scriptures were SO CLEAR that you HAD TO agree with him. IF you claimed to disagree, you were lying. You in truth DID agree with him but were lying in claiming that you did not. Here you appeal to some obvious truth that those ‘other Lutherans’ must see also. But clearly they don’t Jon or they WOULD BE in agreement with you. The problem is not their being ‘misguided’. The problem is that they too, just like ALL Protestants have been cut off from the earthly source of God’s Absolute Truth. You all THINK that that source is Holy Scripture, as interpreted the way YOU prefer. If the last 500 years has not proven that to be pyrite, then I doubt that anything could.

Not Luther’s teachings, but the confessions. Find for me where the Evangelical churches practiced female ordination during and following the Reformation era.

Jon, it is not for me to get involved in your intra-Lutheran arguments. If you want to convince somebody that the ELCA should not be ordaining women, go convince THEM. My position is that you all need to unify yourselves and THEN attempt to come to doctrinal agreement with the Church.

You proclaim your correctness to me Jon? Tell the ELCA – convince THEM. Meet with THEM and don’t walk away, either of you, until you have solved your doctrinal differences, and THEN meet with the Church from a unified front and do not leave until doctrinal unity has been achieved. 50 years of nothing but superficial progress with NO doctrinal movement on either side.

Really? So, Catherine of Sienna was foreign to “The Church Decides”?

Ah, the old Catherine of Sienna defense! You know of course that Catherine was right to rebuke the Pope, on a matter of PRACTICE, and that she CONVINCED the Pope of that fact. You know also of course that any Catholic layperson can question the Pope. You also know of course that Catherine was NOT rebuking or challenging Catholic Dogma, or even doctrine. Luther’s ‘Revolt’ by comparison was treason, whereas Catherine’s was bold and very solid advice. To summarize – Luther was NO Catherine of Sienna and what he did was not even in the same universe as what Catherine did, and you know it.

And as we all know, that wasn’t the case.

Jon, what if I were to prove that that is exactly what Luther thought and said? Here you seem to place some importance on Luther not proclaiming himself to be the church. If I were to prove that he did what would it mean to you? How many chips are you willing to place on the table in refuting what I have said? If I actually prove that he did say that then will the matter all of the sudden be of no importance?

 

[Topper17]

Precisely what you practiced when your feet voted to leave whatever communion you were in prior to becoming Catholic.

Jon, it’s like this – for 2000 years now there has been the Church that Christ established for ALL men, and there have been schisms and heresies. The fact that I came out of one of those heresies and back to the mother Church would not have been necessary EXCEPT for the existence of the heresy in the first place.

Christ never intended that we go ‘church shopping’ or that WE decide what we think is God’s Absolute Truth. Do you NOT somehow see the damage that Luther’s teaching of SS has caused?

I don’t have God’s eyes.

OK, I’ll ask again in a different manner. Do you think God is approves of Sola Scriptura, which has led to so much division and confusion?

An astounding question coming from someone who is so well-read and intelligent. A Lutheran ordinariate means nothing without doctrinal unity, or as some documents refer to, a unity in diversity of those things that can be diverse. again, those would be decided, not by anonymous lay posters on an internet forum, but by the theologians and leaders of our communions.

The last sentence is even more astounding. Its as if you have no understanding of how a dialogue, much less a reconciliation, would work. I know that can’t be true, so I can only surmise that it was for polemical purposes only. But to answer anyway: common sense would obviously indicate that any statements of condemnation, in both directions, would be eliminated, since we would be in UNITY!!!

Jon, I have posted several quotes from the LCMS that state, quite forcefully, that doctrinal agreement with the Catholic Church COULD be possible, but ONLY if the Church changes it’s teachings. The Church cannot change what it has already pronounced to be dogma, and the LCMS has made it very clear that it will never compromise. That was my point – that there will not be any kind of ‘ordinate’, UNLESS there is doctrinal agreement.

What do you expect the Church to do Jon? What ‘statements of condemnation’ would you, personally, suggest be changed? One the Catholic side, which ones? On the Lutheran side, which ones? In each case, do you realistically think that they could be retracted? Do you expect that the Church is going to ‘unexcommunicate’ Luther?

If you believe that the Lutheranism, overall, could retract those statements, how would that be done specifically?

Participate in ecumenical dialogue, as partners in Christ trying to resolve the divisions that have wounded His Church. The specifics I leave to our leaders, something I know you to be uncomfortable with.

Really? Let me know when you accept the statements of your fellow Christians, such as when we say that we do not consider any individual pope to be the Anti-Christ.

First of all, Jon, I DO accept that that is what you personally believe. But remember that Mary knows of even a Lutheran Pastor who disagrees with you. Plus when you look at the Confessions in context of the times in which they were written, with that context supplying evidence for the INTENT of the text, it is pretty hard to misunderstand. What I believe Jon is that you don’t speak for ‘we’. Lutheranism is far to fractured for anybody to speak authoritatively for ‘we’. There is no ‘central voice’ for Lutheranism.

This is not to mention the fact that the idea of ‘only’ the highest office in the my Church is (somehow) the Antichrist is WAY offensive enough. Plus there is the fact that it is a totally ridiculous and completely unnecessary claim. FAR too ‘polemical’ for my tastes of course.

That’s the thing that amuses me Jon, is that I am accused of being ‘polemical’ when your Confessions, the official teachings of Lutheranism, even in their most ‘positive’ interpretation, are THAT offensive?

Jon, I think that it is very telling that some people here, not necessarily you though, would like to portray me in the worst possible terms, as if I am beating people over the head with my club, dragging people back to my cave, and threatening them with execution if they don’t follow my beliefs. (historical reference to 1530 and the Anabaptists).

I present a point of view here, one that I happen to think is worth considering. If the opposing point of view is more compelling, so be it. Personally, I think that it is telling that there is far more complaining about what I post than there are posts which actually deal with the historical facts that I post.

This doesn’t apply to you though Jon.

God Bless You, Topper

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

That, as you know, is a misrepresentation of my actual position. I am dissatisfied with the pace of the ‘progress’.

Jon, it was you who proclaimed that the ELCA is ‘misguided’. If that is not an ‘attack’ on them then it is close enough. They of course would probably say that the LCMS is ‘misguided’ also. Which of you then speaks for the ‘True Lutheranism’. It seems to me that it is very presumptuous for any of the ‘brands’ of Lutheranism to proclaim themselves to be ‘True’ and the other to be ‘misguided’. But then that conflict is exactly what Luther baked into the cake.

Couldn’t all the Lutheran communions make that same statement Jon?

This reminds me of Luther’s position on interpretation of the Scriptures. He basically said that the Scriptures were SO CLEAR that you HAD TO agree with him. IF you claimed to disagree, you were lying. You in truth DID agree with him but were lying in claiming that you did not. Here you appeal to some obvious truth that those ‘other Lutherans’ must see also. But clearly they don’t Jon or they WOULD BE in agreement with you. The problem is not their being ‘misguided’. The problem is that they too, just like ALL Protestants have been cut off from the earthly source of God’s Absolute Truth. You all THINK that that source is Holy Scripture, as interpreted the way YOU prefer. If the last 500 years has not proven that to be pyrite, then I doubt that anything could.

Jon, it is not for me to get involved in your intra-Lutheran arguments. If you want to convince somebody that the ELCA should not be ordaining women, go convince THEM. My position is that you all need to unify yourselves and THEN attempt to come to doctrinal agreement with the Church.

You proclaim your correctness to me Jon? Tell the ELCA – convince THEM. Meet with THEM and don’t walk away, either of you, until you have solved your doctrinal differences, and THEN meet with the Church from a unified front and do not leave until doctrinal unity has been achieved. 50 years of nothing but superficial progress with NO doctrinal movement on either side.

Ah, the old Catherine of Sienna defense! You know of course that Catherine was right to rebuke the Pope, on a matter of PRACTICE, and that she CONVINCED the Pope of that fact. You know also of course that any Catholic layperson can question the Pope. You also know of course that Catherine was NOT rebuking or challenging Catholic Dogma, or even doctrine. Luther’s ‘Revolt’ by comparison was treason, whereas Catherine’s was bold and very solid advice. To summarize – Luther was NO Catherine of Sienna and what he did was not even in the same universe as what Catherine did, and you know it.

Jon, what if I were to prove that that is exactly what Luther thought and said? Here you seem to place some importance on Luther not proclaiming himself to be the church. If I were to prove that he did what would it mean to you? How many chips are you willing to place on the table in refuting what I have said? If I actually prove that he did say that then will the matter all of the sudden be of no importance?

Well said,

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12760002]

That, as you know, is a misrepresentation of my actual position. I am dissatisfied with the pace of the ‘progress’.

Then I stand corrected. What you say here is not in the least the impression I’ve gotten, but I accept your explanation. I, too, get frustrated with the pace of progress.

Jon, it was you who proclaimed that the ELCA is ‘misguided’. If that is not an ‘attack’ on them then it is close enough. They of course would probably say that the LCMS is ‘misguided’ also. Which of you then speaks for the ‘True Lutheranism’. It seems to me that it is very presumptuous for any of the ‘brands’ of Lutheranism to proclaim themselves to be ‘True’ and the other to be ‘misguided’. But then that conflict is exactly what Luther baked into the cake.

I think I answered this already. An admonishment for being misguided is clearly not the same as an attack.

Couldn’t all the Lutheran communions make that same statement Jon?

If they are adhering to the confessions, the conclusions of both parts of CA, then they can. If they are not, well then no, they can’t. The example I’ve used in women’s ordination.

This reminds me of Luther’s position on interpretation of the Scriptures. He basically said that the Scriptures were SO CLEAR that you HAD TO agree with him. IF you claimed to disagree, you were lying. You in truth DID agree with him but were lying in claiming that you did not. Here you appeal to some obvious truth that those ‘other Lutherans’ must see also. But clearly they don’t Jon or they WOULD BE in agreement with you. The problem is not their being ‘misguided’. The problem is that they too, just like ALL Protestants have been cut off from the earthly source of God’s Absolute Truth. You all THINK that that source is Holy Scripture, as interpreted the way YOU prefer. If the last 500 years has not proven that to be pyrite, then I doubt that anything could.

I’ll ask again; where prior to the 20th century did Lutherans ordain women? Where prior to the 20th century did the Church Catholic ordain women?
And, you have not responded to the comparison to the Old Catholics. Who says the Rome version of Catholic is more correct that the Utrecht one.

Jon, it is not for me to get involved in your intra-Lutheran arguments.

You proclaim your correctness to me Jon? Tell the ELCA – convince THEM. Meet with THEM and don’t walk away, either of you, until you have solved your doctrinal differences, and THEN meet with the Church from a unified front and do not leave until doctrinal unity has been achieved. 50 years of nothing but superficial progress with NO doctrinal movement on either side.

Not me, Topper. That’s our leader’s responsibility, and let’s remember, the Holy Roman Church has a much longer schism going on than we do. I contend that that is the most important division in the Church Catholic that needs to be reconciled.

Ah, the old Catherine of Sienna defense! You know of course that Catherine was right to rebuke the Pope, on a matter of PRACTICE, and that she CONVINCED the Pope of that fact. You know also of course that any Catholic layperson can question the Pope. You also know of course that Catherine was NOT rebuking or challenging Catholic Dogma, or even doctrine. Luther’s ‘Revolt’ by comparison was treason, whereas Catherine’s was bold and very solid advice. To summarize – Luther was NO Catherine of Sienna and what he did was not even in the same universe as what Catherine did, and you know it.

You said, Topper," **The idea that the ‘church decides’ is foreign to your comment that ‘the people must speak up’. **

I sense a change of opinion here.

Jon, what if I were to prove that that is exactly what Luther thought and said? Here you seem to place some importance on Luther not proclaiming himself to be the church. If I were to prove that he did what would it mean to you? How many chips are you willing to place on the table in refuting what I have said? If I actually prove that he did say that then will the matter all of the sudden be of no importance?

It wouldn’t matter. Luther wasn’t, isn’t, the Church, regardless of whether or not he thought so.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12760037]Jon, it’s like this – for 2000 years now there has been the Church that Christ established for ALL men, and there have been schisms and heresies. The fact that I came out of one of those heresies and back to the mother Church would not have been necessary EXCEPT for the existence of the heresy in the first place.

**Christ never intended that we go ‘church shopping’ **or that WE decide what we think is God’s Absolute Truth. Do you NOT somehow see the damage that Luther’s teaching of SS has caused?

Agreed. And you did exactly that!

OK, I’ll ask again in a different manner. Do you think God is approves of Sola Scriptura, which has led to so much division and confusion?

Loaded question. Do I think God approves of our differences and divisions? Of course not - not those before or after the Reformation.

Jon, I have posted several quotes from the LCMS that state, quite forcefully, that doctrinal agreement with the Catholic Church COULD be possible, but ONLY if the Church changes it’s teachings. The Church cannot change what it has already pronounced to be dogma, and the LCMS has made it very clear that it will never compromise. That was my point – that there will not be any kind of ‘ordinate’, UNLESS there is doctrinal agreement.

Then we agree. Neither communion is willing to change doctrine, so unity must come from reconciling doctrine, guided by the Holy Spirit.

What do you expect the Church to do Jon? What ‘statements of condemnation’ would you, personally, suggest be changed? One the Catholic side, which ones? On the Lutheran side, which ones? In each case, do you realistically think that they could be retracted? Do you expect that the Church is going to ‘unexcommunicate’ Luther?

Again, statements of condemnation change when unity comes, not before. If there is doctrinal agreement , there are not no condemnations.

If you believe that the Lutheranism, overall, could retract those statements, how would that be done specifically?

Both sides could, when there is doctrinal agreement.

First of all, Jon, I DO accept that that is what you personally believe. But remember that Mary knows of even a Lutheran Pastor who disagrees with you. Plus when you look at the Confessions in context of the times in which they were written, with that context supplying evidence for the INTENT of the text, it is pretty hard to misunderstand. What I believe Jon is that you don’t speak for ‘we’. Lutheranism is far to fractured for anybody to speak authoritatively for ‘we’. There is no ‘central voice’ for Lutheranism.

The LCMS makes a specific statement of belief. I and others post it at least a dozen times. It is the position of the synod, other opinions notwithstanding.

This is not to mention the fact that the idea of ‘only’ the highest office in the my Church is (somehow) the Antichrist is WAY offensive enough. Plus there is the fact that it is a totally ridiculous and completely unnecessary claim. FAR too ‘polemical’ for my tastes of course.

Of course it is way offensive, and ridiculous, and unnecessary as is Unam sanctam.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

Topper, I don’t want to ignore your specific points, but lest this dialogue become unwieldy I’m going to respond in brief to some things that seem important to me rather than going point by point through your admirably thorough and detailed replies. Feel free to point out things you think I need to address that I’ve ignored, although I probably need, yet again, to work on minimizing my participation in this forum. It can become terribly addictive

I agree. It would be easy I think for each of us to take this thing to a level of detail which would not be productive.

I don’t know either Payton or Ozment personally. Ozment is of course one of the most eminent scholars in the field–he actually was a fellow-student of Heiko Oberman along with my advisor Steinmetz, though he and Steinmetz went in rather different directions. Ozment’s tendency to play up the political and social aspects of the Reformation is one of the major ways in which they differ. I did not mention princely support simply because that appeared to be the factor you were crediting with Luther’s “success,” and I was taking for granted that we both know this was a major factor.

First of all, do you know Ozment’s denominational background and whether he is still active in that denomination? As for not mentioning princely support, I think we need to remember that this conversation is not simply a matter between the two of us. Sometimes things need to be pointed out lest other readers get the wrong impression. Plus, you should never assume that I know something. This is not my day job and I very much appreciate the education and insight you provide.

But you’re right–I should have said so explicitly, given my criticisms of you for trying to correct one overemphasis by means of another. It is important not to play down either the intrinsic appeal of Luther’s ideas to many people or the political reasons why many powerful people supported his ideas. Both are necessary parts of an adequate explanation.

Agreed.

I think that Ozment himself is somewhat overreacting against the confessional “intellectual history” tradition in which he was trained (and in which Steinmetz trained me, though with a more ecumenical slant). Yes, rulers were happy to find ideas that they could use to cement their control over regional churches. And I think Ozment is generally right that the Reformation largely lost the common people quite early. (Peter Blickle, The Communal Reformation,

Thanks for the recommendation. It seems then that the point is that if the Reformation ‘largely lost the common people early’ (meaning mid 1525 for the most part), then doesn’t that mean that they never really DID understand it’s theology. After all, they THOUGHT they understood Luther’s teaching on their ‘right’ to decide for themselves, and in fact, taking him literally they began to rebel against the Princes. That may not have been Luther’s intent but he certainly bears a lot of the ‘credit’ for their ‘attitude’. Of course there were peasant uprisings on a routine schedule, but nothing like 1525. Luther’s ‘role’ in that ‘war’ would be a topic for another day. Sufice it to say though that Luther’s contribution to the causes of the Peasant’s War is but another example of him not being able to see past his belt buckle in terms of the consequences of his teachings.
Contarini;12753786:

But there’s a reason why Luther’s ideas, in particular, found such ready hearing, when other people who also had ideas that favored civil rulers’ control over the Church were less successful.

A great deal of that has to do with Luther’s use of the printing press. “Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther’ by Edwards documents this extremely well, although it is not his most interesting book.

There is no question that Germany was like a petri dish primed to foster something ‘radical’.

I think you continue to miss the limited way I’m using the term “success.” I originally was speaking of the contrast between Luther and Eck, and was simply making the point that most contemporaries faced with that contrast found Luther far more convincing as a proclaimer of the Gospel, for very understandable reasons.

I appreciate the clarification. Sorry, it didn’t sound ‘limiting’ when I read it. Luther was mesmerizing, both the oral and written Luther. There have been others in history who have also been mesmerizing.

 

[Topper17]

Now to Payton: I did not know about him until the Misunderstanding book came out. I’m rather envious because I’ve wanted for some time to write a book along these lines, and now he’s taken up the niche. Ironically, given the way you’re using him here, when I read the book recently I thought, “Topper would be happy to hear my reaction to this book, because I think Payton is way too easy on Luther.”

Edwin, I don’t think you should shy away from that specific topic. I found Payton to be very compelling, especially given that he makes it very clear that his book was not intended, at all, for people like me (Catholics). I would think that a different perspective would be a real addition to the subject, especially given the importance of the topic. That being said, and correct me if I have ‘misremembered’, but didn’t you tell me some time ago that you could write something that would show that Luther’s Salvation by Faith Alone was an improper understanding of Scripture (or something like that?)?

I remember commenting that that would be a wonderful use of your education and abilities. Now THAT would be a contribution, especially from someone currently in midstream. I am reminded of another Englishman who wrote on the development of doctrine, from a ‘midstream perspective’ and arrived on the other shore in the process.

His basic agenda is similar to mine: he respects the Reformation as a prophetic, insightful movement but attacks it as a norm. So far so good. But he takes a very anti-scholastic line and follows the common practice of blaming most of the problems with the Reformation on later generations. I think that lets Luther and Calvin and the other “founding fathers” off far too easily. In many ways, I think the Protestant scholastics were trying to correct the imbalances of the first couple generations.

I agree for the most part. As I see it, later generations were attempting to repair the damage done by the early Reformers. After all, Lutheranism rejects a lot of what Luther taught as being ‘Scriptural’. For that matter, Luther himself rejected a lot of what he himself taught early, which of course does not inspire confidence that he knew what he was doing.

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

Here we learn that Luther had no actual plan for how he was going to ‘reform’ the Church, and in fact that “much of what he at first put forward” he took back or modified. He simply reacted to events and rushed off theological opinions, with the PRESUMPTION that he was speaking for God.

In other words, his initial Revolt was NOT well thought out. Is it any wonder that it has turned so poorly?

Another irony, given your polemic against Lutherans

Let me stop you in midsentence Edwin. I DO NOT have a polemic or an agenda or anything of the kind “against Lutherans”. I have a ‘problem’ with Martin Luther and with Lutheran theology and with the Confessions, and my reasoning has been well documented. I do NOT have a problem with individual Lutherans or even with Lutherans in general as a body of people. The characterization that I do I consider to be a Lutheran polemic in and of itself, and an extremely predictable one at that.

Another irony, given your polemic against Lutherans on this forum, is that Payton's "misunderstanding" thesis, which you endorse, is a common Lutheran apologetic tactic to distance Luther from figures in the Reformation era they find less congenial. Anything people found in Luther that confessional Lutherans don't find in him, they claim was a misunderstanding. I'm not convinced.

No kidding. The fact is that all of those ‘more than out there’ teachings of Luther are extremely ‘under-reported’ and for a good reason. It would almost seem that the misunderstanding is not accidental.

That is not to say that no misunderstanding took place. Luther certainly was somewhat of a Rorschach blot for his contemporaries, and many of them had a lot of trouble understanding his paradoxical central thesis and how his wide-ranging ideas were connected. Luther himself, as you have suggested, didn’t entirely understand where he was headed for quite a while. In fact, I think your comparison of Luther with your colleague who had a lot of ideas but no critical judgment about them was quite apt. Naturally the things Luther said that matched up with existing ideas were easier to understand than were his most original and distinctive ideas.

 

[Topper17]

In the book in question, Payton comments:

“Without Martin Luther, the Reformation as it took place in the sixteenth century cannot be understood. The movement as we know it began with him, and as it developed it swirled around him. Contemporaries understood this well enough. He was not the only figure involved, of course, and others played major roles, politically and theologically, from the beginning of the movement and in the following decades. Opinions have often differed as to the wisdom of the way Luther expressed his views and the correctness of those views. This difference of assessment began already during the Reformation and has continued to this day. ….“This movement (the Reformation) would change the course of the church and Western civilization. Dr. Martin Luther had inaugurated a movement he had not foreseen or planned and which he would not ultimately be able to control. Even so, in one way or another, it swirled around him and his teachings. Acknowledging this is essential to getting the Reformation right, but it is possible to recognize this and yet get the Reformation wrong, even on this point.

A common way of doing this is the assumption that Luther came to his insights and almost immediately recognized and articulated their implications, and that people responded to his clear declarations. This is sometimes taken (especially among Lutherans) in the direction that Luther brought forward the truth, which some accepted but from which others turned away. Others (the Reformed) play it out a bit differently – that some who accepted Luther’s teachings in due course saw further necessary implications and pushed them forward, while Luther and his devotees hesitated to go as far on the path as was warranted. Still others (Anabaptist in heritage, plus the variety of free churches) affirm that even those who had gone further than Luther still had not gone far enough.” Payton, pg. 72-3

Whether recognized or not, to be a Protestant is to take a position on Martin Luther and his teachings. Payton depicts three of the more common ways of “dealing with” the “Great Reformer” but of course like everything else in Protestantism, the number of different approaches is difficult to count. The historical Truth is often elusive in Protestantism.

As Payton noted Luther didn’t really make “clear declarations” very often and many of the times that he actually did, he was forced to later repudiate himself.

“No matter which version, this approach accepts that the initial proclamation of the Reformation’s insights issued into precise understandings of what had been declared: the lines had been drawn and the choices were clear. This allowed for a straightforward decision between truth and error (however those two end up being distinguished among the adherents of these variations). Choices for or against Luther and his teaching arose from a clear confrontation with what he had communicated.

However, what actually transpired in the sixteenth century was not nearly as clean and neat as this myth, in all its variations, assumes; the reality was actually quite messy. Rather than initially advancing by sure understanding, the Reformation was carried along by misunderstandings. In its own way, this cluttered situation allowed the Reformation to develop and attract a wider audience. But in the early sixteenth century the challenges of communication – both speaking and listening – ensured that much of what was said was not taken in the way intended by Luther (or other speakers). Part of this was due to the growth and development of Luther’s own ideas, as he worked thought and saw further implications of his own insights. All this made for a chaotic early Reformation movement, as German society jumped on the reforming horse and galloped off in all directions at once.” Payton, pg. 73-4

We have seen a great deal of evidence that Luther misunderstood important parts of Christian Scripture. Remember that he quoted more than 150 verses of Scripture in his “On the Jews and Their Lies”, and of course, (almost) everybody thinks that what he wrote was “wrong” Scripturally. Payton would have us understand that the misunderstanding of Luther actually benifited his cause.

Even from the very beginning of his “career” as a “reformer”, Luther didn’t develop a theology so much as he seized upon a radical concept (Salvation by Faith Alone) and then forced everything else to bend to it. Unfortunately, as we have learned, Luther was not a Systematic Theologian, so he wasn’t very good at understanding how one theological belief might affect another. As a result, Luther went down several blind alleys doctrinally, and then was forced to reverse direction and backtrack towards the position of the Historic Church. Among these are Sola Scriptura, the “right” of the individual to interpret, the priesthood of all believers, and the “invisible church”, all of which Luther had to repudiate once he realized how they “worked” in the real world. Unfortunately, Luther was not able to put these genies back into the bottle. In spite of Luther’s “retraction” of each of these concepts became Protestant Presumptions and as a result, Protestantism spun completely out of control.

 

[Topper17]

Payton understands that early Protestantism (and Luther) benefited from Luther’s lack of clarity as to his own theological direction and also from the misunderstandings by the populace of Luther’s teachings. In addition, he admits that Luther didn’t have his doctrinal positions established when he “began” the Reformation in 1517 with the (supposed) nailing of the 95 Theses. In fact, Luther’s initial Revolt against the Catholic Church wasn’t doctrinal at all. However, when he realized that the Church wasn’t simply going to change everything he wanted it to, his arrogance and pride dictated that he reject it totally. In fact, Luther began the Reformation (or Revolt) by refuting the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church even though he didn’t have anything doctrinally to take the place of the teachings of the Church. Of course, all of this was driven by Luther’s extremely intense desire to “find” or discover the certainty of his own Salvation.

“But, as I have noted above, much of what I have encountered in churches and Christian college courses in these regards is flawed: “getting the Reformation wrong” is all too common a problem. I have identified several fundamental flaws in what is often presented about the Reformation. I have devoted a chapter each to a dozen of them in the work that follows. What we say about the Reformation too often presents – unintentionally, but nonetheless surely – perspectives that misrepresent what the Reformers actually taught or that have been thoroughly disproved by Reformation-era scholarship. Indeed, I have found that too much of what the contemporary evangelical and broader Protestant world thinks it knows about the Reformation is mistaken.” Payton, pg. 20

As we know, a great deal of the standard “Legend” of Martin Luther is false, and represents Luther in a FAR “better light” than what actual history would suggest is appropriate. However, what Payton is describing here is something entirely different. As he goes on to document, the Reformers didn’t really teach what modern day Protestantism teaches and didn’t teach what Protestants think they taught.

I don’t think that takes away from my point that Luther was persuasive to many people in ways that more conventional theologians, like Eck, were not.

Does this presume somehow that people will decide to follow the leaders that are ‘good for them’? Does it presume that if a lot of people follow someone, then that person must be speaking God’s Absolute Truth? We know that a LOT of Christian leaders have been VERY persuasive. Personally, I never heard Joseph Smith speak, but my guess is that he was pretty persuasive. I am not exactly impressed by the fact that Luther was persuasive.

I certainly agree that originality is a dubious thing to aim for in theology. However, I disagree entirely with your view that poets belong in the liturgy and not in theology. In fact, I think that the split you’re making between theology and liturgy is at the heart of many of the problems with modern Western Catholicism.

I take your point about poets not belonging in theology. Upon further reflection, poets have a place everywhere. That beings said, I think we are tending towards agreement on about ‘originality’ and ‘creativity’, past a certain point.

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[TertiumQuid]

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.

Dr. Tait,

I suspect that for you (and some others here) I represent the category of persona non grata. Nonetheless, I have no problem stating I’ve benefited from the bulk of your comments in this thread. Some of what you have said has magnified certain things that I hadn’t considered before, and even with some of the conclusions you have that I don’t share- I’ve been challenged to consider how to formulate a response in ways I’ve never had to before. For this I am grateful, despite perhaps being persona non grata.

I have some questions on your words I’ve selected above- and I ask it fully realizing it may be perceived as rabbit trail from the actual focus of discussion.

Is it logically consistent to see Luther’s sola fide as responsible for “opened the gate” and having “the potential for antinomianism”? In other words, my question to you is do you see Luther’s sola fide as rightly deserving blame (or credit) for the mutation you speak of? Should Luther really be charged with fault because he “didn’t think ahead very carefully about how his ideas would be interpreted and what their possible implications were”?

I ask, because in my opinion, a sufficient source is not responsible for those who misuse the source. For instance, the Bible itself has been misused to prove all sorts of things- the subjugation of women slavery, etc. Yet, as those who believe the Bible is the very Word of God, the fault is not God’s, but rather those who misuse the sufficient source. Or to take an example meaningful to the Catholic church: people love to charge her with all sorts of things because of her defined stance on priestly celibacy. Is it the church’s stance on celibacy that’s at fault, or the people who fall short of the standard or deviate or abuse the standard? Logically, it’s the later, not the former. If the speed limit is 65, and I drive 125 miles per hour causing a serious accident, my defense should not be, “the car manufacturer did not think ahead when they made a car capable of 125 miles per hour.”

I’ve read enough Luther, particularly his sermons, to see that he consistently explained his view of sola fide, and he was aware early on that faith without love was not enough. Revisit for instance, the Eight Wittenberg Sermons of 1522 (which are less than a year after the “sin boldly” statement you mention). It doesn’t appear to me “he was confident that believers would naturally want to do good works and would not want to sin.” Certainly he taught that we receive Christ by faith and we are to serve our neighbor. He constantly preached this, throughout his career. It’s almost overkill.

The “sin boldly” comment is from a fragment of a private letter purported to have been written from Luther to Melanchthon from the Wartburg. It was not, as far as I know, something Luther intended to represent his view of sola fide- though it is certainly consistent with it. The statement itself has quite a history of interpretive abuse. To me, the interpretive abuse stands as an example that people have bias, and would rather get information from a sound-bite than an exposition of a view. To quote Topper’s favorite biographer,

“If we know anything about the encounter of people and print in the twentieth century, it is that the masses see in a long discourse only what they want to see. The sound-bite is not the creation of television news. The great ideas of history have always become sound-bites of one sort or another before the multitudes could live and die for them.”

I contend that in Luther’s career long exposition of his view of sola fide, many hear only the sound-bite “sin boldly” as representing Luther’s view. The fault was not with sola fide as expounded by Luther, the fault is with those who misinterpret his view.

Regards,
JS

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: Great posts you are making! As for your post #784, People will believe what they want to believe. Yet many grew up believing what they were and had been taught so one can’t fault them for that. yes, what you wrote makes much sense and shows how people of the time thought and lived. There are many factures which helped lead the way to the Reformation.
Remember most people of that time did not know how to read or write, so relied on those who did. There superstitions galore that many believed due to their not having any education. One of the major problems of the time is most peasants lived on someone else's land and had to pay a high price to live as the landholders princes etc. taxed them to the point that they almost had nothing to keep. They struggled just to live while those with wealth and power and titles lived off the fat of the land did not. They had the means to convince people to believe what they wanted them to believe and to live in a way that suited the wealthy and powerful.