Hi Thor,
Thanks for your response.
I’ve been reading Derek Wilson’s recent biography of Luther, and he points that while Luther was in the Wartburg, he became disturbed by all the new rules that Karlstadt was making in Wittenburg. According to Wilson (pp. 188-189), “He…disapproved of Karlstadt’s tendency to proclaim as truths binding on all Christians some issues which, Luther believed, were matters of individual conscience: ‘We are certainly a people on whom no law should be imposed - especially not for the whole of life - but to whom everything should be left free.’”
But Thor, isn’t that exactly what Luther did? Didn’t he proclaim that anyone who disagreed with him was somehow a tool of Satan? Of course he disagreed with Karlstadt’s ‘taking over’ and initiating his own brand of ‘reforms’. Luther’s ‘relationship’, with Carlstadt, who BTW conferred upon him his Doctoral degree, was – well – ‘complicated’. While Luther was in hiding at the Wartburg, Carlstadt sort of ‘took over’. Luther didn’t like the idea of losing control and had to rush home to set things right.
**
“In the university Andreas Carlstadt (1480-1541) became the most prominemt professor. He was a poor theologian and a rather unstable character.”** Hajo Holborn, “A History of Modern Germany”, pg. 167
I find it interesting that Holborn would comment about Carlstadt being a poor theologian and a rather unstable character. He continues:
“Slightly older than Luther, he attempted to make up radicalism what he lacked in originality, but he posed questions and rushed developments that the new movement under Luther’s influence was inclined to postpone or neglect….**He himself went to the uneducated and asked for their help in interpretation of the Gospel.” **Ibid, pg. 167-8
This is EXACTLY what Luther did in giving the individual the ‘right’ to correctly interpret Scripture, for themselves. Carlstadt was one of Luther’s teachers and yet, Luther would not allow Carlstadt to interpretat Scripture (differently from Luther). In fact, Carlstadt was probably Luther’s first Protestant opponent, and he paid a high price for the ‘honor’.
Lutherans have decided far less doctrines than the Catholic Church and the ELCA has left many divisive issues to individual conscience. I also wonder if it is to a church that we are supposed to submit or to Christ as we individually understand his teachings?
I think that subject of Luther’s conscience and the impact that it had on Christianity would make an excellent thread. As you know, both before Cajaten at Augsburg and at Worms, Luther proclaimed that he could not go against his conscience. Yet, when we look at Luther’s actions against the Jews, Anabaptists, Catholics, peasants, and (of course) ‘reluctant wives’, we are forced to wonder whether Luther’s was an ‘informed conscience’.
How much ‘individuality’ do you think Christians should be allowed Thor? The early Luther would say that they should be allowed a lot. The later Luther – virtually none, if they disagreed with him. Luther was eventually to say (while in the process of handing over the Church to the secular powers), that the princes would govern fairly if they followed their consciences. So – how did that turn out?
The ‘goal’ of a ‘free conscience’ didn’t turn out all that well:
**“Ideally, the Protestants of the sixteenth century saw in their faith a workable religion with absolute safeguards against the bullying of conscience. Few suspected at the time that their own coercive measures might contradict and undermine that goal….” **Ozment, “Birth”, pg. xiii
Lutheran Professor Jane Strohl states that:
**“There is no denying that Luther was himself a prime example of the desparately bound sinner whose terrified conscience, **hungering for the assurance of God’s grace and the experiences of its transforming power,
became *the *test case for Lutheran proclaimation.” Strohl, “Companion”, pg. 149 (emphasis Strohl’s)
This is exactly my point. It was upon Luther’s ‘terrified conscience’ that the “Lutheran proclaimation’ was, and IS based. As such we have no choice but to dig into the matter and determine whether that conscience was ‘informed’, and of so, by what.
Paul Tillich especially digs into the issue of the Christian conscience. In fact he depicts Luther as having developed a completely new concept of the conscience:
**
“It is Luther who derives a new concept of conscience from the experience of justification through faith; neither Paul nor Augustine did so. Luther’s experience grew out of the monastic scrutiny of conscience and the threat of ultimate judgment, which he felt in its full depth and horror. Experiences like these he called Anfechtungen, that is, ‘tempting attacks’, stemming from Satan as the tool of the divine wrath. These attacks are the most terrible thing a human being may experience.” ** Tillich, “The Protestant Era”, pg. 145
We have learned elsewhere that these attacks were so bad that Luther said that if they had lasted another second his body would be pulled apart.
Protestism is based, ultimately, on Luther’s Salavation by Faith Alone, which was based on his tremendous need for assurance of Salvation, which was the result of his terrors. Of course, the ‘solution’ for Luther, was to proclaim that that individual ‘conscience’ was in some way or another, infallible. Never mind that the ‘infallibility’ of Luther’s individual conscience proved, in so many areas, to be completely ‘uninformed’ from the perspective of the Christian Gospel.
God Bless You Thor, Topper
