Martin Luther

[Contarini]

Can you give me some Biblical references regarding degrees of guilt?

I’m not sure that I want to get into the question of whether “all sins are equal.” Since most Christians historically have believed in degrees of guilt, I would suggest that the burden of proof rests on those who think that Scripture teaches that all sins are equal in God’s sight–a view I do not find in Scripture. I’d say that such passages as Luke 12:47-48 and 2 Peter 2:20-21 indicate that there are degrees of guilt. But I am not trying to make a “proof-text” argument here.

I don’t remember saying that I don’t believe “Scripture was a product of its times.”

I’m sorry. I was anticipating the possibility that you might say this (since I had no way of knowing what you thought). I was not claiming that you had said this.

The assumption that Scripture is a product of its time leads to a controversial question:

Is Scripture the infallible Word of God; or is Scripture a human account of man’s encounters with God, and man’s interpretation and beliefs as a result of those encounters?

This is a very difficult question, and to be honest I think I’m moving in a more liberal direction on this. It’s very clear to me that the answer to the second question is “yes.” The human aspect of Scripture is undeniable. But as Christians we are clearly called on to confess the former: that Scripture is the Word of God, which means that it is free from errors that are incompatible with its character as the Word of God. And it’s not just a matter of being required to believe this by Christian tradition–one of the reasons that I remain a Christian is that when I read the Bible (particularly certain parts of the Old Testament–the New Testament impresses me by what it points to and less by its intrinsic character as a text) I get the impression that I am reading a text produced by more than purely human agency. Of course I think this in large part because I have been taught to think it. But that’s OK. Life is too short to start with a blank slate even if this were possible (which it isn’t). We start with what we have been taught and discard or modify what we have to under the pressure of reality as we experience it. And the divine origin of Scripture is something that I feel the need to nuance and qualify but not to abandon.

I think we can affirm both the divine and the human character of Scripture. But certainly this raises a lot of difficult questions.

I’m puzzled by your words here. You are saying, "we can’t go directly to Scripture.” You are also saying we are to “hold ourselves accountable to the ways Christians have read Scripture throughout the centuries”?

Didn’t the Christians, throughout the centuries, go directly to the Scriptures; and then produce their exegesis and homilies, etc.?

It depends on what you mean by “directly.” Pre-Reformation Christians of course went to Scripture, but they went to it with the assumption that the tradition of the Church was the context in which Scripture should be interpreted. There were a lot of different approaches, of course, but the Reformation did mark a sharp break. This was not so much because the Reformers articulated some brand new theory of “sola Scriptura” ("sola scriptura wasn’t a phrase that the Reformers used, and they drew on views of Scripture as the supreme authority that predated the Reformation) but because of what they perceived as the clear failure of the institutional Church to teach Scripture correctly. With the breakdown of confidence in the Church, the traditional understanding of Scriptural authority came to look very different, because Protestants could no longer assume that the Church had always gotten it and would always get it essentially right. This led some radical Protestants to claim that tradition was essentially harmful and that any Christian should be expected to come up with true doctrine based on Scripture alone.

 

[Contarini]

You said, “We must allow Scripture to challenge tradition as well.” If we do not “go directly to Scripture,” how can we use Scripture to challenge tradition?

By “go directly to Scripture” I mean “set aside the presuppositions that come from tradition or from our culture.” Of course as we read Scripture we may come to perceive conflicts between Scripture and how Christian tradition or our culture has taught us to think. At that point we have to consider whether it may be that we are reading Scripture wrongly (for instance, we may be taking one passage too literally and ignoring the broader teaching of Scripture, or placing too much importance on some cultural attitude reflected in this particular part of Scripture, or interpreting Scripture based on a lens deriving from our culture rather than from Christian tradition–or for the matter the reverse may be true, though in that case we need to be very careful about abandoning the traditional reading in favor of one more culturally acceptable, doing this only if the evidence in favor of such a shift becomes undeniable). But it may be that in fact what we perceive to be the Scriptural teaching is the teaching of Scripture as a whole, and that some aspect of Christian tradition or (more often) our contemporary culture needs to be reformed. If that’s “going directly to Scripture” then yes, I do think that we need to do it. But I think “directly” is a misleading word–we always read Scripture through various lenses, and question the lenses only if they clearly don’t give us a reading that makes sense.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say, especially in light of your efforts to provide a balanced view of Martin Luther.

I want to be fair to Luther. That doesn’t mean I agree with him on everything. I try (not claiming I succeed!) to be particularly fair to those with whom I disagree!

Didn’t Luther teach that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge?

I think that’s a fair way of putting it. Luther even spoke at times as if he were “going directly to Scripture.” That was his mistake, clearly, and mainstream Protestantism had to nuance this by a more explicit recognition of the role tradition plays. Unfortunately, the more radical forms of Protestantism took Luther’s language and ran with it. And confessional, “magisterial” Protestantism wound up with an overly academic view of authority. Protestantism still suffers from this dichotomy–either we listen to the scholars who tell us what the Bible really means, or we run around interpreting the Bible “for ourselves” (which often means that we listen to whatever a persuasive preacher says).

Luther’s German Bible put Scripture in the hands of the people.

It was certainly a more accessible and widely available translation than the many German translations already available in late medieval Catholicism. And the Protestants did make an effort to put Bibles in the hands of “ordinary people,” particularly heads of households who could read it to their families. Still, according to one article I read in grad school the real push to give everyone a Bible didn’t happen till a couple centuries later under the influence of Pietism, and the extent to which Luther either desired or accomplished such a goal has been greatly exaggerated. (I’m not sure this is entirely right–the claim may be exaggerated in turn and I don’t want to base too much on one article.)

Wasn’t this, at least to some extent, to allow people to “go directly to Scripture?”

Not necessarily as I’ve defined it. People were expected to read the Bible in the context of the preaching and teaching of learned, godly clergy. I certainly think that everyone should read the Bible, even though I think that “going directly to the Bible” is neither possible nor desirable. However, as I said, I don’t agree with everything Luther taught!

As you know very well, people were martyred to put Scripture in the hands of the people.

No one that I know of was ever executed simply for putting Scripture in the hands of the people. The idea that Wycliffe, Hus, and Tyndale were persecuted primarily for that reason is a particularly misleading bit of Protestant propaganda.

Wycliffe’s bones were ordered to be dug-up and crushed; because he dared to produce English manuscript copies–which allowed people to “go directly to Scripture.”

Wycliffe’s follower, John Hus, was burned at the stake. I read Wycliffe’s English manuscript Bibles were used as kindling for the fire that martyred him. Hus gave his life so that people could “go directly to Scripture” and read it in their own language.

Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake, after a long incarceration; because he dared to produce a printed edition of Scriptures in the English language.

All of these people got in trouble for holding views that contradicted the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was wary of vernacular translations because they were being pushed by “heretics.” People who advocated wider availability of vernacular translations without advocating clearly heretical ideas might be regarded as a bit unorthodox, but I don’t think they ever got into serious trouble just for that (there may be an example of which I’m not aware).

Furthermore, while the Catholic Church did reserve the right to clamp down on vernacular translations, and often wasn’t very enthusiastic about them in the later Middle Ages, the fact is that by the early 16th century there were translations of the Bible in nearly every European language, most of them published without controversy or persecution by the Church (England was the exception here–unfortunately,English-speaking Protestants rarely realize this). In Germany alone there were either 17 or 19 (I can never remember which!), though I wonder if these might have been editions rather than totally separate translations (translations usually built on each other, as you know if you’ve studied the history of the English Bible).

The Baptist version of church history is even more wrong than you thought!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. What do you mean by “If you burn someone at the stake for denying the Trinity, can you really be such a terrible heretic yourself?”

Again, I was trying to explain how people in the 16th century thought. I was thinking in particular of the execution of Michael Servetus by the Protestant city-state of Geneva. That was pretty clearly at least in part a dramatic way of saying “see, we defend the ancient Catholic Faith to the point of killing those who deny it, so the claim that we are heretics ourselves is empty.” My point is that in the 16th century–tragically–persecuting heretics and Jews was one way to show that you were a faithful, orthodox Christian. I’m belaboring this point precisely because it’s so counter-intuitive (and indeed horrifying and repulsive) to most of us today.

In our discussions re Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies,” you have argued that Luther was, at least to some extent, a product of his time. Yet, Luther’s 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg Church, does little to convince me he was a product of his time in terms of conventional views. He challenged the Pope/Catholic Church in a way that put his life at risk.

It’s certainly true that Luther was a very bold person who was willing to challenge established authorities and conventional views. And one might wish that he had put that energy toward developing radical theories about religious tolerance rather than radical theories about soteriology. (Although it’s hard to imagine someone with Luther’s personality, living in that culture, being entirely tolerant–and the fact is that he did deny that heretics should be burned at the stake, and as you know he initially called for more tolerant treatment of Jews.) But with all due respect, I think some of your impression of Luther’s originality comes from a lack of knowledge of his intellectual context. The 95 Theses were by no means entirely new. Luther was influenced by other radically Augustinian theologians such as his mentor Johannes von Staupitz, and furthermore there had been others who challenged indulgence theology (Wessel Gansfort, for instance). Luther’s most radical views on soteriology are not evident in the 95 Theses.

Protestant hagiography has cultivated this image of Luther as someone breaking radically with the past. And since most people are (understandably) not deeply familiar with the religious thought of the late fifteenth and early 16th centuries, it’s an image that most people don’t question. (Furthermore, much traditional Catholic polemic against Luther also sees him as someone who broke radically with the past–and thus was a heretic–so until relatively recently most people had every reason to maintain this picture.)

It is really quite amazing that he escaped martyrdom.

Things certainly could have gone worse for him, but I think “amazing” is too strong. He had powerful protectors (particularly the Electors of Saxony). Sixteenth-century Germany was so politically fragmented that it was quite hard to get a good persecution going. The Hapsburg lands were a different story.

Regarding the Jews, Luther should have gone “directly to Scripture.” Perhaps it would have defused his hatred.

If he went “directly” to the passages you suggest, and not to others such as John 8:44!

And, of course, Luther would say that he was acting in love toward the Jews by telling rulers to treat them in a way that would lead to their conversion (in part by shattering their illusions of power and supremacy). You read passages that talk about love and assume (because of your cultural context and the traditions of Christianity that have influenced you) that this means that we should be tolerant of people with whom we disagree and allow them to practice their erroneous beliefs in peace. Most sixteenth-century Christians would have said that allowing people to go peacefully to hell is a pretty strange kind of love.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Newbie2]

I’m late in this discussion, but to the OP, I’m currently reading Martin Luther’s Theology by Bernhard Lohse. It’s primarily a theological text, written by a Protestant, but is providing me a few insights into how and perhaps why Luther developed his particular theology.

Tough reading in a few spots, but overall a good book so far.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Part 1 of 2: Response to Contarini from Anna Scott

Edwin: I was really relieved to find your Posts today. I didn’t hear from you yesterday. This morning, I began to worry that I had offended you in some way with my endless questions and comments. I was going to send to a PM to check. I was hoping you were just busy.

I’ve enjoyed your posts, so much, even when I didn’t always sound like it. I’m far from angelic.:angel1: lol You have such a wealth of knowledge, and I appreciate all the time you have given me. You mentioned my age: I am 54. It is rather difficult to go through a religious crisis at my age. Midlife crises are common, but they don’t usually involve religion and faith.

. . . . I am not a big fan of “reformers” as a category, and Luther’s more atrocious words and deeds are Exhibit A for the prosecution in that particular case!

Interesting comment; because I didn’t make it very far into my studies, before I began to see the “reformers” as a group I wanted to keep at arms length. This, of course, sent me into a serious mode of questioning my Protestant heritage. You are a witness to some of my questioning. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to discuss these things with fellow Christians, especially those who attend the Church–that I now rarely attend. It really should be just the opposite.

. . I apologize for the sarcastic things I’ve said. Unfortunately, you’ve jumped into the middle of an argument I’ve had many times with Catholic propagandists on this forum. They use Luther’s “anti-Semitism” in order to shake up Protestants and pave the way for the simplistic, triumphalistic claims they want to advance on behalf of Catholicism.

Edwin, you owe me no apology whatsoever. I’m am just happy you have continued the dialogue. Past experience does shape our response to statements and issues–as is clearly evident in some of my rather “emotional” posts.

. . . And by the time I was in my late teens I was not only getting my paradigm challenged at college but was hearing friends of the family (many of whom were very influenced by the Anabaptist movement) point out the flaws of Luther and the “magisterial” Reformation in quite harsh terms.

I grew up in Kentucky and have many relatives in Tennessee (moved away about 30 yrs ago.) I know the religious climate of that part of the country. Growing up in the Baptist tradition, and then slowly discovering its flaws is very difficult. I have a friend who once jokingly said, “I am a ‘recovering’ Baptist.” I think he attends an Episcopal Church, now. I do not intend to disrespect the Baptist forum members. I realize that not all Baptists are the same. I have family members who are both devout Catholics and devout Baptists; and I have great respect them.

I have been reading a book called Christianity through Non-Christian Eyes

which I’m using for my World Religions class this fall. One piece in particular, “Christianity and the Holocaust,” by Stuart Rosenberg (from his book The Christian Problem), makes the case for Christian responsibility for the Holocaust very forcefully. Not all Jews would go as far as Rabbi Rosenberg, but it’s an argument to which Christians need to be exposed.

These sound like very interesting books. I will check B&N or Amazon. Fortunately, my son (who is also an avid reader,) often gives me a Barns & Noble gift card at Christmas or Birthday–great gift! One year for Christmas, he gave me with the JPS Hebrew-English TANAKH. He knew I was studying Judaism and the connection and relationship to Christianity.

About two or three years ago, I read, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, by David Klinghoffer. It was really an “eye opener,” as they say. I would highly recommend it to all Christians. I bought a copy for a good friend of mine (Christian.) I later found out, that she did not make it through the first chapter, before she threw it in the trash. Why do people do this? Is it fear? I think it is important to at least try to gain some understanding of why people reject Christianity.

. . . The human aspect of Scripture is undeniable. But as Christians we are clearly called on to confess the former: that Scripture is the Word of God, which means that it is free from errors that are incompatible with its character as the Word of God.

And it’s not just a matter of being required to believe this by Christian tradition–one of the reasons that I remain a Christian is that when I read the Bible (particularly certain parts of the Old Testament–the New Testament impresses me by what it points to and less by its intrinsic character as a text) I get the impression that I am reading a text produced by more than purely human agency. . .And the divine origin of Scripture is something that I feel the need to nuance and qualify but not to abandon.

I appreciate your candor. The issue of Divinely Inspired Scripture can incite some of the most passionate responses, probably more so than any other question I have dared to ask within Christian circles. I can relate very well to your answer. I see a human element, intermingled with Divine Truth. I also believe there is power in the Scripture, if we yield to God, and put aside (as much as we can) our own agenda to justify our actions.

Continued–Part 2-Next Post

 

[Anna_Scott]

Continued-Part 2 of 2-Response to Contarini from Anna Scott

. . .This led some radical Protestants to claim that tradition was essentially harmful and that any Christian should be expected to come up with true doctrine based on Scripture alone.

Herein lies my struggle: Does the Holy Spirit give us, individually, the ability to discern the truths revealed through the Scripture? Of course the Catholics would say no; and they have some good arguments for this.

The ever-expanding diversity of Protestant beliefs could cause someone outside Protestantism looking in (Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, etc.) to call in to question individual authority to interpret Scripture. Actually, some of the rather rogue Protestant beliefs cause me to call it into question.

ByzantineWolf made a good point in one of his Posts: “Take a look at KingJamesVideoMan on YouTube, then go to his website, and you’ll see what I mean about the dangers of going completely alone. The man’s invented his own doctrines from following the extreme form of sola scriptura (known as “solo scriptura”) and basically invented his own church, where the only right Christian in the world is him.”

As you know from my other posts; I set out to read the Bible and pray for discernment to interpret Scripture. I wanted to strip away all the indoctrination and get a “fresh start.” In reality, there is surely to be some grain of indoctrination that lingers in a hidden corner of a person’s belief system.

The shocker came, when I began researching different Protestant views; and found that there were other Christians out there who were voicing interpretations that matched the conclusion I reached entirely on my own–often to a shockingly similar degree. Ezekiel Chapter 37 was one such passage.

. . . My point is that in the 16th century–tragically–persecuting heretics and Jews was one way to show that you were a faithful, orthodox Christian. I’m belaboring this point precisely because it’s so counter-intuitive (and indeed horrifying and repulsive) to most of us today.

I appreciate the clarification.

. . .But with all due respect, I think some of your impression of Luther’s originality comes from a lack of knowledge of his intellectual context. The 95 Theses were by no means entirely new. Luther was influenced by other radically Augustinian theologians such as his mentor Johannes von Staupitz, and furthermore there had been others who challenged indulgence theology (Wessel Gansfort, for instance). Luther’s most radical views on soteriology are not evident in the 95 Theses.

I am quite certain you are correct in saying that some of my impression of Luther’s originality comes from a lack of knowledge of his intellectual context. Edwin, the historical context you provide is extremely helpful.

Protestant hagiography has cultivated this image of Luther as someone breaking radically with the past. And since most people are (understandably) not deeply familiar with the religious thought of the late fifteenth and early 16th centuries, it’s an image that most people don’t question. (Furthermore, much traditional Catholic polemic against Luther also sees him as someone who broke radically with the past–and thus was a heretic–so until relatively recently most people had every reason to maintain this picture.)

Interesting point. Do you think Luther did not initially intend for his calls for reform to lead to a break with the Catholic Church?

. . Luther would say that he was acting in love toward the Jews by telling rulers to treat them in a way that would lead to their conversion (in part by shattering their illusions of power and supremacy). . . Most sixteenth-century Christians would have said that allowing people to go peacefully to hell is a pretty strange kind of love.

I really had not thought of it this way. Again, your years of study really show.

Thank You for All Your Help,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m late in this discussion, but to the OP, I’m currently reading Martin Luther’s Theology by Bernhard Lohse. It’s primarily a theological text, written by a Protestant, but is providing me a few insights into how and perhaps why Luther developed his particular theology.

Tough reading in a few spots, but overall a good book so far.

Newbie2:

I thought Contarini and I were the only ones still posting on this Thread.
You might want to PM the OP. She may not still be checking here; and I’m sure she would appreciate your suggestions.

I am interested, as well. How is the book so far?

Anna

 

[Contarini]

About two or three years ago, I read, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, by David Klinghoffer. It was really an “eye opener,” as they say. I would highly recommend it to all Christians.

I’ve had a look at it, though I haven’t read it through. I agree that he makes some good points. His grand historical argument is, of course, open to question, though I’m not sure he’s wrong. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (who was a friend and political ally of Klinghoffer) wrote a review which argued, among other things, that the majority of Jews in the Roman Empire may actually have accepted Christianity. I find this an intriguing suggestion–I have yet to confirm or refute it from other sources. You might also find this interview with Klinghoffer interesting.

I’m very glad that you’re not offended by anything I’ve said. God bless!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Herein lies my struggle: Does the Holy Spirit give us, individually, the ability to discern the truths revealed through the Scripture? Of course the Catholics would say no; and they have some good arguments for this.

I would agree with them there. But the question I’d ask is: to what community is that “ability” given? Is the Bishop of Rome as crucial to the process as Catholic apologists here claim? To what extent do the rest of us, those not in communion with the bishop of Rome (and for that matter laity and others not in the inner/upper circles of the Roman Communion) “count”? Christians in communion with Rome (“Catholics” in common, courteous usage) are not united among themselves on how to answer these questions–you get the impression on this board that Catholic opinion is a lot more monolithic than it really is (because the folks here denounce those who disagree with them as “not really Catholics” and play down the nuances in the views of the Pope and other Catholic theologians and bishops whom they admire).

My own view is that all baptized Christians are part of the Church and play a role in the task of interpreting Scripture. We can’t ignore anyone (no, not even those annoying conservative Baptists who generally ignore the rest of us). But clearly some Christians are closer to the historic, central traditions and structures of the Faith than others. That’s one reason I take Catholicism very seriously and spend time on this board (for all my criticisms of the folks here, this is a remarkably intelligent and vibrant forum by the standards of Internet discussion!).

As you know from my other posts; I set out to read the Bible and pray for discernment to interpret Scripture. I wanted to strip away all the indoctrination and get a “fresh start.” In reality, there is surely to be some grain of indoctrination that lingers in a hidden corner of a person’s belief system.

And I would challenge you to stop fighting this. “Indoctrination” is not necessarily bad–we all come to Scripture with presuppositions shaped by our community, and that’s good and natural. But at the same time we must be open to being challenged on those ways in which our community has distorted our view of Scripture (and other things).

The shocker came, when I began researching different Protestant views; and found that there were other Christians out there who were voicing interpretations that matched the conclusion I reached entirely on my own–often to a shockingly similar degree. Ezekiel Chapter 37 was one such passage.

I hadn’t been following your discussion of Ezekiel 37 very closely, but dispensationalists generally interpret those passages as in fact referring to an eschatological restoration of Israel. Conservative Baptists in the South are in my experience usually steeped in dispensationalism. Are you saying that you were not taught to take these sorts of prophecies as referring to Israel?

I don’t entirely agree with either you or Byzantine Wolf. He’s certainly jumping too quickly to a Christological reading. But the most obvious context for Ezekiel 37 is the return of Israel after the exile in Babylon. The problem, of course, is that this return didn’t prove to be a final, glorious consummation of Jewish history. That history continued, and the domination of the Jews by pagan empires continued, as did corruption of various sorts within the Jewish people. Hence, the language of resurrection used in Ezekiel 37 came to be applied to a final act by which God would finally rescue His people, raise the righteous to life, and establish His kingdom on earth.

That’s the context for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Christians believe that in Jesus God was fulfilling that eschatological hope. But of course, once again, history continued. And that’s where things get tricky. How much of the eschatological promise was fulfilled in Jesus’ first coming, and how much are we still to look for? And what are the relative roles of the Church and the “Jews” (whether as a broad religio-ethno-political group clearly distinct from Christians and other Gentiles, or specifically as a religious tradition based on the rabbinic interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures) in those promises?

The dispensationalist interpretation (rightly concerned to correct traditional Christian attitudes to the Jews) made a radical split between God’s plans for the “Church” and God’s plans for “Israel.” Dispensationalists (in the strict sense–the problem is that many of their ideas have filtered throughout American evangelicalism even though many people have never heard the term) think that the Church is a “parenthesis” in God’s plans caused by Jewish rejection of Jesus. In the dispensationalist view, when the “Church age” comes to an end (which most of them think is happening now, and some like Harold Camping claim has already happened), God will return to dealing with the Jews and the “prophetic clock” will start “ticking” again.

I don’t know where you stand on these issues. Your interpretation of Ezekiel 37 is in line with dispensationalism, but of course that doesn’t mean that you accept their views wholesale (you may not have heard the term–many folks haven’t). I find their approach to Scripture to be monstrous–they essentially chop it up into bits, which they call “rightly dividing” (strict dispensationalists deny that the Gospels directly apply to Christians, which is very convenient for their radically Protestant soteriology). I don’t think that the historic Church was wrong in claiming that God’s promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ and thus apply to the Church.

But at the same time, the dispensationalists got at least one thing right: we as Christians cannot simply say that God is finished with the Jews as a corporate body and the recipients of God’s promises. Whatever Paul is saying in Romans 9-11, he seems to be saying that both the Church and the Jewish people are objects of God’s love and election in a corporate way. And eschatologically (not, I think, within history), these different ways of interpreting God’s promises will come together, because we will all be God’s people. In other words, I go with the “both/and” approach. I accept Byzantine Wolf’s claim that Ezekiel 37 was fulfilled by Christ. But I think that the passage also points to God’s love for the Jewish people, and that that love is eternal and will be fulfilled when history comes to its consummation (whatever that looks like–I don’t think we can profitably imagine it).

Perhaps this is too waffly. It’s a difficult issue, and I welcome your criticisms.

 

[Contarini]

Interesting point. Do you think Luther did not initially intend for his calls for reform to lead to a break with the Catholic Church?

Another huge question!

The short answer is that Luther would never have said that he broke with the Catholic Church–nor would confessional, traditional Lutherans to this day. Protestants historically have not accepted the claim that the “Catholic Church” is to be identified with Rome and the hierarchy of bishops in communion with Rome. Since we confess faith in the Catholic Church, obviously such an identification would lead us to seek communion with Rome urgently. Unfortunately, most Protestants no longer understand the traditional usage, partly because of ecumenical courtesy (i.e., we’ve gotten into the admirable habit of calling Christians in communion with Rome “Catholics” because that’s what they call themselves), and partly because of the growth of congregationalism and “invisible Church” ecclesiology (Baptists, for instance, generally don’t believe in a universal visible Church). So when Protestants say one of the traditional Creeds they are shocked by the word “Catholic” and have to take placebos (such as the explanation that “Catholic” really means “universal,” or the silly distinction between “catholic” and “Catholic”) to quiet their nerves.

When Luther started out (up to about 1519, I’d say), he probably expected that eventually the Pope and bishops would listen to what he had to say and that the Catholic Church (in its standard medieval sense) would be reformed (though it’s important to note that some late medieval dissenters identified the “Catholic Church” with the body of the elect, and that William Ockham, a figure who influenced the philosophical/theological tradition in which Luther was educated, had argued that the Church is the body of believers and could conceivably consist of one woman, with no pope, bishops, or clergy). After the Leipzig debate Luther began increasingly to question the role of the Pope and the hierarchy, and even of General Councils (which many late medieval Catholics thought were the basic governing bodies of the Church). He moved from a position that the Papacy was a legitimate human institution to the view that the Papacy was the “man of sin” or Antichrist.

During the early part of the Reformation–especially the 1520s–Luther seems to have believed that the Papacy would be swept away by the restored Gospel and that the whole Church would be reformed. So at this point, also, it wouldn’t be appropriate to say that he meant to divide Christendom. Early on I think he and the other Reformers really believed that they would eventually win outright and that the Papacy was simply on the “wrong side of history.” Heiko Oberman has pointed out that Luther believed (like most Christians historically) that he was living in the Last Days. So it’s not like he expected history to go on for another 500 years anyway!

By the end of Luther’s life, though, he seems to have recognized that the Papacy wasn’t going anywhere and was perhaps even getting stronger. At that point he and the other Reformers became increasingly resigned to the prospect of a “long war” with what they continued to regard as the forces of Antichrist. And that’s the point at which we can talk about a “division in the Church.” But they still didn’t see it that way. They saw the papacy and other institutions of which they disapproved (the monastic/religious orders and to some extent also the episcopal hierarchy, at least as it existed under the Papacy) as parasitic growths on the body of the Church. Calvin (in the Reply to Sadoleto, which Luther admired) spoke of “true churches” existing under the Papacy, but that didn’t mean that he thought the “Catholic Church” as a body led by the papacy was a legitimate Christian body. There was a lot of ambiguity and maybe even incoherence in the way the early Protestants thought about this, because on the one hand they didn’t admit that they were splitting the Church (and so couldn’t grant that the “Catholics” were a fully legitimate Christian body) but on the other hand they couldn’t say that the medieval Church was totally apostate, since that was where they had come from. It was a difficult dance!

Sorry for the long answer. The short answer is that the question makes a lot of assumptions that Luther wouldn’t have shared. He wouldn’t have accepted our ecumenical use of the term “Catholic Church” for the Papacy and those Christians in communion with it. And he would never have “intended” to divide Christians, but by the time he died he would have accepted that for the foreseeable future Christians were going to be divided.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’ve had a look at it, though I haven’t read it through. I agree that he makes some good points. His grand historical argument is, of course, open to question, though I’m not sure he’s wrong. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (who was a friend and political ally of Klinghoffer) wrote a review which argued, among other things, that the majority of Jews in the Roman Empire may actually have accepted Christianity. I find this an intriguing suggestion–I have yet to confirm or refute it from other sources. You might also find this interview with Klinghoffer interesting.

I’m very glad that you’re not offended by anything I’ve said. God bless!
Edwin

Edwin, I followed the links and read the review by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus; and the interview with Klinghoffer. Both are very interesting.

I know that not all Jews would agree with everything Klinghoffer wrote, but the book gave an insight into some Jewish beliefs. I think the point of reading these types of books is to hear the Jewish viewpoint from a person of the Jewish faith.

Christian leaders have been telling Christians “why the Jews rejected Jesus” for a long time. I think if we want to know the “whys” behind what the Jews believe, we should hear it from them.

I see Klinghoffer’s book as only one window into the Jewish viewpoint. Granted, some of his historical assumptions may be open to question, but that could be said of some Christian assumptions, as well.

The Misunderstood Jew, The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus, by Amy-Jill Levine is also an interesting book. You are probably familiar with this one as well. The author is a Professor of New Testament Studies at Vanderbilt University Divinity School in Nashville, Tennessee. That is your “neck of the woods” (and mine as well.)

God bless you as well, Edwin,
Anna

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, I followed the links and read the review by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus; and the interview with Klinghoffer. Both are very interesting.

I know that not all Jews would agree with everything Klinghoffer wrote, but the book gave an insight into some Jewish beliefs. I think the point of reading these types of books is to hear the Jewish viewpoint from a person of the Jewish faith.

Christian leaders have been telling Christians “why the Jews rejected Jesus” for a long time. I think if we want to know the “whys” behind what the Jews believe, we should hear it from them.

I see Klinghoffer’s book as only one window into the Jewish viewpoint. Granted, some of his historical assumptions may be open to question, but that could be said of some Christian assumptions, as well.

The Misunderstood Jew, The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus, by Amy-Jill Levine is also an interesting book. You are probably familiar with this one as well. The author is a Professor of New Testament Studies at Vanderbilt University Divinity School in Nashville, Tennessee. That is your “neck of the woods” (and mine as well.)

I don’t know the book, but I have heard of Prof. Levine. Thanks for the recommendation!
You might also find the work of Paula Fredriksen interesting. And have you ever read Scholem Asch’s novel The Nazarene? It was written in the 1930s and attempts to paint a portrait of Jesus as a Jew at a time when this wasn’t commonly done by either Jews or Christians. Jews criticized the book because they thought it was “too Christian” and too negative about Jews, but it’s not exactly orthodox from a Christian perspective either. I found it fascinating. (Its argument is, in the end, rather similar to Klinghoffer’s–Jesus came for the Gentiles rather than the Jews.)

Edwin

 

[Anna_Scott]

Part 1 of 2-Response to Contarini

I would agree with them there. But the question I’d ask is: to what community is that “ability” given? Is the Bishop of Rome as crucial to the process as Catholic apologists here claim? To what extent do the rest of us, those not in communion with the bishop of Rome (and for that matter laity and others not in the inner/upper circles of the Roman Communion) “count”? Christians in communion with Rome (“Catholics” in common, courteous usage) are not united among themselves on how to answer these questions–you get the impression on this board that Catholic opinion is a lot more monolithic than it really is (because the folks here denounce those who disagree with them as “not really Catholics” and play down the nuances in the views of the Pope and other Catholic theologians and bishops whom they admire).

Indeed-“to what community is the ability to interpret Scripture given?” In the short time I have participated in these forums, I have noticed a rather surprising diversity of beliefs expressed among Catholics, who are supposed to be united in interpretation of Scriptures. I’ve seen some surprising discussions regarding the correct Bible translations for Catholics. I would agree that Catholics are not as united in beliefs as they claim-at least they do not “appear” to be.

My own view is that all baptized Christians are part of the Church and play a role in the task of interpreting Scripture. We can’t ignore anyone (no, not even those annoying conservative Baptists who generally ignore the rest of us). But clearly some Christians are closer to the historic, central traditions and structures of the Faith than others. That’s one reason I take Catholicism very seriously and spend time on this board (for all my criticisms of the folks here, this is a remarkably intelligent and vibrant forum by the standards of Internet discussion!).

I agree wholeheartedly! I find the same attraction to the Catholic Forums-they are “remarkably intelligent and vibrant.” As I have said in other Posts, Church history, in all its many facets, has not been emphasized in the Protestant sector. That is slowly changing.

And I would challenge you to stop fighting this. “Indoctrination” is not necessarily bad–we all come to Scripture with presuppositions shaped by our community, and that’s good and natural. But at the same time we must be open to being challenged on those ways in which our community has distorted our view of Scripture (and other things).

I think aiming for the goal of shedding “all Indoctrination,” will help me to shed just enough to gain perspective. In reality, I can’t shed all Indoctrination.

I hadn’t been following your discussion of Ezekiel 37 very closely, but dispensationalists generally interpret those passages as in fact referring to an eschatological restoration of Israel. Conservative Baptists in the South are in my experience usually steeped in dispensationalism. Are you saying that you were not taught to take these sorts of prophecies as referring to Israel?

You would think in my Baptist upbringing, Dispensationalism would have been prominent. But, it was not. I grew up hearing sermons, which clearly proclaimed that Christians go heaven; and all Jews who do not accept Christ during their lifetime-go to hell.

First encounter with dispensationalism, 3 or 4 years ago: book entitled, Jerusalem Countdown, A Warning to the World, by John Hagee, a Minister of a large church in San Antonio, Texas. He claims Gentiles come to Christ by Propagation of the Bible, and the Jewish people (who were judicially blinded by God) will come to accept Christ through divine revelation. Ironically, I heard about this minister through my Jewish friends, who were talking about a Christian minister who has sided with the Nation of Israel and the Jewish people.

Didn’t know what to make of Hagee’s claims at that time. It was only after reading the Bible cover-to-cover, and finding a number of passages such as Ezekiel 37 and Romans 11, that I recalled Hagee’s words. Having said that, I do not agree with all of Hagee’s claims.

I don’t entirely agree with either you or Byzantine Wolf. He’s certainly jumping too quickly to a Christological reading. But the most obvious context for Ezekiel 37 is the return of Israel after the exile in Babylon. The problem, of course, is that this return didn’t prove to be a final, glorious consummation of Jewish history. That history continued, and the domination of the Jews by pagan empires continued, as did corruption of various sorts within the Jewish people. Hence, the language of resurrection used in Ezekiel 37 came to be applied to a final act by which God would finally rescue His people, raise the righteous to life, and establish His kingdom on earth.

I see your point here–the return of Israel after exile to Babylon did not end in a “final, glorious consummation of Jewish history.” There are a number of O.T. passages involving a prophecy of Israel’s restoration that are equally problematic for the very same reason.

I even told Bwolf there appears to be a clear reference to the “Jewish Diaspora,” in Ezekiel 37. I quoted Israel’s prayer in Chronicles 16:35, which is yet another reference to Jewish Diaspora.

I am aware of these Scriptures; and I agree that salvation is through Christ in terms of both faith and following in His footsteps, as faith without works is dead.

It is Ezekiel

and other Scripture that causes me to believe that God may choose to accomplish these requirements in more than one way. In Ezekiel 37, we see the gathering of Israel from the nations, which appears to be a clear reference to the Jewish diaspora. Much is written about the taking of the Jews into captivity. The Jewish people prayed for the gathering from the nations: **1 Chronicles 16:35 (ESV):35 **Say also: "Save us, O God of our salvation, and gather and deliver us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to your holy name, and glory in your praise. That gathering continues in our present day.

Ezekiel speaks of Israel’s ceasing to defile themselves with idols, detestable things, and transgressions–all come after they are resurrected. God said, “I will save them from all the backslidings in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God” and “They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes” --Again, all accomplished after the resurrection.

Continued—Part 2 Next Post

 

[Anna_Scott]

Part 2 of 2-Response to Contarini

That’s the context for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Christians believe that in Jesus God was fulfilling that eschatological hope. But of course, once again, history continued. And that’s where things get tricky. How much of the eschatological promise was fulfilled in Jesus’ first coming, and how much are we still to look for? And what are the relative roles of the Church and the “Jews” (whether as a broad religio-ethno-political group clearly distinct from Christians and other Gentiles, or specifically as a religious tradition based on the rabbinic interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures) in those promises?

I think you have raised more than one “million dollar question”. You’ve also touched on a controversial issue: Which N.T. prophecies attributed to Christ were to be fulfilled during the lifetime of those to whom he spoke; and which prophecies attributed to Christ were intended for future fulfillment? And—were the prophecies intended for his time been fulfilled? This issue could take a Thread of its own.

It could easily be argued that the “role of the Church and the Jews,” are both intertwined and interdependent in God’s plan for salvation. Romans 11: 25 “Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” I do realize that this passage is used fervently in support of Dispensationalism. However, that is not a reason to discard the relationship between Gentile and Jew demonstrated in Romans.

The dispensationalist interpretation (rightly concerned to correct traditional Christian attitudes to the Jews) made a radical split between God’s plans for the “Church” and God’s plans for “Israel.” Dispensationalists (in the strict sense–the problem is that many of their ideas have filtered throughout American evangelicalism even though many people have never heard the term) think that the Church is a “parenthesis” in God’s plans caused by Jewish rejection of Jesus. In the dispensationalist view, when the “Church age” comes to an end (which most of them think is happening now, and some like Harold Camping claim has already happened), God will return to dealing with the Jews and the “prophetic clock” will start “ticking” again.

I agree that a strict Dispensationalist view could lead to the view that “the Church is a parenthesis in God’s plans caused by Jewish rejection of Jesus. I do not adhere to such radical extremes.

I don’t know where you stand on these issues. Your interpretation of Ezekiel 37 is in line with dispensationalism, but of course that doesn’t mean that you accept their views wholesale (you may not have heard the term–many folks haven’t). I find their approach to Scripture to be monstrous–they essentially chop it up into bits, which they call “rightly dividing” (strict dispensationalists deny that the Gospels directly apply to Christians, which is very convenient for their radically soteriology). I don’t think that the historic Church was wrong in claiming that God’s promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ and thus apply to the Church.

I really do not like to label my views. If I say that I have a Dispensationalist view, I open the door for all sorts of false accusations (not necessarily by you,) because there is such a broad spectrum in Dispensationalism. Protestant Soteriology varies to a rather shocking degree—even among Churches within the same denomination. Salvation, and especially the “security” of our salvation, is defined as everything from the belief that one can lose their salvation to “once saved, always saved.”

Here is an interesting quote from the book I mentioned to you yesterday, The Misunderstood Jew, The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus, by Amy-Jill Levine:

(page 89-90). . . .***many Christians hold a position of soteriological exclusivity, that is, the belief that salvation is granted only to those who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. The logical consequence of this belief is that Jews (and all others) who do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior will face an eternity in hell.

A number of Jews who have been told, with relative degrees of compassion, that if they do not believe in Jesus they will fry in hell understandably find such a view anti-Jewish. The message of soteriological exclusivity, particularly when accompanied by the threat of damnation, offends especially when it is proclaimed to little children or pronounced at a funeral for an agnostic.

When the proclamation is then accompanied by the insistence that Christians believe in a God of mercy and compassion the entire dogmatic system becomes, to non-Christians, absurd.

Any number of Jews and others outside the Christian fold, would have difficulty grasping the concept of a “compassionate deity” who damns individuals for something they cannot control. But the vast majority of Christians who hold that salvation is only through the Christ should not be regarded as anti-Jewish, and they would be appalled by the suggestion that they are.***

Amy-Jill Levine’s Jewish viewpoint, as a “Jewish” New Testament Scholar (not Messianic Judaism,) in this quote, also touches on the anti-Jewish discussions of this Thread.

I believe that God’s promises to Israel are and will be–fulfilled in Christ; and that both Israel and the “Church” will become one body in the acceptance of Christ as the Messiah, whose sacrifice accomplishes our reconciliation to God.

But at the same time, the dispensationalists got at least one thing right: we as Christians cannot simply say that God is finished with the Jews as a corporate body and the recipients of God’s promises. Whatever Paul is saying in Romans 9-11, he seems to be saying that both the Church and the Jewish people are objects of God’s love and election in a corporate way. And eschatologically (not, I think, within history), these different ways of interpreting God’s promises will come together, because we will all be God’s people. In other words, I go with the “both/and” approach. I accept Byzantine Wolf’s claim that Ezekiel 37 was fulfilled by Christ. But I think that the passage also points to God’s love for the Jewish people, and that that love is eternal and will be fulfilled when history comes to its consummation (whatever that looks like–I don’t think we can profitably imagine it).

I would agree.

I do not agree with Replacement Theology, which seems to be a common them on the Forums. I’ve been pounded pretty hard for attempting to refute it.

 

[jake23]

Careful doing that completely alone…that’s what Joseph Smith did.

Good point!!!

 

[Anna_Scott]

Byzantine_Wolf;5516731:

Careful doing that completely alone…that’s what Joseph Smith did.

Good point!!!

It is very hurtful to be compared to Joseph Smith.

 

[jake23]

jake23;5540103:

It is very hurtful to be compared to Joseph Smith.

Truth hurts sometimes! I know it did when I was a protestant going to siminary and discovered in my teachings that my beliefs where wrong and that the holy catholic church was right. It felt like my throught was going to split when I swallowed my pride to embrace what Christ intended for us all, which is to be one body in the church he gave us himslef. Luther was a confused and sometimes hostile man who could not bare the truth and so he turned to his own self deceiving opinions for guidance, which in truth meant turning away from the gift handed down from Christ! I will pray for you!

 

[Anna_Scott]

Truth hurts sometimes! I know it did when I was a protestant going to siminary and discovered in my teachings that my beliefs where wrong and that the holy catholic church was right. It felt like my throught was going to split when I swallowed my pride to embrace what Christ intended for us all, which is to be one body in the church he gave us himslef. Luther was a confused and sometimes hostile man who could not bare the truth and so he turned to his own self deceiving opinions for guidance, which in truth meant turning away from the gift handed down from Christ! I will pray for you!

Jake,

If you look back over my posts, you will find that I actually argued against Luther and his views.

Re: the “Truth hurts” comment, and being compared to Joseph Smith:

You never really know what a person has been through, or why they would choose to “go it alone.” It was actually my experience with Mormonism that caused me to distrust organized religion.

I do realize that I need a church, and that “going it alone,” is not the best place to be. Please take a moment to read the following, before you judge me.

Post #616 Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5324407#post5324407

Posted byFinrock:
I am sorry to hear about your unpleasant experience with the Mormon church. I’m a bit perplexed that your Mormon friends couldn’t answer your questions since, barring the doctrine of exaltation (we can become gods by grace), the “doctrines” you have an issue with are either misconstrued LDS doctrine or not LDS doctrine at all. Anyways, I don’t want to distract the conversation so I’ll leave it at that.

Posted by Anna Scott:
My Mormon friends did answer my questions. They confirmed the very beliefs that you say are “either misconstrued LDS doctrine or not LDS doctrine at all.”

They confirmed the following as beliefs of the LDS Church: God has a wife and lives on another planet (Kolob); there are other gods of other worlds; Joseph Smith wrote that he believed that Adam was god.

Even now, there are websites that confirm these beliefs, and even say Mormons believe that God was once a man, which fits the writings of Joseph Smith.

I would have let this go; but since you are denying that these things are doctrines of the LDS Church; I will tell you more about my experience with the Mormon church.

A Mormon bishop and his wife were my neighbors, before my divorce. I had known them for years. I admired the strength of their family. The bishop seemed like the father I never had. So, after my divorce, they invited me to their church. For weeks, I took lessons at the bishop’s home- with the Mormon Bishop and two Mormon missionaries.

I was at a very vulnerable point in my life. I wanted to belong someplace. I was a single mom, with no family in my city.

So, I went to the Mormon church and finished all the lessons. There were things that concerned me about the church services. I rarely heard the name of Christ spoken. Almost without exception, testimonies began with a statement of belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. I was told that there are three heavens. I was also told that God, in the flesh, impregnated Mary.

I did eventually decide to join the church. The day before my baptism, a family member called me and told me about the Mormon belief that God has a wife and lives on another planet (kolob,) and men can become gods. I was so shocked; because none of this was discussed in the lessons-except a passing mention of exaltation-with no clear explanation.

So, I called the Bishop’s house and spoke to one of his daughters. I asked if these beliefs were true, and she admitted that they were. I was really shaken, but I did proceed with baptism. After the baptism, things became very strange. Every time I tried to read the Book of Mormon, I would feel ill–as if I were in a place of darkness.

Then one evening, I heard a knock at my door. It was a friend of mine who drove from another state for a surprise visit. During her stay, I told her that I had been baptized into the Mormon church. She told me she had taken the lessons many years ago. She also told me she found one of Joseph Smith’s early books. Smith actually wrote that he believed Adam was god.

I knew I had to break the connection with the Mormon church as quickly as possible. So, I called the bishop’s wife and told her I did not want any further connection with the Mormon church. She came to my house and asked me why. I told her all the things I had learned about the Mormon beliefs. She acknowledged that they were all true.

When I told her about Joseph Smith’s writings that revealed his belief that Adam was god, she could not deny that either. She said she was familiar with the “Adam/god theory.” I told her I felt that I had been deceived. During the lessons, I was told that the Mormon church is a Christian church–with the same beliefs in God and Jesus as other Christian Churches.

It didn’t end there; members of the church kept calling me and showing up at my door. I kept telling them I was not coming back to the church and to please stop contacting me.

It still didn’t stop. I received phone calls. I received things in the mail-which I marked “return to sender” and left for the Postman. Then, I started receiving things in the mail with no return address-a clear attempt to get me to open the package.

I finally had to write a formal letter to the church–telling them I would consider any further contact harassment—(though I had been harassed, since the moment I told them I was not coming back.)

I was Baptized into the Christian Church again. The whole Mormon experience taught me that blind trust in people and their beliefs can be a dangerous thing.

Now, I look to God. I pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to “distinguish between the spirits,” and to reveal God’s Truth to me. I study the Bible. I study the history of the Church. I participate in Christian Forums.

Yet, at the end of the day, that which I hold as Truth, comes from God, and from God alone.

Perhaps you denied these beliefs, because you do not believe these things. So, I make no judgment concerning your faith or what you actually believe. I have no right to judge anyone. I have simply relayed my experience with the Mormon church.

1 Corinthians 2:11 (ESV) says, “11For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.”

As I said in my post, I hold no ill feelings toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Mormon Church. However, I did have a very traumatic experience with this church.

May God Reveal His Truth to Us All,
Anna

So, can you see why being compared to Joseph Smith would be very hurtful to me?

Anna

 

[jake23]

Jake,

If you look back over my posts, you will find that I actually argued against Luther and his views.

Re: the “Truth hurts” comment, and being compared to Joseph Smith:

You never really know what a person has been through, or why they would choose to “go it alone.” It was actually my experience with Mormonism that caused me to distrust organized religion.

I do realize that I need a church, and that “going it alone,” is not the best place to be. Please take a moment to read the following, before you judge me.

Post #616 Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5324407#post5324407

So, can you see why being compared to Joseph Smith would be very hurtful to me?

Anna

Ahh, I see! There is some good you can take out of it though! Just so you know I made the same mistake except I was not told the crazy stuff about the mormon religion until after! I was a young teenager but never the less they are a deceitful occult, not a christian religion. I would encourage you to join an RCIA class and see what you think. I went through what you went through, in Utah at that! It was a mistake but God forgives, however it is your respinsability to show your love through holy commonion. I will pray for you!

 

[Anna_Scott]

Ahh, I see! There is some good you can take out of it though! Just so you know I made the same mistake except I was not told the crazy stuff about the mormon religion until after! I was a young teenager but never the less they are a deceitful occult, not a christian religion. I would encourage you to join an RCIA class and see what you think. I went through what you went through, in Utah at that! It was a mistake but God forgives, however it is your respinsability to show your love through holy commonion. I will pray for you!

Jake,

I appreciate your response.

Now, I understand your viewpoint. You had your own trial with the Mormons, and in Utah–that must have been really tough. At least we both escaped the Mormon deceit.

I do continue to study, including Catholic material. Thanks for the suggestions about RCIA, and your prayers.

Anna