Yes he would. Luther realized that there has always been corruption in the Church. He wanted to change Doctrine. Guess what? Our doctrine is the same now as it was then. We still have indulgences, clerical celibacy, the Deuterocanons, the Mass is still a sacrifice, and we still hold to justification by faith and works. We still have monasteries, and we still have a pope, and we still believe in transubstantiation.
This is a great lead-in to what might be an interesting conversation.
Made it a whopping page and a half. Catholics can’t help but love Luther, apparently.
Indeed. Before long, Jesus is relegated to some measly nationalistic political figure with an authority problem. We should not engage in that sort of foolishness.
Thank you for this. Frankly, anyone who says Luther objected to books based on doctrine, clearly doesn’t understand how the various Christian canons were built, or how this argument inadvertently destroys their own. The canon had been technically fluid (to one degree or another) for centuries, and in the West, remained so until Trent - after Luther’s death. Arguments to the contrary are anachronistic impositions of revisionist drivel.
I don’t think it affects Lutheranism at all, since Lutherans always give deference to the Gospels over an Epistle or book from the Law and the Prophets. Have you read the quote in the context? Luther was simply giving his personal opinion on a “disputed” book of Scripture. Other fathers had their own misgivings about the book, and Luther had his own. He expressly states that he does not hold anyone else to his personal view, and later in life warmed up to the Epistle. He would remove the “straw” comment from his subsequent versions, only publishing that line of commentary once. Big deal.
Yes, this is it exactly, a critical insight into what Luther was about. He would be Missouri Synod or Roman Catholic in my view. He was pretty big on original sin (bondage of the will) and loved his Augustine; I find it helpful to keep that in mind as a guide: what Augustine would like, Luther would like. You can apply this to modern morals no doubt as well as I can…
Luther is much much closer to Jansenism than modern mainstream Protestantism. He would definitely approve of Missouri Synod - they are “purists” - but he may think the Roman Catholic Church is now the right place for an Augustinian Christian. Lastly, I still think he would allow that his invisible Church stands - you are in it if you are a true disciple of Christ and his Word - by which I mean in word and deed. (That said, Luther loved his Real Presence in the Eucharist - he would not be without it - die first.)
Interesting insight. You’re probably right for much of it. I don’t know too much about Jansenism; do you have a good introductory book you’d recommend?Yes, this is it exactly, a critical insight into what Luther was about. He would be Missouri Synod or Roman Catholic in my view. He was pretty big on original sin (bondage of the will) and loved his Augustine; I find it helpful to keep that in mind as a guide: what Augustine would like, Luther would like. You can apply this to modern morals no doubt as well as I can…
His favorite saint was St. Athanasius, just as some trivia for us.
Happy Michaelmas to all, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox!
The Jansenists were a 17th century movement in France within the Catholic Church - they were strict Augustinians and were also influenced by the Reformation to a certain degree. They were involved in a number of religious skirmishes and I believed Jansen himself was formally condemned by the Church. (Blaise Pascal was a passionate defender of their movement; Voltaire of all people also admired them - as much as he could any Christian
…the Jansenists did have support in France). They opposed a number of Jesuits active in France at that time in particular and what the Jansenists perceived as the Jesuits’ casuistry and a subsequent loosening of the moral fabric of basic Christian doctrine. In the end, it was kind of a draw, the Jansenists were definitely soundly defeated but some of what the Jesuits were proposing was also shot down by the Church (it went up to the Pope as I recall). any good biography would do the trick, IMHO. I am reading Pascal’s Provincial Letters where he takes up the Jansenist cause. Great stuff, but his Pensées are much better.I don’t know if there is more to it in context but this is it:I don’t think it affects Lutheranism at all, since Lutherans always give deference to the Gospels over an Epistle or book from the Law and the Prophets. Have you read the quote in the context? Luther was simply giving his personal opinion on a “disputed” book of Scripture. Other fathers had their own misgivings about the book, and Luther had his own. He expressly states that he does not hold anyone else to his personal view, and later in life warmed up to the Epistle. He would remove the “straw” comment from his subsequent versions, only publishing that line of commentary once. Big deal.
It would seem Luther clearly here means you do not need the Epistle of James. This would have serious consequences when tied to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I realize much debate is had over what exactly SS means, but I think it uncontroversial to say this would have an impact. He also says there is nothing in the nature of the Gospel in it. How would Lutherans interpret that?
I agree with you, analyzing the mental state of a teacher / leader is shifting the focus off the action.
Yes…in fact there were reformers prior to Luther…and did not cause a split in the RCC, but united it.
I knew the basics of their movement, just haven’t read anything in much depth. If you do come across a relatively fair history of them, please let me know. I’m intrigued.The Jansenists were a 17th century movement in France within the Catholic Church - they were strict Augustinians and were also influenced by the Reformation to a certain degree. They were involved in a number of religious skirmishes and I believed Jansen himself was formally condemned by the Church. (Blaise Pascal was a passionate defender of their movement; Voltaire of all people also admired them - as much as he could any Christian
Given the spotty history of the Jansenists, I suspect time would be better spent on Augustine or Pascal
Because Jesus promised the guidance of the HS…in the Church He would build on Peter…to lead it to truth.
There is significantly more to his introduction to James and Jude. A Google search will turn up plenty of translations of the whole statement. Interestingly enough, most of those are either Catholic or Reformed – very few from Lutherans.
Well, does the author speak at all about Christ’s atoning Sacrifice? About how we are made free from sin by His death on the cross? About His Resurrection, and our subsequent hope for new life in Him? Not really. James was speaking more to mature Christians about how they ought to be living - in other words, what Lutherans would call “Law-heavy.” So Luther’s not wrong when he says the book contains little of the actual Good News, or Gospel. And in that sense, it is a lesser book than the Gospels or Paul’s Epistles. Remember what Benedict XVI observed; to Luther, Christ must be the center.
Your understanding is appreciated. Non-Lutherans often try to pin us to the man’s personal thoughts, and it’s a relief to converse with someone who doesn’t do that. I don’t know whether he ever made a complete about-face regarding his initial opinion of James, but the fact that he removed his harshest criticism from later editions shows that he was conscious of the academic/theological opinions of his peers, or at least aware that, in the wrong context, his remarks could be misconstrued as support for a minimalist canon and ‘Christianity Lite.’
This is from a pro Luther blog - but I think it is pretty accurate in terms of history:
My thoughts on this -
The Catholic and Lutheran essentially do the same thing - they just argue about how they got there.Amen, amen, amen! Luther also wrote that separating works and faith is like separating heat and light from flame.My thoughts on this -
**
“For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith.” **This is an essential point for Luther - basic to him. If a person does not serve his neighbor, empty himself to serve others, he does not have true faith. Luther’s problem with works was not the duty to serve and exercise charity toward one’s neighbors, his concern was works toward salvation, which drew the individual away from the community of Christians, into himself in an often desperate, superficial, most of all unnecessary attempt to placate God and achieve his salvation - to avoid damnation. It leads to Pharisaism in the unguarded and weak. Works to salvation for Lutherans and Catholics is a misunderstanding of how grace works in our lives - we don’t merit it, we are given it in order to live freely as Christians. Again, we are transformed by grace into good fruit - what Catholics call faith + works. The end result is the same either way - this is why theology can get us into trouble sometimes.
Amen to that - as they say, opposites attract.
But I would swear there is transformation in some Luther passages - and not in others. I think this is debatable but I don’t think that my view here is “correct” in the eyes of either authoritative theological camp, “L” or “C”. Oh well…