What authority did Luther have to "reform" the church?

[iaskquestions]

What authority did Luther have to “reform” the church? I’m just curious. Actually, he didn’t reform the church at all! He started his own church!

 

[TriuneUnity]

What authority did Luther have to “reform” the church? I’m just curious. Actually, he didn’t reform the church at all! He started his own church!

The same authority any Christian possesses to preach the truth of God’s word against false teaching. It isn’t a suggestion; Christ commands it of us.

 

[PastorVW]

Speaking as a Protestant, I would have to say that he had the authority of Holy Scripture…

I think that most Catholics would grant that there were some very real issues back then - many of which the Catholic Church did deal in fact deal with.

The greatest differences between us stem from what we hold to be authoritative. All Protestants hold that everything essential to salvation must be proven from Scripture. This does not mean that we think that Tradition is worthless. As Wesleyans, we are honest enough to admit that we do hold that Reason and Tradition have value - and to some degree authority. Other Protastants might be less forthcoming, but I think everyone does have some place for Tradition.

I’m fond of telling people that if someone comes up with an interpretation of Scripture that no one has held in 2,000 years - something is wrong! In practical terms, in matters not essential to salvation, most of us hold tp “prima scriputra” rather than “sola scriptura”. Still, we see Scripture as the final authority.

Sorry for the wordy reply

 

[TriuneUnity]

Speaking as a Protestant, I would have to say that he had the authority of Holy Scripture…

I think that most Catholics would grant that there were some very real issues back then - many of which the Catholic Church did deal in fact deal with.

The greatest differences between us stem from what we hold to be authoritative. All Protestants hold that everything essential to salvation must be proven from Scripture. This does not mean that we think that Tradition is worthless. As Wesleyans, we are honest enough to admit that we do hold that Reason and Tradition have value - and to some degree authority. Other Protastants might be less forthcoming, but I think everyone does have some place for Tradition.

I’m fond of telling people that if someone comes up with an interpretation of Scripture that no one has held in 2,000 years - something is wrong! In practical terms, in matters not essential to salvation, most of us hold tp “prima scriputra” rather than “sola scriptura”. Still, we see Scripture as the final authority.

Sorry for the wordy reply

Most refreshing, pastor!

 

[jesusluv]

What authority did Luther have to “reform” the church? I’m just curious. Actually, he didn’t reform the church at all! He started his own church!

Actually, he didn’t originally set out to reform anything. He posted a debatable topic on the door of the church with all intentions of debating it, not being the next St. Francis. Her certainly didn’t meant to start his own church, of that I am convinced. It happened anyway, and he could have turned back at any time, but I don’t think he meant for it to be the way it turned out.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Actually, he didn’t originally set out to reform anything. He posted a debatable topic on the door of the church with all intentions of debating it, not being the next St. Francis. Her certainly didn’t meant to start his own church, of that I am convinced. It happened anyway, and he could have turned back at any time, but I don’t think he meant for it to be the way it turned out.

I would agree. I firmly believe that it was pride on both sides that brought about the reformation. I also believe that as things began to progress Luther became more Prideful and did take things I a direction that (he may not have started to ) that he had now authority for scripture or tradition to do.

 

[iaskquestions]

The same authority any Christian possesses to preach the truth of God’s word against false teaching. It isn’t a suggestion; Christ commands it of us.

**How did he know that he was right and the church was wrong? **After all, if the great St. Paul went to Peter to “make sure that he was not running in vain” (Gal 2:2), Martin Luther should have gone to the Pope to “make sure he wasn’t running in vain.” How could he be certain that he was 100% right and therefore needed to “reform” (restart? ) the church? How could he be sure that his interpretation of scripture was foolproof?

 

[iaskquestions]

Speaking as a Protestant, I would have to say that he had the authority of Holy Scripture…

Authority of the scripture?

“And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.” (1 Cor 12:28)

“Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Heb 13:17)

I don’t think Luther obeyed his leaders. Did he?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Authority of the scripture?

“And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.” (1 Cor 12:28)

AFAIK the apostles, prophets, and disciples wrote Scripture under inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

“Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Heb 13:17)

I don’t think Luther obeyed his leaders. Did he?

This wouldn’t apply to leaders teaching false doctrine.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

What authority did Luther have to “reform” the church? I’m just curious. Actually, he didn’t reform the church at all! He started his own church!

From what I’ve read of him, I don’t think he felt he had any particular authority except the authority that came as part of the responsibility of being assigned to the theological faculty at the University of Wittenburg. It looks to me more like he felt compelled by authority rather than anointed with it.

He wasn’t the first voice demanding reform to common Church practices of the day. He and his counterparts were willing to ally themselves with militarily powerful rulers, however. That’s why they didn’t end up like Jan Hus and other demand-for-reform-ers who came before. So I suppose you could sort of include in his “authority” the authority his protectors had over their soldiers!

 

[iaskquestions]

AFAIK the apostles, prophets, and disciples wrote Scripture under inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Yes. Now, will you tell me, who decided what was scripture? I’m sure you know that scripture itself does not give you the list of books that should be there in scripture. I’m sure you know that the canon of the New and Old Testaments was determined in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. You must be knowing that there was confusion even among the early Christians as to what was scripture and what was not till it was finally settled by the council. May I ask, did this council have God given authority to decide what was scripture and what was not?

This wouldn’t apply to leaders teaching false doctrine

Agreed. But **how do you know **whether a doctrine is false or not?

Let’s take a verse from the Bible for eg. 1 Peter 3:20-21
“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Some Christians** interpret** this to imply that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Others interpret to imply that baptism is symbolic. So whose** interpretation **is right? You might say, “The Holy Spirit gave me the latter interpretation.” I also say, “The Holy Spirit gave me the former interpretation.” It’s clear that only one interpretation can be right. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict himself.

So I’m asking, “How did Luther know that his interpretation of scripture was right? How could he be sure that it was the Holy Spirit speaking to him and not his own voice?” After all, if, as you say, Luther had authority from scripture, then why is it that you don’t believe baptism is necessary for salvation (which Luther also taught). How can you be selective in agreeing with Luther on justification and disagreeing with him on Baptism? If the Holy Spirit is really guiding Protestants in their interpretation of scripture, why is it that there are 32000 denominations? Each believes atleast one doctrine differently. So it becomes a false doctrine. Therefore, only one denomination can be right. Which one?

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

So I’m asking, “How did Luther know that his interpretation of scripture was right? How could he be sure that it was the Holy Spirit speaking to him and not his own voice?”

Ah, that’s a far better phrasing of your question.

Since he was a Doctor of the Church and assigned to the theological faculty of Wittenberg, what authority do you think he had? Did he, for example, have any right to present an alternative to that era’s practices of indulgences?

 

[iaskquestions]

Ah, that’s a far better phrasing of your question.

Hmmm. I should have phrased it that way perhaps.

Since he was a Doctor of the Church and assigned to the theological faculty of Wittenberg, what authority do you think he had? Did he, for example, have any right to present an alternative to that era’s practices of indulgences?

Was indulgence a practice or a doctrine?
He did have a right to present an alternative (if it was only a practice and not a doctrine), but he had no right or authority to change existing doctrine, much less start a new church (by changing the doctrine about the church)

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Was indulgence a practice or a doctrine?
He did have a right to present an alternative (if it was only a practice and not a doctrine), but he had no right or authority to change existing doctrine, much less start a new church (by changing the doctrine about the church)

As I recall the 95 Theses, he was challenging the practices on the basis of philosophical arguments, some of them more like satire than what we would consider sober reasoning (maybe those were written over a few too many beers?). It was more common in those days. We have a greater sense of citing specific texts and arguments now than was common then, as much as I can tell from the little I’ve read of religious argument in those days. Name-calling didn’t automatically bring the author under scorn, for example. What was doctrine and what wasn’t was less clear in those days.

On a more general level, what do you think is the function of theologians? Do you know if it was different then? My understanding is that partly because of Luther and others, the function of theologians is a lot better defined today, even thought it still seems a bit murky. I’m not sure there were the same restrictions back then.

 

[ralphinal]

From what I’ve read of him, I don’t think he felt he had any particular authority except the authority that came as part of the responsibility of being assigned to the theological faculty at the University of Wittenburg. It looks to me more like he felt compelled by authority rather than anointed with it.

He wasn’t the first voice demanding reform to common Church practices of the day. He and his counterparts were willing to ally themselves with militarily powerful rulers, however. That’s why they didn’t end up like Jan Hus and other demand-for-reform-ers who came before. So I suppose you could sort of include in his “authority” the authority his protectors had over their soldiers!

Henry Kissenger wrote in his book Diplomacy that French positioning within Europe caused the French Government to actually encourage and aid the Reformation and eventual splitting of the Church. If this is true, and he knows a lot about history and foreign affairs, does it cast any different light on the Reformation? In other words, what if it had little to do with Jesus once it left Luther’s hands?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Henry Kissenger wrote in his book Diplomacy that French positioning within Europe caused the French Government to actually encourage and aid the Reformation and eventual splitting of the Church. If this is true, and he knows a lot about history and foreign affairs, does it cast any different light on the Reformation? In other words, what if it had little to do with Jesus once it left Luther’s hands?

Maybe a little too nuanced to really say one way or the other. They were no fans of the Calvinists. Their nemesis, Britain, became Protestant. While they did hate the Holy Roman Emperor…I don’t know of much efforts on the part of the monarchy to aid the reformers.

Oddly enough, though…they fought on the Protestant side in the 30 Years War.

However, when in doubt, blaming the French is never a bad idea.

 

[ralphinal]

Maybe a little too nuanced to really say one way or the other. They were no fans of the Calvinists. Their nemesis, Britain, became Protestant. While they did hate the Holy Roman Emperor…I don’t know of much efforts on the part of the monarchy to aid the reformers.

Oddly enough, though…they fought on the Protestant side in the 30 Years War.

However, when in doubt, blaming the French is never a bad idea.

If you can make it through the book, and it is VERY long and VERY deep, one of his basic ideas is that every problem facing the world in the 20th century could be traced to the French. Naturally, you would think that it is because he was German, but in fact he had some very good support for his claim.

I agree that there are too many layers to say one thing or another and rule out all possibilities. I just get a little upset when some Protestants make it sound like the Catholic Church was only about politics and control and the Reformation was about Jesus. Trust me, there was more than enough political manuvering and control issues to go around, and in some places they WAY overshadowed Jesus.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Crazy Diamond;4089748:

He wasn’t the first voice demanding reform to common Church practices of the day. He and his counterparts were willing to ally themselves with militarily powerful rulers, however. That’s why they didn’t end up like Jan Hus and other demand-for-reform-ers who came before. So I suppose you could sort of include in his “authority” the authority his protectors had over their soldiers!

Henry Kissenger wrote in his book Diplomacy that French positioning within Europe caused the French Government to actually encourage and aid the Reformation and eventual splitting of the Church. If this is true, and he knows a lot about history and foreign affairs, does it cast any different light on the Reformation? In other words, what if it had little to do with Jesus once it left Luther’s hands?

Not particularly, because the important part of the Reformation was principle rather than people. If the Protestant standard was the teaching of Martin Luther, or John Calvin, or Thomas Muntzer (Anabaptist), or Thomas Cranmer (Anglicans), sure it would make a difference. Then their motivations would come into play in interpreting their teachings. Since the Protestant standard is Scripture, their teachings have to be compared to Scripture and accepted or rejected on that basis. Their motivations and character also have to be examined on that basis. You won’t find a lot of Lutherans these days who totally support Martin Luther’s antisemitism; you won’t find a lot of Calvinists who agree that Anabaptists should be killed for their beliefs. Neither teaching fits Scripture, so out it goes. A lot of Catholic teachings have been re-examined since then and found to be… not worthy of the demonization they received.

The Reformation era was definitely a complex time. The Habsburgh and Bourbons constantly struggled for control of Europe, and those upright Catholic royal families saw everyone as potential tools, whether pope, prelate, peasant or prince! Protestant princes were no less scumbags. Their only redeeming feature was (when the mood struck them) defending their territories. That alone allowed Protestant reformers to live in peace long enough to say what they thought and see if people would accept or reject it. That’s one reason I say that the big difference between the capital-R Reformation and the attempts that preceeded it was alliance with militarily powerful rulers. Otherwise they would have all ended up like Jan Hus.

Now, on the other side, certain aspects of the Counter-Reformation also had nothing to do with Jesus. Yet the men who carried out those teachings and actions had official authority and positions in the Church. It appears to me that this should affect your view of the Counter-Reformation, and the trustworthiness of your Church, far more than the question affects us. Maybe it doesn’t, and if not, I have to ask: what is the standard that allows you to examine the teachings and actions of the Counter-Reformers and accept or reject what they did without affecting your view of your Church?

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I agree that there are too many layers to say one thing or another and rule out all possibilities. I just get a little upset when some Protestants make it sound like the Catholic Church was only about politics and control and the Reformation was about Jesus. Trust me, there was more than enough political manuvering and control issues to go around, and in some places they WAY overshadowed Jesus.

Very true. Reality is complex. Anything involving as many people as the Vatican-led Church, or Western Civilization, or “the” Reformation, or frankly my wife’s parish council, is far too complicated to judge by generalities.

 

[ralphinal]

Not particularly, because the important part of the Reformation was principle rather than people. If the Protestant standard was the teaching of Martin Luther, or John Calvin, or Thomas Muntzer (Anabaptist), or Thomas Cranmer (Anglicans), sure it would make a difference. Then their motivations would come into play in interpreting their teachings. Since the Protestant standard is Scripture, their teachings have to be compared to Scripture and accepted or rejected on that basis. Their motivations and character also have to be examined on that basis. You won’t find a lot of Lutherans these days who totally support Martin Luther’s antisemitism; you won’t find a lot of Calvinists who agree that Anabaptists should be killed for their beliefs. Neither teaching fits Scripture, so out it goes.

I understand what you are saying but I will point out that a good deal of the Reformation was carried out by men other than the Reformers themselves. How many German Princes carried the banner in order to weaken someone else or seize Church land for themselves? Why did we see the development of Government churches?

The Reformation era was definitely a complex time. The Habsburgh and Bourbons constantly struggled for control of Europe, and those upright Catholic royal families saw everyone as potential tools, whether pope, prelate, peasant or prince! Protestant princes were no less scumbags. Their only redeeming feature was (when the mood struck them) defending their territories. That alone allowed Protestant reformers to live in peace long enough to say what they thought and see if people would accept or reject it. That’s one reason I say that the big difference between the capital-R Reformation and the attempts that preceeded it was alliance with militarily powerful rulers. Otherwise they would have all ended up like Jan Hus.

Do you think these governments were motivated by the love of Christ?

Now, on the other side, certain aspects of the Counter-Reformation also had nothing to do with Jesus. Yet the men who carried out those teachings and actions had official authority and positions in the Church. It appears to me that this should affect your view of the Counter-Reformation, and the trustworthiness of your Church, far more than the question affects us. Maybe it doesn’t, and if not, I have to ask: what is the standard that allows you to examine the teachings and actions of the Counter-Reformers and accept or reject what they did without affecting your view of your Church?

And I never said that we were perfect. The fact remains, and always will, that only the Catholic and Orthodox Church can claim that they are the Church founded by Christ. Our doctrines reflect the fullness of Scripture, not a slanted view of Paul’s writtings. As far as the behavior of those involved, please show me that NO Catholics, or for that matter Protestants of other denominations, were killed by Reformers and we can talk. Some of the most brutal acts were done by those leaving the Church, many times against others who left but held different ideas.

And, by the way, how in the world if everything is supported by Scripture were there different ideas as to what was correct?