When was the belief in the Bible alone first mentioned?

[Topper17]

“Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, **when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. **For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, "Who are you? When and whence did you come?” Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200).

It should be noted that even Tertullian warned against Private Interpretation:

“**We (Christians as opposed to the heretics), however, are not permitted to cherish any object after our own will, nor yet to make choice of that which another has introduced of his private fancy. ****In the Lord’s Apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine which they had received from Christ.” **Tertullian, Against Heretics, 6, ANF III:246-246

Clearly Tertullian is talking about people who, after the Apostolic times, introduce radical teachings.

Does Luther follow this same example as well? Does he have his periods where he is Catholic for a time and can be trusted? If so what year(s) exactly is that? What exact year(s) did he flip? was it 1510? 1515? 1518? We know by 1520 his errors were already being listed. And those errors preceded 1520. By 1521 he was excommunicated as a heretic.

Schweibert says that Luther might have begun to develop SS as early as 1508-09. That seems a little early, but it might be an indication of Luther’s early reliance on his own opinions rather than complete doctrinal reliance on the Church. Others have pointed to a similarly early date for Luther’s ‘discovery’ of Salvation by Faith Alone, which again, seems a little early. Certainly he was then experiencing the terrors that drove him to SBFA, but certainly he had not developed that doctrine fully that early. By the same token, it was not as late as Luther later described. I see it as more of a ‘process’ which was significantly accelerated by his conflict with the Church which started late in 1517.

So thinking outloud, when a person flips into heresy as Luther did, I personally don’t examine like Jurgens did with Tertullian, which year(s) is it safe or not safe to dabble in a heretics thinking? As you say, I also prefer to go with someone I can trust.

I would agree, but somehow I seem to have made an exception for Tertullian’s ‘Against Heresy’ of 200 AD. One can only wish that he had taken his own advice, or recognizing the heretical beliefs welling up inside him. The same could be said of Luther, but in Luther’s case there was more of a ‘process’, one which Luther appears to be mostly unaware of.

The ‘reason’ for Luther’s ‘process’ was his terror over uncertainty about his personal salvation. As we all know, he was deeply troubled. When he almost accidently came into a larger conflict with the Church than what he had wanted, his troubled conscience began to push him ‘solve his problem’ regarding Salvation, while at the same time rejecting the Church that was rejecting him. The problem was that Luther was not at all a “Systematic Theologian”, meaning that his forte was not how various theological elements ‘hung together’. It seems that as SBFA comes more and more to the surface, he found it necessary to jettison or reformulate many other doctrines which he discovered were in conflict with SBFA. Unfortunately much of this occurred relatively early in his revolt, meaning prior to 1525 or so. After that, doctrinal conflicts forced Luther to retract much of what he had founded his ‘reformation’ on.

As Jurgins noted with Tertullian, Tertullian was virtually a heretic before making a difinitive break from the truth. Tertullian was developing rigorist tendencies and anticlericalism before his break from the truth. As Jurgens notes, “Tertullian outgrew even Montanism, and became the founder of a sect bearing his name” Tertullianism [Jurgens, p.112, vol. 1 Faith of the Fathers]. isn’t that Luther’s story as well?

Many of the heretical sects bear (or bore) the names of their founders, which I presume was your point.

God Bless You Steve, Topper

 

[steve_b]

“Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, **when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. **For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, "Who are you? When and whence did you come?” Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200).

It should be noted that even Tertullian warned against Private Interpretation:

“**We (Christians as opposed to the heretics), however, are not permitted to cherish any object after our own will, nor yet to make choice of that which another has introduced of his private fancy. ****In the Lord’s Apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine which they had received from Christ.” **Tertullian, Against Heretics, 6, ANF III:246-246

Clearly Tertullian is talking about people who, after the Apostolic times, introduce radical teachings.

Schweibert says that Luther might have begun to develop SS as early as 1508-09. That seems a little early, but it might be an indication of Luther’s early reliance on his own opinions rather than complete doctrinal reliance on the Church. Others have pointed to a similarly early date for Luther’s ‘discovery’ of Salvation by Faith Alone, which again, seems a little early. Certainly he was then experiencing the terrors that drove him to SBFA, but certainly he had not developed that doctrine fully that early. By the same token, it was not as late as Luther later described. I see it as more of a ‘process’ which was significantly accelerated by his conflict with the Church which started late in 1517.

I would agree, but somehow I seem to have made an exception for Tertullian’s ‘Against Heresy’ of 200 AD. One can only wish that he had taken his own advice, or recognizing the heretical beliefs welling up inside him. The same could be said of Luther, but in Luther’s case there was more of a ‘process’, one which Luther appears to be mostly unaware of.

The ‘reason’ for Luther’s ‘process’ was his terror over uncertainty about his personal salvation. As we all know, he was deeply troubled. When he almost accidently came into a larger conflict with the Church than what he had wanted, his troubled conscience began to push him ‘solve his problem’ regarding Salvation, while at the same time rejecting the Church that was rejecting him. The problem was that Luther was not at all a “Systematic Theologian”, meaning that his forte was not how various theological elements ‘hung together’. It seems that as SBFA comes more and more to the surface, he found it necessary to jettison or reformulate many other doctrines which he discovered were in conflict with SBFA. Unfortunately much of this occurred relatively early in his revolt, meaning prior to 1525 or so. After that, doctrinal conflicts forced Luther to retract much of what he had founded his ‘reformation’ on.

Many of the heretical sects bear (or bore) the names of their founders, which I presume was your point.

God Bless You Steve, Topper

Thanks

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper: I like your post #176 you have made great points. I would like to add that we all in one way or another interpret Scripture every time we read it, but it should always be in light of what the Catholic Church teaches.
Can you imagine if the people in the pews of a Catholic Church all having bibles and after the readings and the priest is giving his sermon someone jumps up and says why that is wrong that is not in the bible or that is not what the bible says or a group of people say the same thing? why it would be chaos and mayhem to say the least since we like to think that since priest have been taught to a greater degree than we lay people the priest would I think know more then the rest of us but when PI is used that is just could happen when Scripture becomes the sole authority instead of the Church and what it teaches.

No matter how SS and PI is advocated and defended it will never take the place of real catholic Church teachings since the same teaching the Catholic Church has taught for nearly 2000 years is still the same and has not changed only a better understanding of what is taught. God bless mike.

I think you present an excellent hypothetical situation. Please allow me to flesh it out a little bit.

Let’s say that this is 68 A. D. and that you are Michael of Ephesus and I am Timothy, the Bishop of the Church of Ephesus. I have just read from the Holy Scriptures and have given my homily. You have heard something in my homily which doesn’t seem to square with your understanding of that same Scripture.

After mass, you bring it up to me and you tell me that you think my I have misinterpreted that Scripture, as evidenced by what you consider to be a homily that taught errant doctrine.

I explain my understanding to you but you still don’t agree. I ask you to think about what I have said and promise that we can talk about it again if you would like. You come back to me a couple of weeks later, even more sure that you are right and that I am wrong in my understanding of Holy Scripture. You explain to me why your interpretation is right and mine is wrong.
**
Who, specifically and exactly (of course) decides in this type of situation as to who is right and who is wrong?

“By What Authority” do you, Michael of Ephesus claim that your understanding of Scripture is superior to mine?

“By What Authority” do I, Timothy of Ephesus, counter your claim?**

As you already know Mike, this is a very important set of questions.

God Bless You Mike, Topper

 

[spina1953]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your response.

I think you present an excellent hypothetical situation. Please allow me to flesh it out a little bit.

Let’s say that this is 68 A. D. and that you are Michael of Ephesus and I am Timothy, the Bishop of the Church of Ephesus. I have just read from the Holy Scriptures and have given my homily. You have heard something in my homily which doesn’t seem to square with your understanding of that same Scripture.

After mass, you bring it up to me and you tell me that you think my I have misinterpreted that Scripture, as evidenced by what you consider to be a homily that taught errant doctrine.

I explain my understanding to you but you still don’t agree. I ask you to think about what I have said and promise that we can talk about it again if you would like. You come back to me a couple of weeks later, even more sure that you are right and that I am wrong in my understanding of Holy Scripture. You explain to me why your interpretation is right and mine is wrong.
**
Who, specifically and exactly (of course) decides in this type of situation as to who is right and who is wrong?

“By What Authority” do you, Michael of Ephesus claim that your understanding of Scripture is superior to mine?

“By What Authority” do I, Timothy of Ephesus, counter your claim?**

As you already know Mike, this is a very important set of questions.

God Bless You Mike, Topper

Hi Topper: I have to say that you just presented some great and very difficult questions that need to be explored since this is much the situation we have today in so many of the Protestant churches due to SS and PI. Now to try and answer the questions you so well presented I think that first of all this Michael of Epherus is I take it a lay person who had heard something preached by someone we don’t know who but just the same caused some doubt in what Timothy of Ephesus preached. it would seem to me that Michael would need to understand who is the person doing the preaching and how did he come by the information he is preaching? then next he would need to ask Timothy how he came upon the information he is preaching? then lastly, how do I know that one Timothy is correct while the other is wrong? if after all that, one Michael still does not want to understand the truth of the matter that Timothy explained than Michael is going to go his own way while is what many did in the first century when they did not accept what was preached to them. As an example Jesus preached the Good news and still there were those that did not accept it, while some of it was hard to understand and accept, there were that which was clear as day and still some would not accept it. So in the end some will always go their own way no matter that the truth is given. As it is said a lie is still a lie even when everyone believes it and the truth is still the truth even when no one believes it.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

I was going to try to summarize the main points, but your most recent responses raise all kinds of interesting issues, so I’ll respond to those which I find most interesting. Let me know if you think I’ve ignored something important.

Agreed. But this is to start from Catholic premises in the first place.

Looking at the situation from a 1520 perspective, there were only two points of view on the matter, that of the Church and that of Martin Luther (again solo Marto). How else would you expect the Church to have viewed it at that point?

From a Protestant perspective, the strong claims Catholics make for the papacy as an office, even if the popes in question aren’t actually making much of a doctrinal contribution, don’t make sense in light of the personal character of many of the Popes. While some Protestants no doubt misunderstand and think Catholics believe Popes to be impeccable, the bigger point is that many Protestants have trouble understanding how Popes could be infallible without being impeccable.

Of course, you recognize that the authority of the popes does not depend on their character, or even their education; in fact, nothing about their persons. According to the Catholic understanding, they are precluded from teaching error only on issues of faith and morals. As you know, this is an extremely limited charism. Furthermore, no pope is allowed to change anything pronounced as a dogma by another pope or a Council.

One would expect that if God could prevent them from declaring error, God could prevent them from messing up as badly as they often have. I’m not defending this perspective–I know what the answers are to it–I’m just pointing out that this is how many Protestants view it. And I think that’s just as plausible as your assumption that someone who “changed doctrine” ought to be free from personal flaws such as arrogance and unfairness or vitriolic rudeness to his opponents. But from a Protestant point of view–particularly a Lutheran or Reformed point of view–everyone is a sinner and so one would expect even a “great Reformer” to have flaws.

Luther’s character has little to do with it, except as it fed into his obviously false teachings and also his beliefs about his own personal authority. What is important is that he actually did teach a number of things which are horrifically ‘anti-Christian’ and justified them from Scripture.

Let me summarize what I think you’re suggesting: I think you’re saying that since Luther was not particularly knowledgeable in Catholic theology and was a personally arrogant, unstable person, hence his ideas should be mistrusted. I.e., it isn’t just a matter of generalized personal flaws but of flaws that specifically relate to his ideas.

Not exactly. What I am suggesting is that the fact of his numerous anti-Christian teachings SHOULD cause us to doubt his teachings in general and specific, his ‘authority’ to teach. In my experience, Protestants generally just presume that Luther was right to teach what he did. The ‘un-Christian teachings include Luther’s ‘recommendations’ on the Jews, his recommendation to the Princes that they slaughter the peasants, his recommendation that ‘reluctant’ wives be executed by the state, his recommendation that peaceful, non-seditious Anabaptists be executed for the ‘crime’ of incorrect belief. Luther taught these things officially and quoted Scripture to justify them. How can we believe that Luther was that wrong about these issues, and yet somehow, managed to correctly find Sola Scriptura and Salvation By Faith Alone correctly in Scripture, when nobody prior to him ever had?

And I think there’s a good deal of validity to this approach. It isn’t that I think what you’re saying has no value, but that I think you press it in a way that sidesteps a discussion of the substantive merits of Luther’s ideas. There’s no disputing that Luther was somewhat of a “wild genius” in theology.

He was a little too wild to have known or respected the boundaries that must be in place in order to protect Christian doctrine. When in conflict, which he usually was, he knew no real limits.

I don’t think he can be called ignorant–he was a fairly well educated late scholastic with a smattering of humanist learning, but not the match of either Erasmus or Cajetan, say, in humanist or scholastic learning respectively. (Your claims about his ignorance of patristics are a bit anachronistic, as I think I’ve pointed out already. Patristics was a very new field at this point, and Erasmus was one of the pioneers. This was one of the reasons Protestantism gained ground and then lost it later, as Catholics “caught up” in patristics and began constructing effective responses to the Protestants’ initially convincing patristic arguments.)

Based on your posts, I have withdrawn my contention about Luther’s knowledge of the Fathers at least as it relates to comparison to other Theologians of the time. I still object to the rather common popular depiction of him as being a “Patristics expert”.

But Augustine, as Peter Brown has pointed out, was a rather undereducated theologian too (more so than Luther, perhaps), at least given his genius and his historical importance. Luther had a capacity to put things in new ways.

 

[Topper17]

Yes, but on the other hand, meaning the larger hand, Augustine did not found his own branch of Christianity, a branch which currently holds almost 30% of Christendom. As such Luther should face much more scrutiny than Augustine. As a matter of fact, Augustine is so highly revered that everybody wants to claim that he supports their particular brand of faith. In fact, much of what Luther taught is now rejected by even Lutheranism. BTW, don’t you think that: “Luther had the capacity to put things in new ways” is something of an understatement? I wouldn’t have a problem with Luther and neither would the Church have if that was all he did.

Of course this led him into heresy, given his personal flaws and the confusion and corruption of the time. (In contrast, Augustine was staunchly orthodox, but still arguably led Western theology in some unfortunate directions in certain respects owing to a lack of understanding of the Greek theological tradition.) But there are certain ideas Luther raised which need to be taken seriously. That doesn’t mean accepted–it means that they need to be evaluated on their own merits and not just dismissed because of the flaws of the person who came up with them.

I would suggest that his personal flaws and mental health issues are not the reason to question Luther’s teachings so much as they were the reason for his radical teachings. It is the sum total of Luther’s teachings, including those on the Jews, peasants, ect. which should cause people to doubt to doubt those other radical teachings which have become the foundation of Protestant Theology, meaning SS and Salvation by Faith Alone.

You want people to fairly evaluate Luther’s teachings and so do I. It seems to me that what is more common among Protestants is to automatically accept that Luther was correct in teaching what he taught. It would seem that there is a connection between this presumption and the fact that those ‘other teachings’, his more ‘wild genius’ teachings which are not so well reported to Protestant laity.

So if you’re talking about Luther’s flaws in order to get excessive Protestant reverence for him out of the way and get on to a fair, critical evaluation of his ideas, then by all means do so. I have gotten the impression–perhaps inaccurate–that you think that once we have shown how arrogant and under-informed Luther was we have basically dealt with this ideas adequately. If you are saying that, I strongly disagree. If you aren’t, then we differ only in emphasis.

First of all, I think that Luther’s ignorance of Catholic teaching and his less than perfect mental health are more like the frosting on the cake. Those things can be viewed subjectively. The actual ‘cake’ is the fact that so many of his teachings are SO repulsive to the Christian mind and spirit. People can dismissively waive off the facts about how Luther so poorly understood Catholic teaching that he didn’t even recognize that he was straying well onto heretical ground. However, what is much more revealing is, for example, his ‘recommendations’ on how the Jews should be dealt with, physically dealt with. In his horrific “On the Jews and Their Lies”, where Luther made the most horrific recommendations imaginable regarding how the Jews should be treated, he quoted Holy Scripture more than 150 times. In other words, he actually believed that what he was recommending was “Scriptural”, and “Christian”. By comparison, being foul mouthed and extremely arrogant are child’s play. The bigger difficulty for Protestantism and specifically Lutheranism is the presumption that what Luther taught on things like SS and SBFA also came from the mind of the Theologian who dreamed up those recommendations against the Jews (and others). At that point, one absolutely must wonder how a Christian Theologian, any Christian theologian could possibly have come up with “On the Jews and Their Lies” (among many other things). This question absolutely forces us into a study of Luther’s character, his sense of Christian Charity, and actually his mental health issues.

In my opinion, it was those issues of character and personality and human frailty which caused all of those anti-Christian teachings, and as such they are an issue, not the most important one, but important as the source of those ‘wild genius’ teachings.

I don’t see anything here that can’t be summed up under scholasticism or canon law. But canon law can be changed, right? It certainly has been, many times. I agree that Luther’s reform program was very radical, but as laid out in this quote I think it is a reform program and not a program for the “destruction of the Church.” Only after Leipzig, it seems to me, did Luther clearly reject a basic structural principle of the Church. (Admittedly, that’s only a year later)

So we agree on the fact that Luther did ‘reject the structure of the Church’ by mid-1519. Carroll suggests that he was bent on destroying the Church a year before that. From my perspective, the main issue is that rather that Luther being unjustly excommunicated, he basically forced the Church to expel him.

Even Bainton admits that Luther was bent on destruction, albeit in 1522:

(The Church) “could scarcely have suffered the reduction of the number of sacraments, the emasculation of the mass, the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, let alone the rejection of papal infallibility, even though as yet it had not been formally promulgated. And Luther did not placate them. His work of reconstruction (supposedly of the Church: Topper) commenced with further demolition." pg. 249

Of course Luther’s ‘reconstruction’ resulted in great damage to Christian unity, and it didn’t take long for Luther’s ‘reconstruction’ to take it’s deadly effect.

 

[Topper17]

“By 1523 the course was set toward the fragmentation Catholics had predicted from the first.” Marius, pg. 384

Of course, what we have seen since that time has pointed right back to the source of our disunity. In addition, it would seem that the less the truth that is carried out of the Church to begin a ‘new church’, the worse the progression of further disunity. Christopher Dawson comments:

“This progressive extrusion of Christianity from culture is the price that Christianity has had to pay for its loss of unity – it is part of what Richard Niebuhr has called ‘the Ethical Failure of the Divided Church’. The tragedy of schism is that it is a progressive evil. Schism breeds schism, until every social antagonism is reflected in some new religious division and no common culture is conceivable.” “The Dividing of Christendom”, pg. 29-30

Excellent point, although there are such things as self-fulfilling prophecies. Luther was, in a sense, being pushed toward heresy by the response of the official spokesmen for the Church. That doesn’t absolve him of responsibility by any means. The claim that Luther was “forced” out of the Church or that “the Church left him” is one of the sillier bits of conventional Lutheran apologetics. (Just to be clear on this, since you have several times suggested that my arguments are those of Lutheran apologetics.)

There is no doubt that the Church didn’t handle Luther well, but then I can’t imagine what they could have done differently that would have mollified him. His basic problem was the he could not remain in a Church that didn’t provide him with certainty of his salvation, without regard to whatever he might do before his death.

It might surprise you to hear that I hold Eck responsible to a large degree for Luther’s escalating revolt in the days between early 1518 until the Leipzig Debate in mid-1519. This is not to say that Luther would not have excommunicated himself without Eck’s ‘help’, because he almost certainly would have. Although Eck trounced Luther at Leipzig, the debate was an overall loss for all of Christendom.

Unfortunately, initially the Church had absolutely no idea who they were dealing with, and thought of Luther as being an unknown monk and Professor at Europe’s least distinguished university. In addition, the political and cultural conditions greatly limited the Church’s options in dealing with Luther. I understand what you mean when you talk about a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’, but also believe that Luther’s tortured psyche was going to find a way out of the Church one way or another. The issue of indulgenges was simply the ‘presenting issue’, one that was quickly almost forgotten as Luther expanded his revolt to far more doctrinally important issues.

So my case is as follows:

1. The positive doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture was pretty much a commonplace among scholastic theologians;

But not alongside the rejection of the authority of both Popes and Councils. Those rejections made necessary and even greater emphasis on the Bible to fill the void left by the rejection of Popes and Councils.

1. The Ockhamists carried this particularly far, together with a definition of the Church (Ockham argued that the Church would still exist even if only one woman were faithful) that was certainly controversial, Ockhamist theology was part of late medieval Catholicism and Luther was taught it by theologians whose orthodoxy was not questioned.

Of course Ockham was excommunicated as a heretic in 1326 after being condemned as being ‘unorthodox’ by a synod of bishops. I have not studied Ockham and am not aware of exactly why he was excommunicated, but it seems to me that maybe people should not have been studying his theology 200 years later.

1. Heretics such as Wyclif and Hus denied the hierarchical Church’s authority while maintaining the scholastic understanding of the authority of Scripture. Hence, they at least can be said to be genuine adherents of sola scriptura.

I was not arguing that sola scriptura (in the sense of a denial of Church authority) was orthodox. Of course it wasn’t. I’m simply arguing that it didn’t originate with Luther, whereas sola fide did. Luther taught specific things about faith that had never been taught before, by an orthodox theologian or by a heretic.

Exactly. My point is that prior to Luther, only heretics approached his supposed understanding of the authority of Scripture while rejecting the authority of both Popes and Councils. Obviously my point is that Luther also was a heretic.

You cite some Protestants saying that Luther did hold to “private interpretation.” Of course they say that. It’s the conventional opinion. But it’s anachronistic. McGiffert was an old-fashioned Protestant liberal and particularly guilty of that kind of anachronism. It’s the “Whig theory” of the Reformation in full bloom.

At this point I see this as a distinction without a difference, but I am really looking forward to understanding whatever distinction you think exists here. You seem to admit that Luther practiced PI in justifying to himself leaving the Catholic Church. He used only his own interpretation of Scripture, his own judgment, and his own ‘wild genius’ form of logic and reason. How is this not exactly the most radical version of PI, which even the Lutheran communion prohibits on matters of doctrine.

The other things you cite from these scholars are uncontroversial, in my opinion.

Maybe our differences are shrinking as we discuss the various issues. As you suggested, they might be more a matter of emphasis than of substance.

May God Continue to Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Contarini]

OK, instead of going back and replying to all the detailed points I’m going to respond to the things that stick out to me. Let me know if there are others you would like to discuss further.

First of all, on private interpretation. What I mean is that Luther didn’t have a formal theory saying “each individual Christian has a right to interpret Scripture for himself/herself.” Later Protestants, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries, did articulate such a theory and saw it as fundamental to Protestantism. They read this theory back into Luther. Luther didn’t say that he had a right to interpret Scripture just because he was an individual human being. He frequently appealed to the fact that he was a Doctor of Theology, entrusted by the Church with the task of interpreting Scripture. And as you say, he also sometimes said more extravagant things about having a prophetic calling and so on. He said these things because he recognized that people needed to have some kind of public call from God through the Church in order to have the right to teach a new interpretation of Scripture. As far as I know he never went back on this–in fact his most “PI”-leaning statements were relatively early, in the 1520s. He condemned the Anabaptists and other “radicals” precisely for running around interpreting Scripture without authority.

Thus, your question about authority would have meant something to Luther.

It means nothing to most modern Protestants, unless and until something really disgusts them about the chaos and individualism of modern Protestantism. In my case it was a college class with a professor (not a Catholic himself) who pointed out that a lot of the things I and my family saw as disturbing about contemporary American religious culture were actually rooted in the very individualistic version of Christianity that we espoused. Since I had already fallen in love with the Middle Ages, the result was a major “paradigm shift.” Without such a shift, most Protestants see no reason why a person shouldn’t just go with whatever he/she thinks the Bible says. (As a matter of fact, I think that the way a lot of Catholics approach authority is deeply flawed, inasmuch as they ignore the intrinsic merits of an issue and focus on “who has the authority,” which is ultimately an endless regression. But clearly truth is found within community and within tradition, not by ignoring one’s individual judgment but by being honest about how it has been formed, and thus open to having it formed differently.)

Anyway, my point is that if you have a theory of private interpretation, you don’t need authority. The theory gives authority.

I’m not disputing that Luther engaged in “private interpretation” in the sense that he set his own theology over against the teaching of the Church. I’m saying that he didn’t do this in virtue of a general principle that every individual ought to think for himself/herself in religious matters. Of course, it was his teaching and example that led to other people developing such a theory. So again, we’re not that far apart here.

You say at one point that you think Luther developed his views because of his personal issues. Well sure, at one level pretty much everyone does that, right? And once you start reducing the views of people you disagree with to their personal issues, you’re down a rabbit hole. An extreme example is John Shelby Spong’s suggestion that St. Paul was a self-hating celibate homosexual who condemned homosexuality and other forms of sexual immorality because of his own personal struggles with same-sex desire. I grant that the psychological interpretation of Luther is on a lot firmer footing than that. But the fact that Luther had particular reasons for worrying about assurance of salvation doesn’t mean that his worries had no substance or that other people didn’t share them. Obviously many did, although by no means everyone who became Protestant did so because of a desire for personal assurance of salvation. (By the way, have you read James Simpson’s Burning to Read? The book is in many ways a lot like Marius’ work, though he’s more sympathetic to More than I have heard Marius was. It’s been attacked for a lot of the same reasons by a lot of the same people, and I think it has a lot of flaws, but on the whole I think it’s better than Marius–much less anachronistic–and you would probably like it a lot. I think that calling Reformation Protestantism “fundamentalism” is silly, but he does a good job spelling out the anxieties and ambiguities that the quest for certainty of salvation could lead to, particularly focusing on England.)

One could, plausibly, reduce a lot of my views to the fact that my family moved from England to the United States when I was six years old, forcing me to leave an idyllic farmhouse in the Staffordshire countryside and initiating several years of frequent moves which landed us in the middle of the Appalachian mountains in East Tennessee and which involved a lot of breaks with former friends. My nostalgia for the past, my hatred of schism, and my desire to think the best of everyone (except perhaps the people I’m arguing with at any given moment) arguably all have roots in these early experiences. But I don’t think that means they lack value.

 

[Contarini]

The fundamental question is whether Luther got Paul right. Even the question of how to translate Romans 3:28 is relatively trivial–the question is whether Paul meant what Luther thought he meant. And more broadly, was Luther right to define the Gospel as the proclamation of forgiveness rather than the narrative of what Jesus has done for our salvation? I think Luther was wrong on both these counts.

You say several times that Protestants blindly accept what Luther taught. I don’t see that. They accept Luther (most often) as a hero of what they already believe on other grounds. I’ve never heard a Protestant say, “Luther said it so it must be true.” At the same time, there is a basic unwillingness to challenge Luther’s key claims. But I don’t think that’s because if a reverence for Luther himself so much as because these key claims have worked their way into the bedrock assumptions of Protestants.

The typical evangelical (there are of course other varieties of Protestant!) argues something like this:

1. I experienced God’s grace in a conversion experience and it transformed my life by grace received through faith.
2. Luther is the person who brought back to the Church a clear understanding of salvation by grace through faith.
3. Therefore, my personal experience of salvation is bound up with Luther.

But the personal experience is primary, not the reverence for Luther.

I don’t think the “Luther Legend” developed because Luther was particularly unworthy of being called a “reformer.” It’s a pretty standard example of how founding figures come to be seen in larger-than-life terms.

And I certainly agree that Luther was not, even for his time, a patristics expert. He read quite a bit of the Fathers, mostly I think the Latin Fathers. Many of the Reformed, including Calvin, were much better acquainted with the Greek Fathers than Luther was.

On Augustine–of course he didn’t start his own church, and I acknowledged that, but the Orthodox often claim that he did distort the Western Church because of his flawed understanding. I agree that the cases are different–my point was rather that a Western Catholic shouldn’t totally despise the “imaginative but underinformed” kind of great theologian

Yes, I recommend Steinmetz’ Luther in Context (and all his books, but this one is most relevant here. His essay on “Luther and Calvin on Church and Tradition” would be especially helpful to you, I think (it would give you more ammo).

You said something at one point about Luther and Aquinas. Steinmetz has a good essay available online on the subject (though it’s indebted in significant ways to his student John Farthing, who wrote his dissertation on what Luther could have known of Aquinas from Gabriel Biel–there’s no evidence Luther ever read Aquinas directly).

That is probably enough for now.

God bless,

Edwin

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: I think you are making interesting points on Luther. A thought came to me that Pi which maybe Luther thought was the way to go might not be in the end the way he first thought in that when others decided that Pi made sense to them Luther saw it differently. Over time those that broke away from the catholic Church and others broke away from whatever Protestant Church they were in because they did not agree with whatever doctrine or interpretation of Scripture or the way the Church was being ran only cause imho chaos and dissention and confusion as well as misunderstandings as to what Scripture says and means.
Luther it seems because of his personal fear of not being saved no matter what he did to try and gain salvation and due to the abuses he saw within the Church caused him to go off the deep end and being stubborn as a mule and not willing to take any correction caused a great many to leave the Church, I still think that that politics had a major role in helping Luther get away with what he did since nationalism was gaining a foothold in the northern countries of Europe as the princes of the regions were looking for ways of breaking the power of the Catholic Church. All this helped Luther expound his religious views and thinking.

 

[Topper17]

**A Letter From Bishop Timothy of Ephesus to Michael of Ephesus (A. D. 68) **

My Dearest Son Michael,

Recently you took issue with my teachings, and my understanding and interpretation of our Sacred writings. Because you have persisted in your claims that your interpretations are correct and mine are not, I have chosen to write you this letter.

As you know, the Great Apostle Paul wrote two letters to me before he was martyred. I know that some here in Ephesus believe that these letters were written as much to our community as they were to me. That is true in some respects, and in others, this is not true. Paul’s letters to me make it very clear that as the appointed leader of the Church at Ephesus, I have been given certain responsibilities and authorities.

In his first letter to me, the Apostle Paul explains that he left me here to ‘charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine’. (1 Tim 1:3) This is what I am doing here with you. I was also charged with ‘waging the good warfare’. (1 Tim 1:18), and also that he (Paul) delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan because of their blasphemy. (1 Tim 1:19-20). Paul also reminds us, (me really), that it is a noble task to be a bishop. (1 Tim 3:1).

Paul commits to me the responsibility to “put these instructions before the people” and speaks of the ‘good doctrine that I have followed’, which of course refers to that which I learned directly from Paul. (1 Tim 4:6). By the authority of the Apostle Paul, I have been ordered to “command and teach these beliefs”. In Christian love for you my son, I must remind you that Apostle Paul did not tell you to command and teach me, but just the opposite. I was told not to neglect the gift that I was given when the elders laid hand upon me during my ordination. (1 Tim 4:14).

I have been told who I may let be enrolled in our church and who I may not. (1 Tim 5:9-11). I have been given the responsibility and authority to rebuke sinners. Also I am required to teach with authority:

“Teach and urge these duties. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.” (1 Tim 6:2-6)

Please remember that at the end of his first letter, the Apostle Paul addressed me personally as the holder of the office of Bishop of Ephesus:

“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith. Grace be with you.” (1 Tim 6:20-21)

In his second letter to me, actually to me as Bishop rather than to me personally, Paul tells me that I am to “entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”. (2 Tim 2:2). The men that I choose as teachers are those who will teach what Paul has taught. Those who will not teach that faith will not be chosen to teach.

Paul also warned that – “in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, slanderers. Profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holing the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people…….As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfit faith; but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.” (2 Tim 3:1-9)

“…while evil men and imposters will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.” (2 Tim 3:13)

In fact, the Apostle Paul charged me to “preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itchy ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.” (2 Tim 4:1-4)

It is with this responsibility and authority in mind that I am rebuking you in Christian love, and also in the hope that you will see that the Sacred Words of Paul speak nothing about your right to dispute what I have been taught by the Apostle Paul to teach.

In the Love of Christ, Timothy of Ephesus, Your Bishop

 

[spina1953]

**A Letter From Bishop Timothy of Ephesus to Michael of Ephesus (A. D. 68) **

My Dearest Son Michael,

Recently you took issue with my teachings, and my understanding and interpretation of our Sacred writings. Because you have persisted in your claims that your interpretations are correct and mine are not, I have chosen to write you this letter.

As you know, the Great Apostle Paul wrote two letters to me before he was martyred. I know that some here in Ephesus believe that these letters were written as much to our community as they were to me. That is true in some respects, and in others, this is not true. Paul’s letters to me make it very clear that as the appointed leader of the Church at Ephesus, I have been given certain responsibilities and authorities.

In his first letter to me, the Apostle Paul explains that he left me here to ‘charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine’. (1 Tim 1:3) This is what I am doing here with you. I was also charged with ‘waging the good warfare’. (1 Tim 1:18), and also that he (Paul) delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan because of their blasphemy. (1 Tim 1:19-20). Paul also reminds us, (me really), that it is a noble task to be a bishop. (1 Tim 3:1).

Paul commits to me the responsibility to “put these instructions before the people” and speaks of the ‘good doctrine that I have followed’, which of course refers to that which I learned directly from Paul. (1 Tim 4:6). By the authority of the Apostle Paul, I have been ordered to “command and teach these beliefs”. In Christian love for you my son, I must remind you that Apostle Paul did not tell you to command and teach me, but just the opposite. I was told not to neglect the gift that I was given when the elders laid hand upon me during my ordination. (1 Tim 4:14).

I have been told who I may let be enrolled in our church and who I may not. (1 Tim 5:9-11). I have been given the responsibility and authority to rebuke sinners. Also I am required to teach with authority:

“Teach and urge these duties. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.” (1 Tim 6:2-6)

Please remember that at the end of his first letter, the Apostle Paul addressed me personally as the holder of the office of Bishop of Ephesus:

“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith. Grace be with you.” (1 Tim 6:20-21)

In his second letter to me, actually to me as Bishop rather than to me personally, Paul tells me that I am to “entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”. (2 Tim 2:2). The men that I choose as teachers are those who will teach what Paul has taught. Those who will not teach that faith will not be chosen to teach.

Paul also warned that – “in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, slanderers. Profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holing the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people…….As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfit faith; but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.” (2 Tim 3:1-9)

“…while evil men and imposters will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.” (2 Tim 3:13)

In fact, the Apostle Paul charged me to “preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itchy ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.” (2 Tim 4:1-4)

It is with this responsibility and authority in mind that I am rebuking you in Christian love, and also in the hope that you will see that the Sacred Words of Paul speak nothing about your right to dispute what I have been taught by the Apostle Paul to teach.

In the Love of Christ, Timothy of Ephesus, Your Bishop

Dear Timothy of Ephesus: It is hard to argue with you after what you just wrote to me concerning what Paul said. However, I still think that I have the right nay the duty to call upon you to teach us in the manor that is in accordance with the Scriptures as we have it.

This I think you have failed to do and so called you on it. I know that you do not agree with me but oh well that is the way it goes. I ask again to change your stance and preach as Scripture says as it is our only authority. I have interpreted it as it was meant to be and feel that I am in the right so there! Mat God bless you Bishop Timothy of Ephesus.

 

[spina1953]

Hi my dear Timothy of Ephesus: While you have written me a very fine and studious letter of reprehend of my thinking about what you had preached that I had called you on, I still think I am correct because I used SS and PI in order to understand it since the Holy Spirit led me to the understanding that I now have.

I agree that Paul wrote the two letters you now have but it was addressed to us all not just to you and I feel that you have not taught as Paul said you are to that is why I have called upon you to change your teachings to conform with known Scripture since it is the real authority not Paul. You and Paul are not the only ones filled with the Holy Spirit as I too have been filled with His most Holy Spirit to know the truth of the matter.

I think that if you do not change your stance on this I will see to it that others will leave and we will start a new church so to speak that will have Scripture as the final authority each man interpreting as best as they can. This insure that we have the truth as the Holy Spirit guides each and every person to it. I remain you servant mike of Ephesus.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

First of all, on private interpretation. What I mean is that Luther didn’t have a formal theory saying “each individual Christian has a right to interpret Scripture for himself/herself.”

That is true, but then, Luther wasn’t much of a ‘formal theology’ kind of Theologian. Much of his theology grew out of his numerous conflicts. Systematic Theologians are more prone to develop theories in which all of the parts work on concert. Luther was no Systematic Theologian.

Later Protestants, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries, did articulate such a theory and saw it as fundamental to Protestantism. They read this theory back into Luther. Luther didn’t say that he had a right to interpret Scripture just because he was an individual human being. He frequently appealed to the fact that he was a Doctor of Theology, entrusted by the Church with the task of interpreting Scripture.

As a Doctor of Theology, Luther was certainly allowed certain prerogatives with regard to teaching. However, he was not allowed to teach in a way that ran against the established dogmas of the Church. Furthermore, after he was excommunicated, he was no longer ‘part of the Church’ and therefore was no longer authorized by the Church to do anything, let alone interpret Scripture. From that point on, what he did he did completely on his own personal authority, which means that it is extremely important to determine what the basis of that authority might have been.

And as you say, he also sometimes said more extravagant things about having a prophetic calling and so on. He said these things because he recognized that people needed to have some kind of public call from God through the Church in order to have the right to teach a new interpretation of Scripture.

But after he was excommunicated by the Church, he could not have been ‘making a public call from God through the Church’ as you put it – at all. At that point (again) he was representing ONLY Himself (Solo Marto) and not the Church at all in any respect. What you refer to his ‘public call from God’ is a very un-Catholic way of looking at the situation. A Catholic would be forced to ask how we would know that Luther’s ‘call’ was actually ‘from God’ rather than only from ‘himself’.

As far as I know he never went back on this–in fact his most “PI”-leaning statements were relatively early, in the 1520s. He condemned the Anabaptists and other “radicals” precisely for running around interpreting Scripture without authority. Thus, your question about authority would have meant something to Luther.

In fact, both Schaff, Dawson, Marius, and Sproul (and others of course) depict Luther as being more than ‘PI leaning’.

“(After Leipzig): Luther himself was greatly dissatisfied, and regarded the disputation as a mere waste of time…

The importance of this theological tournament lies in this: that it marks a progress in Luther’s emancipation from the papal system, Here for the first time he denied the divine right and origin of the papacy, and the infallibility of a general council. **Henceforth he had nothing left but the divine Scriptures, his private judgment, **and his faith in God who guides the course of history by his own Spirit, through all obstructions by human errors, to a glorious end.” Philip Schaff, “The History of the Christian Church”, Chapter III, 37

“But the effect of Anabaptism on Luther and the Protestant Reformation in Germany was conservative. After the Peasant’s War, Luther became much more chary of making direct appeals to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the freedom of the Christian man.” Dawson, “The Dividing of Christendom”, pg. 100

“**The outbreak of the Peasant’s War in 1525 brought home to Luther that this new approach was dangerous and ultimately uncontrollable. If every individual was able to interpret the Bible as he pleased, the outcome could only be anarchy and radical religious individualism. Too late, Luther tried to reign in the movement by emphasizing the importance of authorized religious leaders, such as himself, and institutions in the interpretation of the Bible.” McGrath, **“Dangerous”, pg. 3

R. C. Sproul : “**Two of the great legacies of the Reformation were the principal of private interpretation **and the translation of the Bible into the vernacular. The two principals go hand in hand and were accomplished only after great controversy and persecution. Scores of persons paid with their lives by being burned at the stake (particularly in England) for daring to translate the bible into the vernacular. One of Luther’s greatest achievements was a translation of the Bible into German so that any literate person could read it for himself.

**It was Luther himself who brought the issue of private interpretation of the Bible into sharp focus in the sixteenth century. **Hidden beneath the famous response of the Reformer to the ecclesiastical and imperial authorities at the Diet of Worms was the implicit principal of private interpretation………

 

[Topper17]

Sproul continued - “When asked to recant of his writings, Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by Sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.” Notice that Luther said “unless I am convinced…….”** In earlier debates at Leipzig and Augsburg, Luther had dared to presume to interpret Scripture contrary to interpretations rendered by Popes and by church councils. **That he would be so presumptuous led to the repeated charge of arrogance by church officials. Luther did not take these charges lightly but agonized over them. He believed that he could be wrong but maintained that the Pope and councils could also err. For him only one source of truth was free from error. He said, “The Scriptures never err.” Thus, unless the leaders of the church could convince him of his error, he felt duty-bound to follow what his own conscience was convinced Scripture taught. With this controversy the principal of private interpretation was born and baptized with fire.” R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, pg. 33-4

It means nothing to most modern Protestants, unless and until something really disgusts them about the chaos and individualism of modern Protestantism.

I agree. The vast majority of all Christians have no idea about the real history of the Reformation, and the vast majority of that majority don’t care. It seems to me that sometimes when people actually do think about it, they often come to the conclusion that there is something ‘not right’ in the foundations of Protestantism.

In my case it was a college class with a professor (not a Catholic himself) who pointed out that a lot of the things I and my family saw as disturbing about contemporary American religious culture were actually rooted in the very individualistic version of Christianity that we espoused.

I would suggest that it is a fact that Protestant Theologians and Academics are more inclined to become ‘swimmers’ largely because they actually have thought about the foundations of Protestantism. Therefore, from the Catholic perspective, it would be beneficial to have more people understand that true history.

Since I had already fallen in love with the Middle Ages, the result was a major “paradigm shift.” Without such a shift, most Protestants see no reason why a person shouldn’t just go with whatever he/she thinks the Bible says. (As a matter of fact, I think that the way a lot of Catholics approach authority is deeply flawed, inasmuch as they ignore the intrinsic merits of an issue and focus on “who has the authority,” which is ultimately an endless regression. But clearly truth is found within community and within tradition, not by ignoring one’s individual judgment but by being honest about how it has been formed, and thus open to having it formed differently.)

I would agree that the way that many Catholics are poorly informed and as a result, approach the issue of authority in a simplistic manner. That being said, they are still in a position to learn God’s Absolute Truth with greater certainty than are Protestants who reject the Catholic model of authority.

Anyway, my point is that if you have a theory of private interpretation, you don’t need authority. The theory gives authority.

As I think we agree, the theory of PI not only destroys Christian unity, but also the Truth.

I’m not disputing that Luther engaged in “private interpretation” in the sense that he set his own theology over against the teaching of the Church. I’m saying that he didn’t do this in virtue of a general principle that every individual ought to think for himself/herself in religious matters. Of course, it was his teaching and example that led to other people developing such a theory. So again, we’re not that far apart here.

Actually, I think it goes a little further than that. I would suggest that Luther’s own writings indicate that he was, at least in the early years of his Revolt, very much teaching PI for the individual.

This text is from Luther’s Sermon for Pentecost Tuesday, 1523.

“THE HEARERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE AND JUDGE A SERMON”

1. **In this text there are two thoughts worthy of note: the liberty of faith, and the power to judge. **You know that our soul-murderers have proposed to us that what the councils and the learned doctors decide and decree, that we should accept, and not judge **for ourselves whether it is right or not. **They have become so certain of the infallibility of the councils and doctors that they have now established the edict, publicly seen, that if we do not accept what they say, we are put under the ban. Now, let us take a spear in hand and make a hole in their shield; yea, their resolutions shall be a spider’s web. And you should, moreover, use upon them the spear which, until now, they have used upon us, and hold before them its point……”

 

[Topper17]

Sproul continued - **“When asked to recant of his writings, Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by Sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. **Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.” Notice that Luther said “unless I am convinced…….” In earlier debates at Leipzig and Augsburg, Luther had dared to presume to interpret Scripture contrary to interpretations rendered by Popes and by church councils. That he would be so presumptuous led to the repeated charge of arrogance by church officials. Luther did not take these charges lightly but agonized over them. He believed that he could be wrong but maintained that the Pope and councils could also err. For him only one source of truth was free from error. He said, “The Scriptures never err.” Thus, unless the leaders of the church could convince him of his error, he felt duty-bound to follow what his own conscience was convinced Scripture taught. With this controversy the principal of private interpretation was born and baptized with fire.” R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, pg. 33-4

It means nothing to most modern Protestants, unless and until something really disgusts them about the chaos and individualism of modern Protestantism.

I agree. The vast majority of all Christians have no idea about the real history of the Reformation, and the vast majority of that majority don’t care. It seems to me that sometimes when people actually do think about it, they often come to the conclusion that there is something ‘not right’ in the foundations of Protestantism.

In my case it was a college class with a professor (not a Catholic himself) who pointed out that a lot of the things I and my family saw as disturbing about contemporary American religious culture were actually rooted in the very individualistic version of Christianity that we espoused.

I would suggest that it is a fact that Protestant Theologians and Academics are more inclined to become ‘swimmers’ largely because they actually have thought about the foundations of Protestantism. Therefore, from the Catholic perspective, it would be beneficial to have more people understand that true history.

Since I had already fallen in love with the Middle Ages, the result was a major “paradigm shift.” Without such a shift, most Protestants see no reason why a person shouldn’t just go with whatever he/she thinks the Bible says. (As a matter of fact, I think that the way a lot of Catholics approach authority is deeply flawed, inasmuch as they ignore the intrinsic merits of an issue and focus on “who has the authority,” which is ultimately an endless regression. But clearly truth is found within community and within tradition, not by ignoring one’s individual judgment but by being honest about how it has been formed, and thus open to having it formed differently.)

I would agree that the way that many Catholics are poorly informed and as a result, approach the issue of authority in a simplistic manner. That being said, they are still in a position to learn God’s Absolute Truth with greater certainty than are Protestants who reject the Catholic model of authority.

Anyway, my point is that if you have a theory of private interpretation, you don’t need authority. The theory gives authority.

As I think we agree, the theory of PI not only destroys Christian unity, but also the Truth.

I’m not disputing that Luther engaged in “private interpretation” in the sense that he set his own theology over against the teaching of the Church. I’m saying that he didn’t do this in virtue of a general principle that every individual ought to think for himself/herself in religious matters. Of course, it was his teaching and example that led to other people developing such a theory. So again, we’re not that far apart here.

Actually, I think it goes a little further than that. I would suggest that Luther’s own writings indicate that he was, at least in the early years of his Revolt, very much teaching PI for the individual.

This text is from Luther’s Sermon for Pentecost Tuesday, 1523.

“THE HEARERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE AND JUDGE A SERMON”

1. **In this text there are two thoughts worthy of note: the liberty of faith, and the power to judge. **You know that our soul-murderers have proposed to us that what the councils and the learned doctors decide and decree, that we should accept, and not **judge for ourselves whether it is right or not. **They have become so certain of the infallibility of the councils and doctors that they have now established the edict, publicly seen, that if we do not accept what they say, we are put under the ban. Now, let us take a spear in hand and make a hole in their shield; yea, their resolutions shall be a spider’s web. And you should, moreover, use upon them the spear which, until now, they have used upon us, and hold before them its point……”

 

[Topper17]

“THE HEARERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE AND JUDGE A SERMON” Continued

1. **Remember well that the sheep have to pass judgment upon that which is placed before them. **They should say: We have Christ as our Lord and prefer his Word to the words of any man or to those of the angels of darkness. We want to examine and judge for ourselves whether the pope, the bishops and their followers do right or not. For Christ says here that the sheep judge and know which is the right voice and which is not. Now let them come along. Have they decreed anything? **We will examine whether it is right, and according to our own judgment interpret that which is a private affair for each individual Christian, knowing that the authority to do this is not human, but divine. **Even the real sheep flee from a stranger and hold to the voice of their shepherd.

**13. Upon this authority, the Gospel knocks all the councils, all the papistic laws, to the ground, granting to us that we should receive nothing without judging it, that we have besides the power to judge, and that such judgment stands until the present day. **The papists have taken from us the sword, so that we have not been able to repel any false doctrine, and, moreover, they have by force introduced false teachings among us. If now we take the sword from them they will be sorry. And we must truly take it, not by force, but by means of the Word, letting go all else that we have, saying: I am God’s sheep, whose Word I wish to appropriate to myself. If you will give me that, I will acknowledge you to be a shepherd. If you, however, add another Gospel to this one, and do not give me the pure Gospel, then I will not consider you a shepherd, and will not listen to your voice; for the office of which you boast extends no farther than the Word goes. If we find one to be a shepherd, we should receive him as such: if he is not, we should remove him; for the sheep shall judge the voice of the shepherd. If he does not give us the right kind of pasture, we should bid farewell to such a shepherd, that is, to the bishop; for a hat of pearls and a staff of silver do not make a shepherd or a bishop, but rather does the office depend upon his care of the sheep and their pasture.

1. Now the papists object to judgment being passed upon any of their works; for this reason they have intruded and taken from us the sword which we might use for such a purpose. Also, they dictate that we must accept, without any right of judgment, whatever they propose. And it has almost come to such a pass that whenever the pope breathes they make an article of faith out of it, and they have proclaimed that the authorities have the right to pass such laws for their subjects as they desire, independent of the judgment of the latter. These conditions mean ruin to the Christians so much so that a hundred thousand swords should be desired for one pope. This they know very well, and they cling hard to their laws. If they would permit unbiased judgment, their laws would be set aside and they would have to preach the pure Word; but such a course would reduce the size of their stomachs and the number of their horses.
2. Therefore, be ye aroused by this passage of Scripture to hew to pieces and thrust through everything that is not in harmony with the Gospel, for it belongs to the sheep to judge, and not to the preachers. You have the authority and power to judge everything that is preached; that and nothing less. If we have not this power, then Christ vainly said to us in Mt 7, 15: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.” We could not beware if we had not the power to judge, but were obliged to accept everything they said and preached.”

This is not the only early Luther text which proves that he advocated PI for all Christians (before he didn’t of course). This is an extremely important point in that it shows that the ‘authority’ that Luther used to break from the Church is a model of authority that Confessional Lutheranism rejects as being invalid. Put another way, according to Lutheranism, Luther did not have the authority to reject the teachings of his Church, which happens to have been the Roman Catholic Church.

Of course this is the pre 1525 Luther who was incorrectly of the opinion that everyone would agree with him once they had been ‘broken away’ from Rome. Foolish to the max.

Of course this is not the only text from this period which definitively makes this point, and given it’s importance, I would be happy to dig deeper into this aspect until we have reached something of a consensus. Luther also made the same type of statements in, among other works, “The Institution of the Ministry of the Church”, and “Of the Office of Preaching”.

I appreciate your comments about your upbringing. If you personally contribute to tearing almost 30% of Christianity away from the Mother Church, we will be required to dig much deeper into your background, looking for clues as to what in the world might have been the cause. As it is though Edwin, you have gone the other direction, consciously moving towards obedience rather than self-reliance. I think that this speaks well of your upbringing actually.

 

[Topper17]

The fundamental question is whether Luther got Paul right. Even the question of how to translate Romans 3:28 is relatively trivial–the question is whether Paul meant what Luther thought he meant. And more broadly, was Luther right to define the Gospel as the proclamation of forgiveness rather than the narrative of what Jesus has done for our salvation? I think Luther was wrong on both these counts.

I agree that this is a hugely important topic. Let’s face it. If Luther got Salvation wrong, then the Protestant Reformation was and continues to be a massive error.

You say several times that Protestants blindly accept what Luther taught. I don’t see that. They accept Luther (most often) as a hero of what they already believe on other grounds. I’ve never heard a Protestant say, “Luther said it so it must be true.” At the same time, there is a basic unwillingness to challenge Luther’s key claims. But I don’t think that’s because if a reverence for Luther himself so much as because these key claims have worked their way into the bedrock assumptions of Protestants.

I think we are saying the same thing but again, with a different emphasis. I think that the main reason that most Protestants unconsciously ‘follow’ Luther is because they don’t know any better. It’s not so much that they are aware of Luther’s positions, but is more like they have never thought about it. As such, getting them to think about it is to their benefit. Of course, there are a lot of people who don’t want them to know the ‘details’ or to think about these things.

The typical evangelical (there are of course other varieties of Protestant!) argues something like this:

1. I experienced God’s grace in a conversion experience and it transformed my life by grace received through faith.
2. Luther is the person who brought back to the Church a clear understanding of salvation by grace through faith.
3. Therefore, my personal experience of salvation is bound up with Luther.

I don’t see the above as being all that common. What I see is more like this:

1. I know how much I love my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
2. Because I am a Christian, I am led by the Holy Spirit
3. Because I am led by the Holy Spirit, I have assurance that what I believe is correct, because the Holy Spirit does not lie.

Obviously this progression does not work in the real world and I would appreciate your comments.

While this looks like a PI kind of belief, it does to a lesser but still noticeable degree represent what is just beneath the surface in the more Confessional Christians. Either way, you can see Luther’s fingerprints on it.

But the personal experience is primary, not the reverence for Luther.

I don’t think the “Luther Legend” developed because Luther was particularly unworthy of being called a “reformer.” It’s a pretty standard example of how founding figures come to be seen in larger-than-life terms.

I agree, but would suggest that the ‘Legend’ is now, at least in some circles being protected by people who know better, and do so out of a desire to hide the truth.

And I certainly agree that Luther was not, even for his time, a patristics expert. He read quite a bit of the Fathers, mostly I think the Latin Fathers. Many of the Reformed, including Calvin, were much better acquainted with the Greek Fathers than Luther was.

All the more reason to scrutinize what he taught.

On Augustine–of course he didn’t start his own church, and I acknowledged that, but the Orthodox often claim that he did distort the Western Church because of his flawed understanding. I agree that the cases are different–my point was rather that a Western Catholic shouldn’t totally despise the “imaginative but underinformed” kind of great theologian.

OK, the Orthodox are not as big a fans of Augie as are the Roman Catholics. Are you suggesting that Augustine had a role in the Great Schism? I would bet not.

I am not critical of Luther because he was ‘imaginitive but underinformed’ but rather because he had such an extremely negative impact on Christian unity and doctrinal certainty. It is the results of Luther that show him for what he was.

Yes, I recommend Steinmetz’ Luther in Context (and all his books, but this one is most relevant here. His essay on “Luther and Calvin on Church and Tradition” would be especially helpful to you, I think (it would give you more ammo).

I ordered it and am looking forward to reading it.

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Contarini]

OK, you have a point about that 1523 sermon. I still think it’s a bit different from later Protestantism because it’s less rationalistic, but I think you’re right that Luther came later on to stress the importance of being called over against the radicals and I was overemphasizing that stuff. Clearly the sermon you cite does indicate that he’s upholding a form of private interpretation for everyone.

Obviously Augustine didn’t have a direct role in the Schism, but indirectly he did contribute to widening the gap between East and West. I think the Orthodox have a valid point here. For the Westerners, the “Fathers” meant preeminently Augustine. And so they had trouble when the Orthodox didn’t recognize some key Augustinian ideas, such as the Filioque. This wasn’t Augustine’s fault–he was doing the best with what he had, and he is a great Father of the Church whom I love and reverence. But his legacy needs to be reintegrated with that of the Eastern Church, which I think has happened to a great extent in the past century in Catholic theology.

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

I agree. The vast majority of all Christians have no idea about the real history of the Reformation, and the vast majority of that majority don’t care. It seems to me that sometimes when people actually do think about it, they often come to the conclusion that there is something ‘not right’ in the foundations of Protestantism.

Your point in reverse, could be said as well about a large number of ignorant Catholics not knowing the Catholics faith in sufficient enough detail to convince ANYBODY they need to be in THIS, Our Lord’s Church that HE established.
T:

I would suggest that it is a fact that Protestant Theologians and Academics are more inclined to become ‘swimmers’ largely because they actually have thought about the foundations of Protestantism. Therefore, from the Catholic perspective, it would be beneficial to have more people understand that true history.

I’m actually surprised given the information so readily available, there are not more who take the swim.

I suspect it’s economic. They’re thinking, where would they work? Your thoughts?
T:

I would agree that the way that many Catholics are poorly informed and as a result, approach the issue of authority in a simplistic manner. That being said, they are still in a position to learn God’s Absolute Truth with greater certainty than are Protestants who reject the Catholic model of authority.

true
T:

As I think we agree, the theory of PI not only destroys Christian unity, but also the Truth.
Actually, I think it goes a little further than that. I would suggest that Luther’s own writings indicate that he was, at least in the early years of his Revolt, very much teaching PI for the individual.

This text is from Luther’s Sermon for Pentecost Tuesday, 1523.

“THE HEARERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE AND JUDGE A SERMON”

1. **In this text there are two thoughts worthy of note: the liberty of faith, and the power to judge. **You know that our soul-murderers have proposed to us that what the councils and the learned doctors decide and decree, that we should accept, and not **judge for ourselves whether it is right or not. **They have become so certain of the infallibility of the councils and doctors that they have now established the edict, publicly seen, that if we do not accept what they say, we are put under the ban. Now, let us take a spear in hand and make a hole in their shield; yea, their resolutions shall be a spider’s web. And you should, moreover, use upon them the spear which, until now, they have used upon us, and hold before them its point……”

“THE HEARERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE AND JUDGE A SERMON” Continued

1. **Remember well that the sheep have to pass judgment upon that which is placed before them. **They should say: We have Christ as our Lord and prefer his Word to the words of any man or to those of the angels of darkness. We want to examine and judge for ourselves whether the pope, the bishops and their followers do right or not. For Christ says here that the sheep judge and know which is the right voice and which is not. Now let them come along. Have they decreed anything? We will examine whether it is right, and according to our own judgment interpret that which is a private affair for each individual Christian, knowing that the authority to do this is not human, but divine. Even the real sheep flee from a stranger and hold to the voice of their shepherd.

**13. Upon this authority, the Gospel knocks all the councils, all the papistic laws, to the ground, granting to us that we should receive nothing without judging it, that we have besides the power to judge, and that such judgment stands until the present day. **The papists have taken from us the sword, so that we have not been able to repel any false doctrine, and, moreover, they have by force introduced false teachings among us. If now we take the sword from them they will be sorry. And we must truly take it, not by force, but by means of the Word, letting go all else that we have, saying: I am God’s sheep, whose Word I wish to appropriate to myself. If you will give me that, I will acknowledge you to be a shepherd. If you, however, add another Gospel to this one, and do not give me the pure Gospel, then I will not consider you a shepherd, and will not listen to your voice; for the office of which you boast extends no farther than the Word goes. If we find one to be a shepherd, we should receive him as such: if he is not, we should remove him; for the sheep shall judge the voice of the shepherd. If he does not give us the right kind of pasture, we should bid farewell to such a shepherd, that is, to the bishop; for a hat of pearls and a staff of silver do not make a shepherd or a bishop, but rather does the office depend upon his care of the sheep and their pasture.

1. Now the papists object to judgment being passed upon any of their works; for this reason they have intruded and taken from us the sword which we might use for such a purpose. Also, they dictate that we must accept, without any right of judgment, whatever they propose. And it has almost come to such a pass that whenever the pope breathes they make an article of faith out of it, and they have proclaimed that the authorities have the right to pass such laws for their subjects as they desire, independent of the judgment of the latter. These conditions mean ruin to the Christians so much so that a hundred thousand swords should be desired for one pope. This they know very well, and they cling hard to their laws. If they would permit unbiased judgment, their laws would be set aside and they would have to preach the pure Word; but such a course would reduce the size of their stomachs and the number of their horses.

[snip for space]

I think you made the case well