When was the belief in the Bible alone first mentioned?

[Topper17]

You admit that the Protestant concept of SS + (The ‘thing’ of your choice), does not work, as evidenced by your trek towards the Tiber. Granted, fallen man cannot achieve certainity in regards to things of God, whom we as fallen man cannot fully understand. SS + (anything) is proven to NOT be able to provide doctrinal certainty or doctrinal unity. Thus is it proven NOT to be a teaching of Christ or the Apostles, both of whom commanded us to unity. On the other hand, the Catholic teaching on ‘authority’ actually COULD be in keeping with that call to unity if followed as taught by the Church. For my ‘money’, I would prefer to align myself with a ‘system’ which actually COULD be the teaching of Christ and the Apostles as opposed to one which is obviously NOT.

I think that’s far too harsh. I mingle with Reformation scholars a lot, and I don’t see evidence of that. But certainly there is a reluctance among the more confessional scholars to be too hard on Luther.

You have extrapolated beyond my actual statement such that you interpreted it to include Protestant Reformation Scholars. From my readings of the modern scholars, it seems that they are much more ‘honest’ about Luther than their predecessors of a few generations earlier. Whereas a hundred years ago, most Protestant Scholars were very much into defending the ‘Legend’, today, we see a much more balanced approach. This is not true though of modern day Lutheran Apologists.

In my experience, I have yet to encounter one who is comfortable discussing the ‘lesser known’ aspects of Luther’s career and teachings. The more common approach to these issues is avoidance and attempting shift the subject to something that is NOT Martin Luther, which I consider to be less than intellectually honest. Somehow, those reputable Lutheran Scholars have managed to discuss the man honestly and still remain Lutheran, so we know that it can be done. But in my experience, it obviously cannot be done by very many.

A couple of years ago I heard a great paper on Luther’s inconsistent disciplinary practices–when there was some kind of marital trouble or sexual scandal involving a pastor, he consistently responded based on his relationship to the pastor rather than on the merits of the case. He would be full of sympathy for the abused wife of a pastor who had disagreed with him, but if the pastor was an ally he would dismiss the spouse’s complaints as unfair. The scholar delivering the paper (who is, I believe, a Lutheran) was rather apologetic about it and said “well, we would all like this not to be true, but I think it really is true.” But I don’t think other scholars deliberately cover this sort of thing up. They just don’t necessarily ask those questions.

Another great moment at a conference came when a Calvin scholar said that he thought Calvin put his own teachings above Scripture. (This was, of course, hyperbole–what he meant was that Calvin identified his own theology with the Word of God so that if people disagreed with it he accused them of disagreeing with the Word of God. So Calvin was treating his own teachings much as Protestants accuse Catholics of treating Church tradition–an authoritative interpretation that in some sense replaces the thing being interpreted, since you can never get “behind” it.) The courteous, gentle Genevan scholar responding to the paper was quite flabbergasted by such a claim, but I was delighted with the presenter for tearing the veil and calling out Calvin’s theological arrogance for what it was.

I agree, but how can we call out Calvin’s ‘theological arrogance’ without saying at least as much about Luther? I am much more familiar with Luther’s astonishing claims to authority than I am with Calvin’s. In truth, I don’t know of anything that Calvin said that is even in the same universe with some of the things that Luther claimed.

The trend more and more is toward more critical analysis and honesty.

Agreed, as stated above. From what I have experienced though, this trend has not yet made its way down to the level of popular apologetics yet.

I’ve been thinking about this, and it’s a good question. Maybe it’s just the prejudice of my training. Seinmetz and his teacher Oberman were both very opposed to ways of reading Luther that made him sound too “modern,” and I was taught to be very suspicious of anything like that. Perhaps too much so. (Steinmetz has therefore been co-opted by those Protestant scholars who want to portray the Reformation as really not much of a break with tradition at all, which is nonsense–Steinmetz has written quite a bit about how radical Luther was–he emphasizes the radicalism precisely by putting Luther in his medieval context.)

I would suggest that you might feel differently about this a few years after you have arrived on the other shore. As I have mentioned before, once on the ‘correct’ side of the river, you begin to think about things differently – many things.

I think it’s different in a couple of ways:

1. the emphasis on the supernatural quality of the discernment. This puts Luther more in the camp of later Pentecostals and other radicals than of the kind of rationalistic Protestants of the 18th and 19th centuries who simply thought that truth in general was discernible by the individual mind. Luther has a very sharp awareness of how sin distorts our ability to understand truth.
2. the existence of other passages, as you note, in which Luther warns against the dangers of private judgment and, as I have pointed out, claims special reasons why he was justified in speaking out. Clearly there’s inconsistency here, or perhaps a retreat from an earlier, more radical position.

 

[Topper17]

Many later Protestants go with the more radical Luther, while confessional Lutherans tend to build on the more conservative Luther.

It appears to me that I might not have made my point clearly ehough. After 1525 or so, Luther clearly steered back from PI (for everyone) towards a model of authority which emphasized his own personal authority to teach and rebuke everyone. As Lutheranism moved ‘forward’, it developed a model of authority which is much more ‘Confessional’, but that actually took a couple of generations to accomplish. As you have noted, Kolb’s book is invaluable in fleshing this out.

All that being said, what is crucial is this:

What ‘model of authority’ did Luther employ to justify rebelling against the Catholic Church during the initial portion of his Revolt (1518 to about 1525)? Was that model legitimate? Confessional Lutheranism seems to say that it was not, which means that Lutheranism was founded on an authority that Lutheranism itself says is illegitimate. If you are intentionally looking to increase your frustration level, try getting a Lutheran to offer a reasoned specific and exact response to this point.

Luther recognized the dangers of PI in 1515, but clearly practiced it and taught it for everyone prior to 1525. Again, I apologize for not making my point more clearly and recognize that I have not because your comments don’t address it at all.

At this point, I don’t see any difference between Luther’s early teaching of PI for everyone and that which is taught by the most radical PI proponents of the last couple of hundred years. How could there be anything more “PI” than advocating it for EVERYONE the way Luther did, without restriction?

The way I see it, all those people were doing a couple of hundred years ago and many, many today, is exactly what Luther taught when he broke with the Church. As we know, those early Luther beliefs and teachings have done tremendous damage to Christian unity, and obviously, they were not exactly well thought out. Is that ‘uncharitable’ or is it just an ‘inconvenient fact’. For the record, I am at least a dozen times more charitable towards Luther than he ever was towards his opponents.

Yes. Arguably Althaus overstates a bit how different Luther is from later conservative Protestants (at least Steinmetz thought he did), but basically I think the excerpts you cite are right.

Agreed about Althaus. I am hoping my new Steinmetz book arrives tomorrow. It’s been long enough.

Of course, Luther wouldn’t see it as putting his version of the Gospel above the Bible. I don’t think Luther does that any more than Catholics put Tradition above the Bible. But the problem, as we both agree, is that Luther invented his own Tradition, at least on certain points.

Of course he didn’t see it that way, but then he didn’t see his teaching conflicting with those of the Catholic Church. He thought that what he was teaching was what had always been taught. Only later did he realize otherwise. So to say that Luther “didn’t see it that way” is not exactly a solid claim that it actually ‘wasn’t that way’. Luther was often oddly unaware of what was going on around him and was also oddly unaware of what the ramifications of what his actions would be.

I like the passage you quote, and indeed much that Marius says. My problem with Marius isn’t that he’s too hard on Luther, so much (sometimes maybe he’s a bit cynical, but I take your point that this is a refreshing change from the reverence of many Protestant sources), but that his paradigm is anachronistic. He doesn’t think Luther was concerned about eternal salvation, if I remember rightly, so much as about survival after death.

I would agree. Luther was concerned about both death and eternal salvation. Both of those concerns were based on his doubts, doubts which led to the fears which controlled him and caused him to attempt to annihilate with words those who continued to oppose him.

“**And what was the gospel? For the rest of his life he quarreled fiercely with other dissenters from the Catholic faith – many of them beginning as his disciples – over the definition of the this most treasured of his signs (the Eucharist). How could God be in charge of all of this confusion?” **Marius, pg. 285

I would suggest that God was NOT responsible for ‘all this confusion’ – Luther was. Marius continues:

“Increasingly Luther fell into dark ruminations on the almost infinite branches streaming from this ultimate question: Where was God discernable in history? The ferocity of his assault on Catharinus may be taken as an indication of his frustration that the mystery was so deep. It does not require much insight to infer that he countered his frustration with a barrage of vehement language, railing on for page after ugly page as if he could hold all his fears and doubts at bay only by pouring liquid fire onto his foes, dissolving them and his doubts in one mighty holocaust of rhetoric.” Marius, pg. 285

Furthermore, if you say that Luther was not so much concerned about his Salvation but rather afraid death, then what does that say about Luther? Doesn’t that mean that his fears and doubts were over the actual existence of God Himself? After all, without a God, there could be no eternal soul. You are right though, Marius does mention Luther’s sometimes fear that there is NOTHING on the other side of death, only annihilation of the being of man altogether. Either way, Luther’s doubts and fears centered around either the nature of God, (loving and forgiving vs. punishing and unforgiving only) or the existence of God in total. Either way, this is NOT a good foundation from which to build a radical Theology.

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Contarini]

r
In fact, I do emphasize with Luther tremendously. I can’t imagine how horrible it must have been to have been so terrified that he felt like his body was going to be pulled apart. Edwin, I realize that Marius is not one of your favorites, but he is one of mine because his ‘version’ of Luther fits so well with the established facts.

“As Luther confessed time and again, his was a temperament, driven by fear and the need to conquer it so he could live day by day.” Marius pg. xiii

I think I’ve said already that my problem with Marius isn’t that he isn’t respectful enough to Luther or that he says Luther was driven by fear, but that he thinks Luther was driven by the kind of fear that would drive a modern person–fear that there is really nothing after death.

The often heard “great courage of Luther” is simply part of the Legend.

Fear isn’t incompatible with courage, and the fear of God can (and should) cause one to be brave with regard to human beings. As one of Nahum Tate’ Psalm paraphrases says, “Fear him, ye saints, and ye will then have nothing else to fear!”

I think Luther did have great courage, but so did a lot of other people in the sixteenth century, and many of them (on both sides) actually suffered fearful things, not having a powerful ruler to protect them as Luther did. What upsets me about the “brave Luther” cliche is the lack of awareness of the political reasons why no one ever did burn Luther t the stake, and thus a lack of awareness of how many worldly forces were working for the Reformation.

The people I have most sympathy for in the sixteenth century are the people caught in the middle, who had Protestant sympathies but did not want to leave the Church (or who became Protestants but then were unwilling to conform to the new orthodoxy, although naturally my theological sympathies are more with the first group). But people rarely talk about Thomas Bilney or Constantino Ponce de la Fuente…

There is no question that Catholics in general, need to adopt more of the “personal relationship with Jesus” kind of personal theology that is more predominant, in general, in Protestantism. THAT is what should have been part of the ‘Reformation’. THAT could have been done without attempting to bring down the Church wholesale. THAT would have been a life’s work worthy of a True Man of God. THAT could have been emphasized without departing from the teachings of the Church. But that was not Luther’s primary concern.

Indeed, I think that an evangelical-style “personal relationship with Jesus” was if anything more associated with Catholics than with Protestants in the sixteenth century. My alias Gasparo Contarini’s conversion experience (in the confessional on Holy Saturday, while being absolved, he had a sudden sense of God’s free forgiveness of his sins) fits the later Pietist/evangelical pattern very well. Zwingli actually claimed that the Anabaptists fell into error because they were trying to recreate, through water baptism, the kind of conversion experience that Catholics experienced in the confessional. For many of the Reformers, justification by faith alone was more cerebral than that, though of course it had experiential aspects. The Jesuits, in many ways (preserving much of the style of late medieval piety represented by the Imitation of Christ), were more “evangelical” in the later sense than many of the Protestants. But of course these are huge generalizations. There’s no doubt, though, of the debt the Pietists owed to late medieval piety, and many “orthodox” Lutherans suspected the Pietists of being too Catholic.

I would suggest that Luther’s emphasis of a strong relationship with Christ, was actually NOT a radical teaching but one which had been taught from day one by the Church. Luther had no choice but to further emphasize it because SOMETHING had to fill the void left when he kicked the role of the Church to the curb. As such, that emphasis was not so much a primary theological concept but a consequence of that which was more important to Luther, the discarding of the role of the Church.

I wouldn’t put it that way. I think that what Luther was after was something more specific than a “personal relationship with Christ.” It was a relationship that wasn’t under the threat of judgment and thus freed him to love his neighbor. And I’m quite willing to admit that Luther had particular hangups that led him to be unable to have that kind of relationship with Christ within the framework of conventional late medieval theology. But just as clearly, his theological ideas struck a chord with many people, and they need to be taken seriously in their own terms rather than psychologized away.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You admit that the Protestant concept of SS + (The ‘thing’ of your choice), does not work, as evidenced by your trek towards the Tiber. Granted, fallen man cannot achieve certainity in regards to things of God, whom we as fallen man cannot fully understand. SS + (anything) is proven to NOT be able to provide doctrinal certainty or doctrinal unity. Thus is it proven NOT to be a teaching of Christ or the Apostles, both of whom commanded us to unity. On the other hand, the Catholic teaching on ‘authority’ actually COULD be in keeping with that call to unity if followed as taught by the Church. For my ‘money’, I would prefer to align myself with a ‘system’ which actually COULD be the teaching of Christ and the Apostles as opposed to one which is obviously NOT.

Yes, I basically agree with that line of reasoning.

You have extrapolated beyond my actual statement such that you interpreted it to include Protestant Reformation Scholars. From my readings of the modern scholars, it seems that they are much more ‘honest’ about Luther than their predecessors of a few generations earlier. Whereas a hundred years ago, most Protestant Scholars were very much into defending the ‘Legend’, today, we see a much more balanced approach. This is not true though of modern day Lutheran Apologists.

Fair enough. I haven’t run into a lot of those, except for people who are Reformation scholars. But I did live in northern Indiana for eight years and got some sense of how smug the LCMS folks can be. Still, I liked living in an area where there were lots of them. For one thing, having LCMS students in a religion class is nice because you can count on them actually knowing something about the Bible and maybe even church history… . . .

I agree, but how can we call out Calvin’s ‘theological arrogance’ without saying at least as much about Luther?

Oh, I agree that the same applies to Luther. I only mentioned it as another example of the growing trend of Protestant scholars calling out the leading Reformers on these points.

Personally, I find Luther easier to take than Calvin. This may just be a personality issue. There are lots of serious criticisms to make of Luther, but his extravagant statements don’t bother me the way they seem to bother you and many other people. Calvin would never say the kinds of ridiculous things Luther did. He was much more uptight, and thus in my opinion more truly arrogant, if anything. But fundamentally they have the same problem.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It appears to me that I might not have made my point clearly ehough. After 1525 or so, Luther clearly steered back from PI (for everyone) towards a model of authority which emphasized his own personal authority to teach and rebuke everyone.

Agreed.

What ‘model of authority’ did Luther employ to justify rebelling against the Catholic Church during the initial portion of his Revolt (1518 to about 1525)? Was that model legitimate? Confessional Lutheranism seems to say that it was not, which means that Lutheranism was founded on an authority that Lutheranism itself says is illegitimate.

I agree that Lutherans tend to read Luther through the Confessions and don’t recognize how much of a radical Luther was early on.

But I guess I’m not convinced that “models of authority” are the most important issue. This is where I differ pretty strongly from standard Catholic apologetics. I have never found the attempt to reduce everything to “what’s your authority for that” convincing. That leads logically to the conclusion that a Catholic would accept anything at all if taught by the Church, so that the actual power and beauty of Catholicism are irrelevant. I think that’s a monstrous conclusion.

What I’m saying is that Luther’s teachings have an intrinsic power and beauty as a way of making sense of certain themes in Scripture and the Christian tradition. Lutherans express this in terms of their being faithful to Scripture, of course. I don’t agree with Luther’s interpretations of Scripture where they contradict Catholic teaching, but I think the intrinsic qualities of his teaching need to be addressed, and I don’t see you doing that.

Luther was himself swept away by these ideas–they grabbed hold of him in a way that he identified with divine revelation. I would put it in somewhat more rationalistic terms by saying that Luther was one of the greatest creative minds of the Christian tradition (and I entirely agree that that’s a double-edged sword when it comes to Christian theology–creativity more often than not leads to heresy, and certainly does when the theologian mistrusts the Church, as Luther did). But the fact that he fumbled around for a justification for challenging the Church, and that he first proposed and then backed away from the idea that everyone ought to be judging doctrine for themselves, is easily explainable by the fact that the priority for him was the power of this new way of thinking about salvation. He was convinced that it had come from God. When it seemed that people were supporting him, he told them to think for themselves. When they started going after other ideas, he told them sharply that they had to have a “call” in order to have the right to interpret Scripture.

You can reduce this to “Luther was arrogant,” but I think that misses something–and, again, the “something” is the intrinsic power of the ideas themselves. I get why someone who came up with the “Freedom of a Christian” would think that this powerful doctrine of being “married to Christ” and thus taking on Christ’s righteousness, and of being “Christ to the neighbor” rather than spending one’s life hoping to attain final salvation, couldn’t come anywhere than from God. Yes, Luther was arrogant. Yes, a humbler person would have been more willing to entertain the possibility that he hadn’t got everything right. But it wasn’t just about arrogance.

The difference with later Protestants is that they systematized private interpretation into a rationalistic theory based on an individualistic view of human nature. I agree that Luther gave rise to private interpretation, but my point is that he didn’t hold to it in a systematic, consistent way.

Even the sermon you cited, while certainly teaching private interpretation, presupposes a congregation listening to a preacher. It’s a freedom to judge and reject what the preacher is saying. It’s still not the same as the later Protestant who would shut himself up alone with the Bible for a week (and as often as not, come out Unitarian).

And I suppose, where we differ is that in some sense I think private interpretation is inevitable. Certainly the “spiral argument” by which some Catholics try to avoid it obviously fails (because the judgments that Scripture is historically accurate and teaches that Jesus founded an authoritative Church are themselves obviously “private judgments,” if they don’t rest on the authority of the Church, which according to the spiral argument they can’t). Saying that a congregation can and should judge whether what the preacher says is orthodox is not perhaps as shocking to me as it is to you. But I agree that Luther spoke of it without due caution, of course. He learned caution later, but I agree that he didn’t have a good basis for claiming the authority to tell other people how to interpret Scripture. Again, what authority Luther had always came from the intrinsic power of his ideas. And if only he had been willing to modify and work with those ideas when it was clear that they contradicted Church doctrine, the story of the past 500 years might have been very different. Instead, he threw open a door for everyone to do what he did. We have no disagreement on that point.

 

[Contarini]

Furthermore, if you say that Luther was not so much concerned about his Salvation but rather afraid death, then what does that say about Luther? Doesn’t that mean that his fears and doubts were over the actual existence of God Himself? After all, without a God, there could be no eternal soul.

That’s not what I’m saying. That’s what I remember Marius saying–but you have probably read the book more recently than I have (I read it about 15 years ago). I disagree with Marius on that point.

You are right though, Marius does mention Luther’s sometimes fear that there is NOTHING on the other side of death, only annihilation of the being of man altogether.

Right. It seemed to me that that was the basis of his whole argument–that this was Luther’s basic concern. And that rubbed me the wrong way, because it seemed like yet another case of a modern scholar assuming that everyone in premodern times really “knew” deep down that things are the way modern secular people imagine them to be. (I have been reading Rene Girard, and he makes this point about the Greek tragedian Euripides. People assume that Euripides must really have been an atheist who didn’t believe in the gods, when that may not have been his worry at all.) That’s my issue with Marius. It isn’t that I think he’s too hard on Luther so much–in fact I think he empathizes with Luther a lot.

Edwin

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper: I am replying to your post #218. You made great points on what you have written. it seems to me that Luther being backed up against the wall so to speak became so stubborn he could not retreat from the stance he took. In looking for some comfort over the fact that he felt that no matter what he did he would not be saved which was we all know was his first concern in that it consumed him mentally. It also led his to this PI thing in which when he thought his interpretation of Romans was the answer to all of his troubles about being saved or not, led his to also consider other theological interpretations of Scriptures. Because the Church was not willing to go along with his theological thinking Luther it appears to have believe that his particular interpretations of Scriptures was the correct one to have.

I agree and I think that Luther’s horrendous terrors over Salvation, combined with his arrogance virtually assured that he was going to ‘find a way out’ of the Church, so that he could develop a version of Salvation which would give him the certainty that he so desperately needed. Of course, Lutherans especially will say “But Topper, that isn’t what Luther thought he was doing!” Granted, but then Luther was not exactly all that ‘aware’ of how his ‘seriously delusional’ thinking was leading him, rather than Scripture leading him.

We know from If I remember correctly that he really in the beginning want to be a theologian but was persuaded to anyway. I wonder if he had not been given the position of theologian would he have gone the way he did. I also think that what added fuel to the fire was the fact that Calvin and Zwingli would not go along with his interpretations, both having their own thoughts on the matter of how Scriptures were top be applied and understood. It also appears or seems that the more the Church refused to accept what Luther wanted and what Luther was saying the more stubborn he became and the more convinced that he was correct.

I agree again. Luther never set out to become a monk or a priest or a Theologian or a Professor. In fact, there is nothing in his early years which would indicate that he had even any interest in becoming a monk, or any interest in anything related to faith. Of course, it was his terror which drove him to decide to become a monk, a decision which he almost immediately regretted, but was to terrified to go back on. One can only wonder how much different the world would be today if Luther had stuck with his original plan – the law.

Having help from princes of the regions gave Luther the means to challenge the Church not just in discipline but in doctrines, which over the centuries have caused the Scriptures to mean whatever someone thinks it means and says by those who think that their private interpretations are the only correct ones to have. We saw that in Waco and other places and also in the many religious cults besides those denominations that preach hatred against anyone not of their beliefs.

It was never Luther’s intent to turn his church over to the state, but like a lot of other things, Luther was pretty clueless as to where things were headed. The Princes used him in the same way that he used them, but in the end, they got the best of the deal. The authority over the Church that the secular powers grabbed with Luther’s assistance is simply one more aspect of the “Legend” which is very ‘underreported’.

The ‘great’ Augsburg Confession that we hear so much about was basically dishonest representation of Lutheran beliefs.

**“The conclusion of the confession therefore made the claim that ‘in our circles nothing has been accepted in doctrine or in ceremonies that is opposed to Scripture or the Catholic Church, since it is evident that we have been most careful to keep new and wicked dogmas from creeping into our churches.” **Pelikan, “Obedient Rebels”, pg. 45

Obviously this was intentionally dishonest.

“Some of the fundamental tenants of Lutheran faith were stated in the Confession with the lucidity that Melanchthon commanded,** but for diplomatic reasons other essential elements were left out or toned down. ****Universal priesthood was not mentioned, nor were papal supremacy, indulgences, purgatory, and the existence of seven sacraments challenged. On the other hand, the sacrament of the Lord’s supper was treated in a way that left a Catholic interpretation open, while excluding any Zwinglian or sectarian position.**” Holborn, pg. 212.

It was at Augsburg that the Princes gained a great deal over the Lutheran church, and in fact over Lutheran doctrine.

At Augsburg, “**The great witness was born this time not by the monk of Wittenberg or even by the ministers and theologians, but by the lay princes who stood to lose their dignities and their lives.” **Bainton, pg. 332
**

“While Luther may have been motivated by genuine religious concerns, the German princes determined the forms that Lutheranism would take**.” Dawson, pg. 14.

Here we see that within 13 years of the 95 Theses, the secular leaders had already gained so much power over the Lutheran church that they had a large impact on the formulation of doctrine. It’s no wonder that things would become even more fractured from Augsburg on.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[bitznbitez]

St. Vincent of Lerins, in the fifth century, wrote a book to respond to a hypothetical question that is almost identical to sola scriptura: “Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation?”

He responded that we still need the Church’s Tradition and the Church’s authority to interpret the Scriptures correctly. That’s the same answer we give to Protestants today, which is very interesting. If you want more details, the full book is available for free online and is called the Commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lerins: newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

The question above appears in the second paragraph of Chapter 2. The rest of the book is the answer.

The Commonitorium is so relevant to todays situation. I second the recommendation to look into it. It was so relevant to me that I took St. Vincent Lerins as my confirmation saint when I was received at Easter vigil after RCIA.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

I agree and I think that Luther’s horrendous terrors over Salvation, combined with his arrogance virtually assured that he was going to ‘find a way out’ of the Church, so that he could develop a version of Salvation which would give him the certainty that he so desperately needed. Of course, Lutherans especially will say “But Topper, that isn’t what Luther thought he was doing!” Granted, but then Luther was not exactly all that ‘aware’ of how his ‘seriously delusional’ thinking was leading him, rather than Scripture leading him.

I agree again. Luther never set out to become a monk or a priest or a Theologian or a Professor. In fact, there is nothing in his early years which would indicate that he had even any interest in becoming a monk, or any interest in anything related to faith. Of course, it was his terror which drove him to decide to become a monk, a decision which he almost immediately regretted, but was to terrified to go back on. One can only wonder how much different the world would be today if Luther had stuck with his original plan – the law.

It was never Luther’s intent to turn his church over to the state, but like a lot of other things, Luther was pretty clueless as to where things were headed. The Princes used him in the same way that he used them, but in the end, they got the best of the deal. The authority over the Church that the secular powers grabbed with Luther’s assistance is simply one more aspect of the “Legend” which is very ‘underreported’.

The ‘great’ Augsburg Confession that we hear so much about was basically dishonest representation of Lutheran beliefs.

**“The conclusion of the confession therefore made the claim that ‘in our circles nothing has been accepted in doctrine or in ceremonies that is opposed to Scripture or the Catholic Church, since it is evident that we have been most careful to keep new and wicked dogmas from creeping into our churches.” **Pelikan, “Obedient Rebels”, pg. 45

Obviously this was intentionally dishonest.

“Some of the fundamental tenants of Lutheran faith were stated in the Confession with the lucidity that Melanchthon commanded,** but for diplomatic reasons other essential elements were left out or toned down. ****Universal priesthood was not mentioned, nor were papal supremacy, indulgences, purgatory, and the existence of seven sacraments challenged. On the other hand, the sacrament of the Lord’s supper was treated in a way that left a Catholic interpretation open, while excluding any Zwinglian or sectarian position.**” Holborn, pg. 212.

It was at Augsburg that the Princes gained a great deal over the Lutheran church, and in fact over Lutheran doctrine.

At Augsburg, “**The great witness was born this time not by the monk of Wittenberg or even by the ministers and theologians, but by the lay princes who stood to lose their dignities and their lives.” **Bainton, pg. 332
**

“While Luther may have been motivated by genuine religious concerns, the German princes determined the forms that Lutheranism would take**.” Dawson, pg. 14.

Here we see that within 13 years of the 95 Theses, the secular leaders had already gained so much power over the Lutheran church that they had a large impact on the formulation of doctrine. It’s no wonder that things would become even more fractured from Augsburg on.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

Hi Topper: I agree that it was never Luther’s intention to turn the church over to the German princes but in a manor of speaking they welded plenty of power in that they could determine in their area of control what the masses (people) were to believe. So some decided to remain Catholic while others were to accept a Lutheran belief system.

One think I would like to point out is the fact that throughout the history of Christianity the secular authority has always tried to have some control over religious beliefs, this can be seen in the roman pagan belief system where the emperor controlled what people believed and so it continued over the centuries and in some ways in our day and age.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

I think I’ve said already that my problem with Marius isn’t that he isn’t respectful enough to Luther or that he says Luther was driven by fear, but that he thinks Luther was driven by the kind of fear that would drive a modern person–fear that there is really nothing after death.

I’m not sure I understand the distinction. It seems that you acknowledge that it was Luther’s fear that drove him to find his ‘rather unique’ version of Salvation, but that Marius mistook Luther’s fear for something much more ‘modern’. Isn’t the bigger issue that the reason for Luther’s ‘version’ of Salvation was his fear? I would suggest that any attempt to too specifically tie down that fear precisely, is to possibly get bogged down and miss the major point?

Fear isn’t incompatible with courage, and the fear of God can (and should) cause one to be brave with regard to human beings. As one of Nahum Tate’ Psalm paraphrases says, “Fear him, ye saints, and ye will then have nothing else to fear!”

I think Luther did have great courage, but so did a lot of other people in the sixteenth century, and many of them (on both sides) actually suffered fearful things, not having a powerful ruler to protect them as Luther did. What upsets me about the “brave Luther” cliche is the lack of awareness of the political reasons why no one ever did burn Luther t the stake, and thus a lack of awareness of how many worldly forces were working for the Reformation.

Agreed. There were many important factors which allowed Luther’s ‘reformation’ to take root, not the least of which was the fact that so many people misunderstood his beliefs. As you pointed out, nobody ever specifically threatened Luther’s life. It seems that the largest threat he ever faced was from the peasants, who renounced their membership in the Luther Fan Club after he recommended that they be slaughtered without mercy (and 100,000) were.

The people I have most sympathy for in the sixteenth century are the people caught in the middle, who had Protestant sympathies but did not want to leave the Church (or who became Protestants but then were unwilling to conform to the new orthodoxy, although naturally my theological sympathies are more with the first group). But people rarely talk about Thomas Bilney or Constantino Ponce de la Fuente…

You mention your sympathy for those who had Protestant leanings, but how about those people who were not allowed to continue their historic faith? What about the fact that the Mass was outlawed in Wittenberg within a few years of the beginning of the ‘reformation’? What about the people who saw their Catholic Churches ruined and their priests run out of town? Are those situations worthy of mention?

Indeed, I think that an evangelical-style “personal relationship with Jesus” was if anything more associated with Catholics than with Protestants in the sixteenth century. My alias Gasparo Contarini’s conversion experience (in the confessional on Holy Saturday, while being absolved, he had a sudden sense of God’s free forgiveness of his sins) fits the later Pietist/evangelical pattern very well. Zwingli actually claimed that the Anabaptists fell into error because they were trying to recreate, through water baptism, the kind of conversion experience that Catholics experienced in the confessional. For many of the Reformers, justification by faith alone was more cerebral than that, though of course it had experiential aspects. The Jesuits, in many ways (preserving much of the style of late medieval piety represented by the Imitation of Christ), were more “evangelical” in the later sense than many of the Protestants. But of course these are huge generalizations. There’s no doubt, though, of the debt the Pietists owed to late medieval piety, and many “orthodox” Lutherans suspected the Pietists of being too Catholic.

In the past I have mentioned Payton’s excellent book, “Getting the Reformation Wrong”. He has stated that none of the so called ‘Reformers’ would have viewed their efforts as having been ‘successful’. On the other hand, according to Payton, the Jesuits were ‘wildly successful’:

“With their invigorated scholasticism, devotion to Roman Catholicism and educational prowess, the Jesuits became Rome’s main assault weapon on territories which had embraced Protestantism. As we will see below they became wildly successful……Of all those involved in the Reformation-era struggles, the Jesuits ended up achieving more of what they expected than anyone else. Consequently, the Jesuits have the best claim claim to being successful.” Payton, pg. 222-3

I wouldn’t put it that way. I think that what Luther was after was something more specific than a “personal relationship with Christ.” It was a relationship that wasn’t under the threat of judgment and thus freed him to love his neighbor. And I’m quite willing to admit that Luther had particular hangups that led him to be unable to have that kind of relationship with Christ within the framework of conventional late medieval theology. But just as clearly, his theological ideas struck a chord with many people, and they need to be taken seriously in their own terms rather than psychologized away.

 

[Topper17]

Agreed. What Luther wanted was certainty, and yet his own personality magnified his doubts. In regards to his ‘theological ideas striking a cord’, Payton argues that Luther’s theology, especially his early theology, was very much misunderstood. In fact, once people began to understand what he was all about, they abandoned him in droves. As such, I disagree that his theological ideas should be taken seriously as you suggest, because they ‘struck a cord’. In my view, the reason that Luther’s beliefs took hold was primarily NOT because people agreed with his theology.

Yes, I basically agree with that line of reasoning.

What is interesting is when people try to argue against this line of reasoning. It quickly becomes apparent that the opposite of what I suggested absolutely does not appeal to logic or reason. The only conclusion that you can draw and still hold to the opposite – is that God has instituted a system (Sola Scriptura) which does the opposite of appealing to logic and reason.

Fair enough. I haven’t run into a lot of those, except for people who are Reformation scholars. But I did live in northern Indiana for eight years and got some sense of how smug the LCMS folks can be. Still, I liked living in an area where there were lots of them. For one thing, having LCMS students in a religion class is nice because you can count on them actually knowing something about the Bible and maybe even church history… . . .

Granted, but then I would suggest that the group ‘Reformation Scholars’, is not exactly representative of Protestantism in general. It seems to me that Protestant Scholars of all types, as a group, are more likely to become ‘swimmers’ than are the Protestant laity as a group overall. To put it a different way, the more you know, the more you have thought about these things, and the more you care about them, the more likely you are to convert to the Church. I would also suggest that the more you know about the actual history of the Reformation, the more likely…………………

As for the smugness you describe, it is pretty noticeable and I would suggest that it is ‘baked into the cake’ with the determining ‘ingredient’ being Martin Luther Himself. His arrogance and his insistence on the superiority of his beliefs have survived him to this day. I agree that Lutherans do tend to know the text of the Bible better than many other groups. What is arguable though is whether they understand what the text means.

Oh, I agree that the same applies to Luther. I only mentioned it as another example of the growing trend of Protestant scholars calling out the leading Reformers on these points.

Thankfully, modern Protestant Scholars are much more prone to be more ‘forthcoming’ than their predecessors of 100 years ago. This is very much appreciated. Do you know of ANY statements by Calving which are in even the same universe as the outrageous things that Luther said about his own ‘authority’?

Personally, I find Luther easier to take than Calvin. This may just be a personality issue. There are lots of serious criticisms to make of Luther, but his extravagant statements don’t bother me the way they seem to bother you and many other people. Calvin would never say the kinds of ridiculous things Luther did. He was much more uptight, and thus in my opinion more truly arrogant, if anything. But fundamentally they have the same problem.

Edwin, I would suggest that once you have been on the ‘correct bank’ for a decade or so, you might feel differently about this issue. One of the things which help us to identify the ‘nature’ of Martin Luther are those ‘extravagant statements’. Can you imagine how we would view someone today who made statements even 1/10 as outrageous as what Luther said? We would see them as a clear indication of a man who was completely overstepping his rightful bounds, and in fact that is exactly how the Catholics of his day viewed them. As I think you would agree, they were right to criticize him in that respect.

Your comments though do prompt what I think is the most important question of all:

Just exactly how important is God’s Absolute Truth?

Agreed.

Then does that mean that the ‘basis of authority’ that Luther used was illegimate, even according to the foundational concepts of Confessional Lutheranism?

I agree that Lutherans tend to read Luther through the Confessions and don’t recognize how much of a radical Luther was early on.

And as we have seen on this and other threads, Lutheran apologists are not exactly willing to discuss all of those radical early beliefs of Luther, the very beliefs which he held when he Revolted from the Church. They want to have it ‘both ways’. They want to revere Luther at least as much as the facts (or lack thereof) will allow, while at the same time pointing to their Confessions which clearly refute those early beliefs of Luther. In addition, there is absolutely no willingness to address the contradictions or do anything but attempt to sweep them under the carpet. They want to leave the outline of the Luther Legend in place and skip right past all of those “Inconvenient Facts” about the man, plunking us down in their Confessions. I would suggest though that that period between 1517 and the final version of the Lutheran Confessions reveal Lutheranism to be exactly what it is.

 

[Topper17]

But I guess I’m not convinced that “models of authority” are the most important issue. This is where I differ pretty strongly from standard Catholic apologetics. I have never found the attempt to reduce everything to “what’s your authority for that” convincing. That leads logically to the conclusion that a Catholic would accept anything at all if taught by the Church, so that the actual power and beauty of Catholicism are irrelevant. I think that’s a monstrous conclusion.

That is not a conclusion that I would support either. On the other hand, “Authority” IS actually a huge issue. No matter which of the various conflicting and competing versions of SS you use, the net result is going to be doctrinal dissension and confusion. I would also suggest that SS eventually leads to the decreased importance of Christian Doctrine. If you know of a way that SS can be ‘successfully used’ such that it does not lead to dissension and confusion, then I am all ears.

What I’m saying is that Luther’s teachings have an intrinsic power and beauty as a way of making sense of certain themes in Scripture and the Christian tradition. Lutherans express this in terms of their being faithful to Scripture, of course. I don’t agree with Luther’s interpretations of Scripture where they contradict Catholic teaching, but I think the intrinsic qualities of his teaching need to be addressed, and I don’t see you doing that.

I see it differently. There have been what, hundreds of thousands of Christian Theologians in the last 2000 years, and NONE of them wrote such horrendous things about how to ‘handle’ the Jews. Luther wrote those astonishingly un-Christian things about the Jews and about many other issues all the while spouting Scripture AS IF he were ordained directly by God to tell everyone what to believe.

Frankly, I have a lot of orthodox Theologians that I would like to have time to study, and do not need to spend my time mining through Luther’s writings hoping to find some precious nugget amongst all of the hatred. The way I see it, those horrific things that he wrote (while spewing Scripture to justify them) absolutely disqualify him from being seen as a valid Theologian. No doubt we disagree on this matter and certainly my opinion will prompt the standard response about how many (always unquoted) Catholic Theologians have such ‘respect’ for Luther.

Rather than looking at the ‘intrinsic qualities’ of Luther’s teachings (individually), I look at the whole of his teachings and their overall impact. Personally, I don’t see how you can separate his teachings on the Jews and various other peoples from those that you seem to view so favorably.

Luther was himself swept away by these ideas–they grabbed hold of him in a way that he identified with divine revelation. I would put it in somewhat more rationalistic terms by saying that Luther was one of the greatest creative minds of the Christian tradition (and I entirely agree that that’s a double-edged sword when it comes to Christian theology–creativity more often than not leads to heresy, and certainly does when the theologian mistrusts the Church, as Luther did). But the fact that he fumbled around for a justification for challenging the Church, and that he first proposed and then backed away from the idea that everyone ought to be judging doctrine for themselves, is easily explainable by the fact that the priority for him was the power of this new way of thinking about salvation. He was convinced that it had come from God. When it seemed that people were supporting him, he told them to think for themselves. When they started going after other ideas, he told them sharply that they had to have a “call” in order to have the right to interpret Scripture.

I would value ‘creative minds’ if they didn’t lead to heresy and division. Personally I value God’s Absolute Truth far more than I do ‘creativity’. I agree though, he was absolutely ‘convinced’ that his teachings ‘came from God’, directly from God. His ridiculous statements to that effect are proof as to the nature of the man. One of the most telling things is that during the time when he was teaching PI for everyone, he actually believed that people would agree with him once they had heard his beliefs. That was incredibly foolish and naïve and it points to the fact that somebody with that incredible lack of foresight and wisdom should NOT be out there forging new radical forms of Christianity.

If I want to read something inspirational, there are a ton of Saints who wrote amazing things without writing the kinds of crazy things that are not included in the popular Legend.

You can reduce this to “Luther was arrogant,” but I think that misses something–and, again, the “something” is the intrinsic power of the ideas themselves. I get why someone who came up with the “Freedom of a Christian” would think that this powerful doctrine of being “married to Christ” and thus taking on Christ’s righteousness, and of being “Christ to the neighbor” rather than spending one’s life hoping to attain final salvation, couldn’t come anywhere than from God. Yes, Luther was arrogant. Yes, a humbler person would have been more willing to entertain the possibility that he hadn’t got everything right. But it wasn’t just about arrogance.

As I have said before, Luther was the most hateful Theologian in Christian history. You consider him to be a ‘friend’, and yet, if I remember correctly, you have not yet proposed some other Theologian for this ‘honor’. In other words, I am not exactly in agreement that Luther was prone to being ‘Christ to the neighbor’.

 

[Topper17]

It wasn’t so much that he was arrogant, although he was that in spades. It is about all of those teachings which we ALL agree were SO un- and anti-Christian. All of those things could not possibly have been taught or written by a decent Christian Theologian or Scriptural Exegete. That does not mean for a second though that there were not a few ‘precious nuggets’ amongst his writings.

The difference with later Protestants is that they systematized private interpretation into a rationalistic theory based on an individualistic view of human nature. I agree that Luther gave rise to private interpretation, but my point is that he didn’t hold to it in a systematic, consistent way.

Honestly, Luther was not a ‘systematic’ kind of Theologian. He didn’t hold to ANY kind of teaching in a Systematic or consistent way, because he was not capable of being systematic or consistent. You acknowledge that Luther gave rise to private interpretation, and yet somehow give him a pass? As you have seen here on this thread and others, Lutherans cannot come even close to admitting the obvious in regards to Luther and PI.

Even the sermon you cited, while certainly teaching private interpretation, presupposes a congregation listening to a preacher. It’s a freedom to judge and reject what the preacher is saying. It’s still not the same as the later Protestant who would shut himself up alone with the Bible for a week (and as often as not, come out Unitarian).

It would seem that this would lead us into a conversation about the ‘evolution’ of Luther’s beliefs on the role of the ‘preacher’ and how they were to be chosen. One of the things that caused his ‘problem’ with the peasants is that they were actually following his earlier teachings on the choice of preachers and PI. Maybe we should explore that aspect of Luther’s early teaching. I’m sure you can predict the thrust of my potential comments, and in general, will agree.

You say that Luther’s didn’t ‘shut himself up’ and so he wasn’t practicing the worst form of PI, but that, to me at least, is a distinction without a difference. After all, if (according to the early Luther) ALL Christians have the right to ‘judge and reject what the preacher is saying’, then how was that placing limits on the individual such that he couldn’t shut himself up and develop his own personal set of beliefs?

You say that Luther’s sermon ‘presupposes the congregation listening to a preacher’. I don’t see that at all. All that presupposes is that there IS a preacher, but what Luther actually does is take the historic Authority of the preacher and toss it in the dump IF the individual chooses to do so. Of course this ridiculous early teaching ‘evolved’ (or devolved) into Luther Himself having the right to appoint preachers, and eventually to the Lutheran church having the right to appoint the preachers.

In the end, what really happened is that in Revolting against the Church, Luther ‘used’ a means of authority that even today’s Lutherans believe to be illegitimate, and then he gradually replaced much of the Catholic model of the Church with that of his own, with himself at the pinnacle of the power structure.

And I suppose, where we differ is that in some sense I think private interpretation is inevitable. Certainly the “spiral argument” by which some Catholics try to avoid it obviously fails (because the judgments that Scripture is historically accurate and teaches that Jesus founded an authoritative Church are themselves obviously “private judgments,” if they don’t rest on the authority of the Church, which according to the spiral argument they can’t). Saying that a congregation can and should judge whether what the preacher says is orthodox is not perhaps as shocking to me as it is to you.

Private Interpretation is of course inevitable, but then so is heresy. It is the role of the Church to battle that heresy. When you say that it isn’t so shocking to you, and that the individual should judge the orthodoxy of the preacher, that seems to pretty much support PI to me. It may not be all that shocking but the results of it are certainly well known.

But I agree that Luther spoke of it without due caution, of course. He learned caution later, but I agree that he didn’t have a good basis for claiming the authority to tell other people how to interpret Scripture. Again, what authority Luther had always came from the intrinsic power of his ideas. And if only he had been willing to modify and work with those ideas when it was clear that they contradicted Church doctrine, the story of the past 500 years might have been very different. Instead, he threw open a door for everyone to do what he did. We have no disagreement on that point.

Luther actually WAS cautioned, but refused to take the warnings seriously. Furthermore, he didn’t ‘learn caution’ all that readily, only after what had been obvious to others became painfully obvious to him (finally). Personally, I see Luther’s inability to heed those warnings as a huge black mark on his ‘record’ as a Theologian, a black mark which warns us about literally everything that he taught. After all, not many people have the level of theological sophistication needed to sort the wheat from the chaff in Luther’s teachings. Why is it not better for ‘us’ (the 99.5%) to simply believe what the Church teaches automatically view Luther’s teachings with general suspicion? To not do so is to place far too much confidence in ones own PI.

My guess is that all of those things which you find so admirable in Luther’s teachings could have been taught by Luther without rebelling against the doctrines of the Church.

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Annie39]

Topper Edwin wrote: “But I guess I’m not convinced that “models of authority” are the most important issue. This is where I differ pretty strongly from standard Catholic apologetics. I have never found the attempt to reduce everything to “what’s your authority for that” convincing. That leads logically to the conclusion that a Catholic would accept anything at all if taught by the Church, so that the actual power and beauty of Catholicism are irrelevant. I think that’s a monstrous conclusion.”

And you apparently concur. I don’t know what is monstrous about anything at all if taught by the Church. It is Catholic belief that we must accept anything taught by the Church. If Edwin means everything taught by some Catholics in authority then I agee with both of you but anything taught by the Church must be belived.

Annie

 

[Contarini]

Topper Edwin wrote: “But I guess I’m not convinced that “models of authority” are the most important issue. This is where I differ pretty strongly from standard Catholic apologetics. I have never found the attempt to reduce everything to “what’s your authority for that” convincing. That leads logically to the conclusion that a Catholic would accept anything at all if taught by the Church, so that the actual power and beauty of Catholicism are irrelevant. I think that’s a monstrous conclusion.”

And you apparently concur. I don’t know what is monstrous about anything at all if taught by the Church. It is Catholic belief that we must accept anything taught by the Church. If Edwin means everything taught by some Catholics in authority then I agee with both of you but anything taught by the Church must be belived.

Annie

Right, but there are things that you know the Church wouldn’t teach. You know that the Church isn’t going to teach that rape is OK or that killing innocent people is OK or that God doesn’t exist or that there is no Trinity or that Jesus isn’t really :God Incarnate or didn’t rise from the dead.

Some of these things you know by natural law and some you know from Scripture and Tradition. But if the Pope were to come out on the loggia and announce one of those things you would know that either

1. It’s some hoax and that isn’t really Pope Francis, or
2. Pope Francis isn’t really the Pope, or
3. This isn’t a binding doctrinal declaration–the Pope just went crazy or something, or
4. Catholicism is false after all

You wouldn’t (I hope) say

1. Well, I guess something I thought I “knew” isn’t true at all

If you would, then that’s monstrous. And if you wouldn’t, then you do subscribe to a kind of “private interpretation.” You would “judge” that person on the loggia as either not being Pope Francis or not being the true Pope after all or not speaking infallibly (leaving out possibility 4, which may be as impossible for you as 5).

In other words, we can’t simply reduce religious questions to “find the right authority and then follow blindly.” That’s irrational and immoral. Your conviction that the Church is always right and you should always submit goes along with your conviction that the Church teaches certain things and will not suddenly reverse its teaching on those points. It’s content-related, not just “positivistic” to use a term some theologians have used.

Edwin

 

[Annie39]

To prevent this confusion, the term solo scriptura is often used to describe the “Bible only” POV.

Jon

In order to be grammatically correct there would have to be something like solo scripturo.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper: I agree that it was never Luther’s intention to turn the church over to the German princes but in a manor of speaking they welded plenty of power in that they could determine in their area of control what the masses (people) were to believe. So some decided to remain Catholic while others were to accept a Lutheran belief system.

I agree and thanks for the chuckle. If I had a dollar for every time I heard the phrase “It was never Luther’s intention to………” Of course this phrase is always followed by something that Luther did that didn’t turn out all that well. Turning over the Church to the princes is a classic example. Just as important, and in fact the very first two paragraphs of Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus’s book “The Theology of Martin Luther” are as follows:

**“Intensive study of Luther’s theology is particularly rewarding because of his originality. ** The voice with which Luther speaks to us is unmistakably his own. **Luther however, did not intend to say anything particularly original. ** **He felt he was commissioned only to explicate rightly the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures and the dogma of the orthodox church. ** All of his theological work presupposes the authority of Scripture and the derived authority of the genuine tradition of the Church.

We shall begin at this point: All Luther’s theological thinking presupposes the authority of Scripture. His theology is nothing more than an attempt to interpret Scripture. Its form is basically exegeses. **He is no ‘systematician’ in the scholastic sense and he is no dogmatician – either in the sense of the great medieval systems or in the sense of modern theology. He wrote neither a dogmatics, not an ethics, nor a Summa: he never produced anything like Melanchthon’s analyses of individual doctrines or Calvin’s ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion.” Althaus, **“…Theology…” pg. 3

Here Althaus comments that Luther never really intended to teach anything ‘particularly original’. But of course that is exactly what he ended up doing. What is just as important is that even though so many (better) Theologians warned him that his teachings were new and radical, he held, originally, that he was the one who was correctly representing the teachings of the Church and that ALL of them were wrong.

This Althaus quote also addresses one of the most important aspects of Luther’s Revolt, which is as follows:

By what authority, specifically and exactly, did Luther justify his radical teachings in opposition to those of the Church?

Althaus seems to answer this question by explaining that Luther’s ‘authority’ was simply that of a Christian Exegete. In my opinion, this is extremely simplistic, and in fact, is not at all the whole of Luther’s self-proclaimed authority. But, if we pursue this avenue, there is an excellent lesson to be learned.

If Luther’s ‘authority’ was simply that of an Exegete, one among tens of thousands in Christian history, then there should be ample evidence of his ‘superiority’ as an Exegete when compared to all of those other ‘lesser’ Exegetes. Where is that evidence? Do we find it in his extraordinary exegeses on the matter of the Jews, in which he quotes more than 150 passages of Scripture to justify his horrific recommendations? Do we find it in his recommendations on the peasants? What about his recommendation that peaceful Anabaptists be executed by the state? What of ‘reluctant’ wives? What about his call to loot the Catholic Churches? Are these (and many other things) evidence that Luther was an amazing Christian Exegete? Not at all. In fact, these issues, and many others, are evidence of a poor Christian Exegete, to say the very least.

Interestingly, Althaus also mentions that Luther was no ‘systematician’, and in fact, not even a ‘dogmatician’, and yet, he thought enough of his ‘abilities’ to challenge many existing doctrines. The issue of Luther as a ‘Systematic Theologian’ though is one that is very revealing and it seems that we might profit from determining exactly how good a Theologian Luther actually was.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[Annie39]

Right, but there are things that you know the Church wouldn’t teach. You know that the Church isn’t going to teach that rape is OK or that killing innocent people is OK or that God doesn’t exist or that there is no Trinity or that Jesus isn’t really :God Incarnate or didn’t rise from the dead.

Some of these things you know by natural law and some you know from Scripture and Tradition. But if the Pope were to come out on the loggia and announce one of those things you would know that either

1. It’s some hoax and that isn’t really Pope Francis, or
2. Pope Francis isn’t really the Pope, or
3. This isn’t a binding doctrinal declaration–the Pope just went crazy or something, or
4. Catholicism is false after all

You wouldn’t (I hope) say

1. Well, I guess something I thought I “knew” isn’t true at all

If you would, then that’s monstrous. And if you wouldn’t, then you do subscribe to a kind of “private interpretation.” You would “judge” that person on the loggia as either not being Pope Francis or not being the true Pope after all or not speaking infallibly (leaving out possibility 4, which may be as impossible for you as 5).

In other words, we can’t simply reduce religious questions to “find the right authority and then follow blindly.” That’s irrational and immoral. Your conviction that the Church is always right and you should always submit goes along with your conviction that the Church teaches certain things and will not suddenly reverse its teaching on those points. It’s content-related, not just “positivistic” to use a term some theologians have used.

Edwin

Edwin the teaching about infallibility is that the Holy Spirit will protect whichever person is sitting in Peter’s chair from teaching error as binding on the entire Church. I believe this.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin the teaching about infallibility is that the Holy Spirit will protect whichever person is sitting in Peter’s chair from teaching error as binding on the entire Church. I believe this.

So do I, actually.

The question is: are there things that you are confident that person will not teach, or is your confidence content-free?

I would hope that it isn’t content-free. If it is, then you really don’t believe anything at all.

I’m not suggesting that the Pope will teach these horrible things. I’m only suggesting that we both know they are horrible and thus the Pope will not infallibly teach them.

Edwin

 

[Annie39]

Hi Edwin

You: "The question is: are there things that you are confident that person will not teach, or is your confidence content-free?

I would hope that it isn’t content-free. If it is, then you really don’t believe anything at all."

Me: Whatever does that mean???

Annie