When was the belief in the Bible alone first mentioned?

[spina1953]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

I recognize that someone has already responded to what you wrote to me. I am not sure if it is ‘good form’ for me to still answer, but I am going to take a chance anyway.

I think the key here is that Luther didn’t really understand Church teachings very well. As we know, Eck and many others knew that Luther’s 95 Theses could only lead to heretical beliefs. One of the things that Luther didn’t understand well at all was the nature of the Church.

In 1520 Ambrosius Catharinus was asked to write against Luther. In 1521 Luther responded, with anger of course. Richard Marius comments:

**“Catharinus ridiculed Luther’s doctrine of scripture alone. ** He argued that the visible Catholic Church was the receipient of all the promises of Christ to the church. Moreover the church had transmitted over the centuries the truths of God necessary to salvation, given by Christ, passed through the fathers, and continued to the present as a well-known consensus. Scripture was not always clear in itself; it required the church to provide correct definitions of doctrine, and papal supremacy in the church was the cornerstone of the consensus that distinguished true teaching from false. The consensus was not easy; Catharinus defended vigorously the sometimes minute definitions in both theology and the canon law. These, too, were part of God’s revelation, and Christians could not unilaterally reject them. Moreover God had certified the authority of the church miracles that confirmed its teachings. The church contained good and bad members. These would be separated at the day of judgment. But the church was not validated by the purity of its membership. **Rather it received its validity from its historical development of a tradition that left human beings certain about beliefs and practices necessary for salvation. **

This was a powerful argument, calling to its side the witness of history. In it lay embedded the fundamental conviction of Catholic tradition: Without the church to define doctrine, no one could discern between the true and the false. It was well and good to claim the authority of Scripture, but scripture required an interpreter.

Luther took Cathainus seriously enough to reply at length, publishing his counterattack early in April. It was an opportunity for him to think out his doctrine of the church. ** He might have helped his case by writing in a civil tone, given the growing fear that his movement might erupt in violence. But the importance of the argument and his talent for invective got the better of him. The sarcasm of his foe infuriated him, and from the start he threw insults at Catharinus, calling him in various places a Thomast, an *, and, perhaps worst of all – an Italian. …

**A major point made by Catharinus was that a hidden church, one not discernable to the eye and common sense, could not do the work of the church in the world. ** For Catholic polemicists who came after him, the church was a sort of grand sacrament, partaking of human nature in that it showed itself in a visible body animated, like the seven sacraments, by an inner and divine power.” Marius pg. 283-284

We here are reminded of Luther’s habit to insult (or worse), those who disagreed with him. I wonder if Catharinus was so rude as to call Luther a ‘wild boar’, or maybe just a plain domestic bore.

How amazing is it that in 1520, three years after the 95 Theses, and within a year of when he was excommunicated (finally) by the Church, he FINALLY ‘got around’ to thinking about the doctrine (or nature) of the Church. One would think that if one had set himself on a course to destroy the Church, which he did as early as 1518, he would have thought about what he was going to gin up to replace it. But he didn’t.

Someday I am going to start making a list of the (better) Theologians who had (accurately) warned Luther where his radical beliefs were going to lead. I wonder how many there were.

As we saw in the Marius quote, Catharius was a good enough Theologian to know that Sola Scriptura was going to lead to problems. Luther was not.

It would seem that if Luther’s boundless energy and charismatic personality had been harnessed such that he could have worked to correct abuses, he could have been a huge positive force in the Church. But, Luther’s sense of himself did not lend to his being a ‘team player’. What he did provide was the ‘blueprint’ for others to challenge rightful authority, and in fact, to challenge the authority that he presumed himself to have.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

Hi Topper: Anyone can respond to my posts with whatever comments they might have, the more the merrier.

If I remember my history correctly it seems that Luther was rather thrush into teaching theology knowing at first he was not really a teacher. As time went by his head began to swell and thought himself more knowledgeable than the Church. It appears or seems that Luther confused doctrines of faith and morals with abuses that those in the Church at that times were doing. It is a fact that when man is given authority or power one can be tempted to abuse it and of course many in the Church did so. However, there were also those who fought against those abusing their power and authority. What I think and it is only my opinion here is that Luther saw how rich Rome was compared to where he resided and saw monies going to Rome while the region around him was rather poor and led him to attack everything the Catholic Church stood for.
Your comments are I think right on the money and your sources seem to be correct in their research and thinking. SS and PI came from Luther’s rather faulty reasoning it seems to me or at least appears that way.

 

[spina1953]

Certainly they were, but if Luther had just attacked the way indulgences were abused he wouldn’t have kicked up such a stir. And, to be fair, if he had just attacked scholastic theology (which he was doing at the same time, in theses that didn’t get anywhere near the same attention but probably mattered more to him at that point) he wouldn’t have gotten the attention he did either. It was the combination: an attack on things everyone knew were abuses, but with a theological basis that was clearly already rather radical (though nowhere near as radical as his later theology).

The basic problem the Church had with the 95 Theses was Luther’s denial of the idea that the power of the keys applied to purgatory. But an even deeper issue, which became clearer in his later writings, was his belief that any action intended to gain favor with God is counter-productive. In 1517 this took the form of the view that people ought to accuse and “damn” themselves, accepting God’s judgment and even damnation, if they want to be forgiven. Kind of like the passage in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass where Alice has to walk in the opposite direction of the one in which she wants to go. This would later become a more full-blown doctrine of justification by faith alone.

No doubt all three of the figures you mention below did have very big egos, but the “nothing more than” is where I have a problem, just as I had a problem with “merely” in steve b’s post. This is not an insignificant point, contra Topper. When you guys try to reduce the Reformation to the arrogance and egotism of individuals, you are completely missing the point. The ideas of the Protestant Reformers caught on for a reason–indeed many reasons. The intrinsic value of the ideas themselves has to be addressed.

“History” in itself won’t tell you who is a “mediocre” theologian. That’s a theological judgment. And one with which I completely disagree, particularly with regard to Luther. I would say that Luther was Tertullian and Origen combined, both in the sense that he combined the rhetorical skill of one with the imaginative gifts of the other, and in the more unfortunate sense that he pushed the boundaries of orthodoxy like the one and was a truculent, obnoxious schismatic like the other

Edwin

Hi contrini: I agree that had Luther confined himself to how the indulgences were conducted that would have been as you say. however, Luther used it as a stepping board to attack the Church about everything thinking that if the Church was wrong about how it used the indulgences then everything else the Church did and taught was also wrong. He forgot that it was not the doctrines that were wrong but that those in power were abusing their authority and doing what we would say was against doctrines but man is always tempted by power and authority and can end up being abused. Luther, Calvin, and Zwigli all had abused their whatever authority they might have had by thinking that they knew more than the Church but did not separate doctrines from man made abuses.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response and sorry to be so late with mine.

I would disagree with the contention, at least in part. PI infers a near total disregard for the what has been written or spoken in the past by others. Luther did not do that. Even with his sometimes bombastic outbursts, he regularly sites the Fathers. Someone practicing PI doesn’t do that, by definition.

You can attempt to find Luther innocent of SS+PI if you like but you will have to do so in opposition to virtually every Protestant Scholar we have reviewed who has discussed the matter. That would include Mathison, Sproul and McGiffert. As you know there are many others if you would like to continue to contend the point.

“If the early sixteenth century Western Church was in an unstable and volitile condition, Martin Luther was the catalyst that caused it to explode. His conflicts with Rome ignited what is called the Protestant Reformation. The concern here is with only one particular aspect of Luther’s thought – his view of Scripture and tradition, but it is almost impossible to understand why Luther said and did the things he did without some understanding of his personal background and the social and ecclesiastical context in which he found himself………He had been acutely depressed over the prospect of death since his youth……As he began to recite the first words of the mass, terror struck him as he realized his unworthiness to stand before the infinitely holy God………He would confess his sins daily, sometimes for periods as long as six hours, but his torment continued………

We find the first public hints of Luther’s concept of Sola Scriptura at the Leipzig debate between himself and John Eck. At this debate Luther defended the proposition that Scripture was the supreme authority – above the pope and above councils. It was at the Diet of Worms, however, where Luther made his most famous speech regarding the authority of Scripture. After being challenged by the magistrates to repudiate his books and recant his views. Luther said:

“Since then Your Majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and teeth. Unless I am convicted to Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right or safe. God help me. Amen.” Keith Mathison, “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”, pg. 86-94

“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.” R.C. Sproul, (Protestant Theologian) “Knowing Scripture”, pg. 33

“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.

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, (Protestant Theologian) “Knowing Scripture”, pg. 33-4

Jon, these Scholars are against you. It was Luther who ‘brought’ SS+PI to Christianity, other than those earlier who were also judged to be heretics.

 

[Topper17]

**“He really substituted for all external authorities the enlightened conscience of the individual Christian. **The Bible he read for himself and admitted the claim of no council or body of men to read it for him. This, in principle, though he never fully realized it, and seldom acted upon it, meant the right of private judgment in religious things, and in it lay the promise of a new age.” Presbyterian Theologian Arthur Cushman McGiffert, “Martin Luther, the Man and His Work”, pg. 144-5 Ibid

Actually, Luther did use PI all of the time, as evidenced in the 50 doctrines that he refuted or rejected even before his excommunication.

As we have discussed on other occasions, Luther and Lutherans have developed their own unique set of definitions on various things. It would appear that also included is the term “Private Interpretation”. The above authors set PI right at Luther’s feet. However, if you establish (as you might have) a definition of PI which is such that one locks themselves in a room with a Bible and does not listen to any other source, written or oral, then you would be correct - Luther did not practice PI and neither has anyone else in history.

On the other hand if you define PI in a more realistic way, it would mean that one would of course consider a lot of different sources, Tradition, tradition, the Fathers, etc. but that the FINAL decision on matters doctrinal are made by the INDIVIDUAL. That is what Luther did. PI is the denial of the authority of the Church in favor of the authority of the self. If there is a way that you can portray Luther as doing something different than that I would love to see it.

As for Luther not practicing PI because he quoted the Fathers – all of the people who the Church has found guilty of heresy quoted the Fathers. All of the people whom you consider ‘unorthodox’ today all quote the Fathers.

I think the first sentence is precisely the opposite of what I’ve said. But the sentence you responded to specifically referred to quirks, behaviors, arrogance, etc, which frankly have nothing to do with doctrine. And the same standard should be applied toward Catholicism.

What do you mean “the opposite for what I’ve said”? I believe that we need to look at the whole of Luther, including his “quirks, behavior, and arrogance,” and all of his really strange teachings, teachings which were obviously anti-Christian. There is a definite pattern there. His character were the foundation upon which he built his doctrinal beliefs (through his PI BTW). As such it is important to understand his character to determine exactly how it influenced his radical teachings, many of which were un and anti-Christian.

Let’s explore an example. As you know, I claim that Luther was the most hateful theologian in Christian history. If you would like to nominate someone else then please include substance. Luther was extremely hateful towards the Jews, up to and including recommending death for rabbis for the ‘crime’ of teaching the Jewish Faith to Jewish people. Should we not explore the character and mental stability of the man who taught and recommended this? Or rather should we ignore the subject and hope that it will go away?

Character is important, especially in one who took it upon himself to reformulate so much of Christian doctrine.

Christ and his duly appointed Apostles set out the tenets of the Christian Faith in the first century. Since that time, NOBODY has taken on their shoulders anywhere near the authority that Luther did to change Christian doctrine – nobody. If you would like to nominate someone else in this category, bring specifics.

Regarding the bolded, that’s too bad, because ISTM that in the end, the entire idea of apologetics is to put forward a positive presentation of one’s faith, a presentation so positive that someone outside that communion is willing to stop and consider it. OTOH, the apologetics of attack only creates a defensive response, or worse, a response of attack in return. This approach has been the one used between our communions for far too long. Fortunately, that seems to be fading among our leaders and theologians, far quicker than between our apologists.

As for not trying to convince you Jon – I am a realist. I struggle to obtain simple answers to simple questions. What you call ‘attacking’ I call ‘challenging’. I challenge the false popular history of Luther and I reveal the truth, a truth which makes it hard to view Luther as a ‘reformer’. Lutherans don’t like this (as you know) and would prefer to limit the conversation. They would prefer to see Luther depicted in something very close to the false Legend of the man, because they realize that the truth about him points to the weakness of Protestantism.

Both of our communions have ‘professional ecuminists’ who seem to be willing to at least speak as if there has been real progress made. However, there is no real evidence that either party is willing to ‘adjust’ their doctrines. As for your leaders, I point you to Fisk and Harrison.

 

[Topper17]

Agreed, but the personal weaknesses of individuals have nothing to do with it, however. The CC has as its adherents equally sinful people. One can talk about abuses by priests and the cover ups by bishops, or the corruption of popes in the past. I have no interest in “exposing” those kinds of things. Those types of things are not the Catholic Church.

Jon, personal weaknesses have everything to do with it if someone takes it upon their shoulders to challenge and refute dozens of established doctrines. Even Contanini said that Luther was ‘seriously delusional’. Do you want someone who is ‘seriously delusional’ starting new branches of Christianity?

The first section of the Book of Concord contains the three Creeds. It is part of our confessional life and faith. These have existed long before Augsburg. But just as scripture existed before it was compiled, so too did the confessional beliefs of the Lutheran reformers. While our confessions may not have been completely codified until 1580, that certainly doesn’t mean that the basic understanding of faith which we hold was not there.

As we have seen in various quotes, after about Leipzig, Luther had nothing to guide him but the Scriptures and his PI. What he developed with his PI over the next 5-6 years, including the refutation of 50 or so important doctrines, became the basis for Lutheranism and much of the rest of Protestantism, including your Confessions.

In other words, Lutheranism as a whole, and specifically your Confessions, were based originally on the foundation of Luther’s Private Interpretations. Obviously the Confessions were fleshed but Luther’s PI is underneath it all, providing the overall structure for belief. You say that the basic understanding for faith was there before 1580 and that is true, but that basic understanding is based on Luther ‘s PI. Given the fact that Lutherans don’t believe in the use of PI for doctrinal matters, it seems that Lutheranism here has a massive contradiction in it’s own history and founding.

And yet you rarely reference the Catholic faith or teaching (this isn’t meant as a personal attack, but an observation). Apologetics is a defense of the faith one believes in. ISTM that first and foremost, one should speak about their own faith, and why it is correct, far more often than speaking in a negative way about the other.

That would be your personal opinion (PO). Would it be one that in this case is self-serving? Would you like to convince me to stop revealing the truth about the historical facts about Luther and his career? Would you like people to think that revealing that truth is ‘unfair’? Of course.

I would consider it an invalid way of conducting apologetics if the one spends virtual all of their time approaching a topic from the direction of attacking another, particularly when the attack is personal. Luther and Leo are both dead, long ago. A Lutheran cannot defend my faith by attacking the latter, and a Catholic cannot defend theirs only by attacking the former.

Direct question – Is it ‘unfair’ to quote Lutheran and other Protestant Scholars on the things Luther that are critical of the man? Or as it seems, are you suggesting that there would be a percentage or a ratio of things negative and things positive that would be acceptable?

For the record, Leo didn’t start his own version of Christianity, didn’t reformulate dozens of Christian doctrines and didn’t unleash SS+PI onto Western Christendom. As such he is about 1/1000th as significant an historical figure. Whatever his personal quirks, Leo’s did not have anything like marks that Luther’s did on Western civilization.

And this is why, quite honestly, dialogue with you is difficult for me, because I do not believe that this approaches anything more than hardening of divisions. It isn’t a defense of my faith to attack the personalities or peccadilloes of Catholics from that era. I completely disagree with the apporach.

The focus is not on Luther’s ‘personality’ but on his validity as a Theologian and as a ‘Reformer’. As you well know, this is a much more serious challenge than anything possibly could be in regards to anything related to his personality. My contention is that he was a poor Theologian and should not be trusted as someone to rebuke and reformulate so much of Christian doctrine. Certainly you cannot believe that Luther’s credibility as a Theologian is an inconsequential issue.

You should try to discredit my communion’s teachings by proving the positive from a Catholic viewpoint: that your understanding of the catholic faith is true. That also requires that one accepts what the other says about their teaching.

First of all, your confessions are full of attempts to discredit the Catholic Church so I am not exactly sure what to make of your complaint. I am fully aware that you would prefer that I not ever mention Martin Luther again. For the record it was a Lutheran who many years ago suggested that I study the man. Boy was I shocked when I did. You don’t want people to be shocked like that?

All that being said, Jon, what percentage of my posts might I be allowed to use to criticize or point out the facts about Luther? Please be specific.

By this time you should know that I am not going to be ‘talked out’ of revealing the truth about Luther.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Goya]

Hi Edwin,

…

Given that so many warned him, it absolutely cannot be said that he was foolish in ‘hindsight’. That word portrays an extremely ‘inaccurate’ impression and obviously I take issue with the use of that word.

Careful…you might be taking us down another ‘merely’/‘hindsight’ rabbit hole.

My ‘issue’ with it however, is that it casts the resulting disunity as accidental, rather than by design, premeditated, and intentional.

Luther’s intent was always–at least from either before or very soon after he nailed his 95 theses–to tear the Church that Christ founded, apart, and restructure it–with him, as its new head. He thought very highly of himself.

I don’t see how anyone could venerate this egocentric narcissist as a ‘holy man’. IMO, Luther’s legacy is far more akin to Mohammed’s, Joseph Smith’s, L. Ron Hubbard’s, and Charles Taze Russell’s, than to those of the Saints.

He established his own church–he did not help or advance the one that Christ founded, established, and bequeathed to us.

Quite the contrary, in fact–more than the above mentioned founders of their own religions, who detracted potential souls from Christ’s church…Luther actually led millions of existing souls from within and already part of Christ’s Church, away from it.

Perhaps it’s just my own Hispanic heritage influenced perspective, but it seems to me to be far more than mere coincidence, that the numbers of Christians lost to Luther’s revolution, were shortly replenished, by the founding of the new world, and the ensuing evangelization of it. It seems rather apparent to me, to have been the Holy Spirit at work, in leading Queen Isabel to trust Christopher Columbus, to finance his maiden voyage…

…and the involvement of Our Lady of Gudalupe in that context, also seems very telling.

The Serpent strikes…the Woman steps on the serpent’s head, with her heel.

JMHO.

 

[JonNC]

For the record, I would love for Jon and GKC and all the others to convert. However, I object to the idea that it would be methat would convert them, which is sort of what your comment infers. If they are to convert it will be the work of the Holy Spirit, not an apologist.

That does not mean that what we do has no influence, because I think it does. I think of it more like planting seeds that have to land on fertile ground, and if germinated, must be allowed to grow into a mature plant. I think that we Apologists (of all stripes) should be more in the business of provoking thought, offering alternative ways of thinking about things, and also providing information that may not have been known by others previously.

In other words, it is not my job to ‘convince’ someone to convert. ** It is on the other hand my job as a Catholic Apologist to provide people with reasons which they might choose to reflect upon and might make a difference along with a lot of other things in a potential ‘swim’. I doubt if I have explained this well but hope that you understand. **

And the bolded will never come from the style of apologetics that offers no alternative. IOW, I could never convince a person of converting from, say, Calvinism, if I never speak of what Lutheranism teaches in a positive way, but only speak of how terrible Calvin was. This negative approach only does, and has always done, two things: 1)creates a defensive reaction in that Calvinist, who after all, has view Calvin in a positive way for all the time he/she has been in that communion, 2) offers no positive alternative upon which to latch.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12088608]

You can attempt to find Luther innocent of SS+PI if you like but you will have to do so in opposition to virtually every Protestant Scholar we have reviewed who has discussed the matter. That would include Mathison, Sproul and McGiffert. As you know there are many others if you would like to continue to contend the point.

Please state where I have done this. The fact is I have not. My point was clearly that what is typically thought of as PI today is not what was happening in the Reformation era, just as what the Lutheran reformers of the first and second generation thought of as sola scriptura is not what one commonly finds today in some evangelical settings.
And since you mentioned the name Mathison, he makes such a differentiation.

The Reformation debate over sola Scriptura did not occur in a vacuum. It was the continuation of a long-standing medieval debate over the relationship between Scripture and tradition and over the meaning of “tradition” itself. In the first three to four centuries of the church, the church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was understood to be the Old Testament together with the Apostolic doctrine, which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the regula fidei (“rule of faith”), yet neither the church nor the regula fidei were considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the regula fidei was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God. Heiko Oberman (1930-2001) has termed this one-source concept of revelation “Tradition 1.”
The first hints of a two-source concept of tradition, a concept in which tradition is understood to be a second source of revelation that supplements biblical revelation, appeared in the fourth century in the writings of Basil and Augustine. Oberman terms this two-source concept of tradition “Tradition 2” (Professor Oberman had many gifts. The ability to coin catchy labels was apparently not one of them). It is not absolutely certain that either Basil or Augustine actually taught the two-source view, but the fact that it is hinted at in their writings ensured that it would eventually find a foothold in the Middle Ages. This would take time, however, for throughout most of the Middle Ages, the dominant view was Tradition 1, the position of the early church. The beginnings of a strong movement toward Tradition 2 did not begin in earnest until the twelfth century. A turning point was reached in the fourteenth century in the writings of William of Ockham. He was one of the first, if not the first, medieval theologian to embrace explicitly the two-source view of revelation. From the fourteenth century onward, then, we witness the parallel development of two opposing views: Tradition 1 and Tradition 2. It is within the context of this ongoing medieval debate that the Reformation occurred.

When the medieval context is kept in view, the Reformation debate over sola Scriptura becomes much clearer. The reformers did not invent a new doctrine out of whole cloth. They were continuing a debate that had been going on for centuries. They were reasserting Tradition 1 within their particular historical context to combat the results of Tradition 2 within the Roman Catholic Church. The magisterial reformers argued that Scripture was the sole source of revelation, that it is to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it is to be interpreted within the context of the regula fidei. They insisted on returning to the ancient doctrine, and as Tradition 1 became more and more identified with their Protestant cause, Rome reacted by moving toward Tradition 2 and eventually adopting it officially at the Council of Trent. (Rome has since developed a view that Oberman has termed “Tradition 3,” in which the “Magisterium of the moment” is understood to be the one true source of revelation, but that issue is beyond the scope of this brief essay).

Mathison’s point directly contradicts your constant apologia that Luther, on his own, invented the approach Lutherans today use toward scripture, later termed sola scriptura.
Later he contrasts it with what the pop view of sola scriptura is, and what Luther is incoorectly accused of inventing out of whole cloth.

continued

 

[JonNC]

At the same time the magisterial reformers were advocating a return to Tradition 1 (sola Scriptura), several radical reformers were calling for the rejection of both Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 and the adoption of a completely new understanding of Scripture and tradition. They argued that Scripture was not merely the only infallible authority but that it was the only authority altogether. The true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei were rejected altogether. According to this view (Tradition 0), there is no real sense in which tradition has any authority. Instead, the individual believer requires nothing more than the Holy Spirit and the Bible.

In America during the eighteenth century, this individualistic view of the radical Reformation was combined with the rationalism of the Enlightenment and the populism of the new democracy to create a radical version of Tradition 0 that has all but supplanted the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura (Tradition 1). This new doctrine, which may be termed “solo” Scriptura instead of sola Scriptura, attacks the rightful subordinate authority of the church and of the ecumenical creeds of the church. Unfortunately, many of its adherents mistakenly believe and teach others that it is the doctrine of Luther and Calvin.

All but supplanted, except in confessional Lutheran communions, that continue to practice sola scriptura as was the practice of the early Lutheran reformers, and prior!

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=19

Now, to me, the argument is mere background information, but it is obvious that scholars may differ on the roots and foundations of using scripture as the final norm by the Church. It is also clear that the individualistic personal interpretation you speak of, and wish to lay at the feet on Luther, only Luther, and exclusively Luther is not what was happening at the time. Lutheran theologian J.M Reu writes, in his book *Luther and the Scriptures *:

“It stands to reason that Luther’s attitude toward the scriptures would be influenced by the fact that he studied theology in the cloister at Erfurt, Erfurt and Vienna were the chef exponents of the via moderna ,i.e., of Occamism, and that he also became an adherent of this trend of thought, especially also because of Collectorium of the Occamist Gabriel Biel was one of the most important textbooks studied by the young Luther. The Occamists, however, emphasized the authority of Scripture more strongly than did other Middle-age theologians, though none of the latter denied it.”

From what I know, William of Occam died around 1350, long before Luther’s arrival. I also know that he and his followers (Occamists), including Biel, were Catholics. It was Catholics who influenced Luther’s strong reliance on scripture.

Sola scriptura is not something Luther dreamed up on his own, and the solo scriptura practiced by later communions is not Luther’s idea at all, as it is entirely different.

As for the OP question, “Can I get a quote of the first time that belief in the Bible alone was mentioned? Was Martin Luther the first one to believe it, or did someone before Martin Luther believe in following the Bible alone?”, it seems Reu and Mathison answer it.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin,

It’s not being blasé so much as it is boredom. You have made your point over and over and over again. I get it. I actually agree with your basic point to some extent but am really tired of it.

It wasn’t about one word. It was about the claim that an entire key Protestant doctrine can be boiled down to Luther’s arrogance.

In addition, this ‘attack the Luther attacker’ tactic is rather trite.

I think that attacking people in a personal way is always trite. Sometimes, as you have pointed out, I fall into doing it, alas.

Trying to dismiss Protestantism by attacking Luther is about as trite as it gets. It was one of the first tactics Catholic polemicists hit on, and it was a standard approach for several centuries. It’s equivalent to Protestants rattling off a list of bad popes as if that discredited Catholicism. (And if you say, “Catholicism doesn’t rest on the moral quality of popes,” of course you are right. But similarly, Protestantism doesn’t rest on the personality of Luther.)

However, correcting misrepresentations is never trite. That is what I was doing. Because you are “bored” by this, I am justified in saying that you do not seem to care about accuracy in itself as much as you care about keeping the focus on what you think are the “right” things.

Over the years I have seen Lutherans do this hundreds of times. In an effort to take the focus off of Luther and some historical fact about him

What historical fact am I supposedly trying to distract attention from? I am happy to discuss any historical fact you like about Luther, although probably both of us should try harder to keep this thread on topic.

Lutherans will often try to make the questioner of Luther the focus of attention. The reason that they do this, as you have ably demonstrated, is that it works.

You need to be less hostile and defensive. I am not trying to keep the focus on you or steve b. I am just trying to make sure that wildly inaccurate statements don’t get a pass on this forum and thus get accepted by lurkers as if they were accurate. The easy way to keep the focus of you is to be as accurate as possible, not defend inaccuracy, and not spend post after post attacking me for my criticism of steve’s inaccuracy, as you have done.

Rather than discussing Luther’s early stated desire to destroy the Church

To destroy scholasticism and canon law. I have asked you several times whether you identify the Church with scholasticism and canon law, and you have not responded.

, we have been taken down a rabbit hole that is not 1/10,000,000th as important. That rabbit hole though is extremely important if the goal is to cause people to ‘watch the other hand’ and focus on some supposed wrong doing of some Catholic.

This isn’t about personalities or “wrong doing.” It’s about keeping the record straight.

I will make sure to point it out the next time it happens.

But has it happened even once in this thread so far?

That being said, there are many here who have a definite reluctance to accept as valid ANY, criticism of Martin Luther.

Who?

Specifically, we have not seen anybody (Protestant) be able to accept the fact that it was Luther who introduced SS+PI into Western Christianity, and how destructive they have been to Christian unity and this is in spite of what the Scholars say.

In spite of what scholars? I don’t know what you mean by that.

I pointed out that in the same letter to Trutvetter you cite Luther claimed to have learned his ideas about Scripture from Trutvetter. I provided a possible explanation for this: Luther is talking about the positive principle of the sufficiency of Scripture, which was indeed maintained in some form by many scholastics. Sola scriptura is simply what happens when you take that principle and remove the authority of the Church. Luther was certainly not the first person in the Middle Ages to deny the authority of the Church. Therefore, you have not made your case that Luther introduced sola scriptura. And you have admitted that Luther himself did not self-consciously maintain something that could reasonably be called “private interpretation.” We both agree that Luther did, in fact, practice private interpretation. But again, he was hardly the first person to do so. That’s basically what heresy is–setting up your private theological views against the teaching of the Church. If that’s all “PI” is, it predates Luther. But if “PI” means the view that a person’s individual theological views are sacred just because they are his/her own, then that is not something Luther ever taught. It would not become a common Protestant principle until the seventeenth century, in my opinion.

Furthermore, you have completely ignored so far the “Reformed” tradition of Protestantism, which was really a wide coalition of reformers, originally based in Switzerland and southern Germany, who accepted some of Luther’s ideas but disagreed with others (Zwingli, Bucer, Oecolampadius, etc.). These guys emphasized sola scriptura as a formal principle more than Luther did. They didn’t believe in it because of Luther. (Sola fide is more complicated: Zwingli claimed to have come up with it independently, but there’s no clear documentation of this that I know of, and at any rate his version was a bit different.) For them, as for Luther, it seemed self-evident. It was the upshot of questioning the hierarchical church and its traditions of scholasticism and canon law while maintaining the authority of Scripture (and the much lesser and more qualified authority of the Fathers, who were a good deal more important for the Reformed than for Luther, in my opinion).

 

[Contarini]

And yet you have indicated that you were also taught that (false) legend.

There’s no “and yet.” I said that I have my own ideas of it, but they may not be the same as yours. I’m not claiming ignorance of a “Luther Legend.” On the contrary, I know of quite a few. The one I’m personally most concerned about, because it’s current among educated, scholarly folks and falsely claims the aegis of my own doctoral advisor, David Steinmetz, is the idea that Luther was really a pretty conservative, traditional theologian and that all his ideas were solidly based in the pre-Reformation tradition. That is, as you and I agree, a load of nonsense. But a lot of people who ought to know better repeat it gravely. And then there’s the older “Whig” narrative in which Luther is the brave hero who introduced individual liberty and “private interpretation” into the world. My problem with you is not that you attack that narrative, but that you seem to believe it, in a negative form

To summarize – Luther was: extremely intelligent, an excellent theologian and Scriptural exegete, very well educated, very wise, tolerant, kind, focused on abuses, etc. (Anything good he was it and anything bad was what he wasn’t).

That’s so vague as hardly even to be a legend.

But your vision of the “Legend” confirms what I’ve been saying–that your focus is on showing that Luther was a bad person. That won’t disrupt Protestantism.

Protestants do tend to admire Luther (not all do, of course). But they don’t believe the things they do because of a “Luther Legend.” They project onto Luther the things they already believe. Conservative Protestant intellectuals who want to promote “paleo-orthodoxy” and the “Great Tradition” find in Luther a conservative theologian. More radical/fundamentalist Protestants find in him the hero of sola scriptura and private interpretation. Liberals find in him the guy who maintained individual conscience against the Church (though this misinterpretation is less common than it used to be). And so on. They would believe the things they believe anyway.

I said that: “Luther actually thought that once people had been ‘broken loose’ from the chains that bound them to Rome, and had been ‘exposed’ to his interpretations of Scripture (actually his PI), they would all see things from his perspective. He believed that Scripture was ‘clear’ enough that everyone would agree (with him). That was incredibly foolish.”

Then you said that ‘in hindsight, yes (he was incredibly foolish). Hindsight?

**There were at least a couple of dozen Theologians who had enough foresight to be able to accurately warn Luther that he was headed towards heresy. **They also warned him that his beliefs on Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation were going to lead to doctrinal divisions. Given that he was warned repeatedly, and refused to heed those very wise warnings, he was not foolish in ‘hindsight’. If he had ANY foresight he would have known that his teachings were going to cause disunity, but he apparently had absolutely none.

This is a really good point. Contra Goya, your picking on a single word of mine won’t take us down a rabbit hole, precisely because I think single words are important and I’m quite willing to admit that I often pick them badly

I didn’t mean that no one at the time could see that this was a bad idea. I meant only that a lot of very bright, very earnest, very pious young intellectuals across Europe had a lot of trouble seeing that it was a bad idea. There’s a reason for that. I wrote my doctoral dissertation on Martin Bucer, who was a young Dominican at Heidelberg when Luther came to hold a theological disputation there in 1518. Bucer wrote a letter to a humanist friend, Beatus Rhenanus, talking excitedly about this wonderful new theologian who was like Erasmus but more outspoken. Bucer had been put into the Dominican Order by his grandfather because (as a lower-middle-class person) he could get a good education there. He had been teaching the young friars Erasmus as a supplement to the official courses in Thomism, which he disliked. He, like many other young intellectuals across Europe, was already convinced that the Church badly needed renewal through a return to the Scriptures and the early Church, and that if people started doing that the corruptions of the institutional Church and the legalistic intricacies of scholasticism and canon law would just wither away. Luther was the “right” man at the “right” time. That part of the legend is basically true.

When theologians who were deeply involved in the official structures of the Curia and the universities and the religious orders intoned that this was all dangerous heresy and would lead to all kinds of horrible consequences, the “evangelicals” (to use the term they used for themselves) understandably rolled their eyes and said, in effect, “Of course they would say that–they are trying to stifle the light of the Word.” One would think they might have listened to Erasmus, but they thought he was too old and cowardly. And here we are.

Given that so many warned him, it absolutely cannot be said that he was foolish in ‘hindsight’. That word portrays an extremely ‘inaccurate’ impression and obviously I take issue with the use of that word.

I can see why, and I thank you for challenging me on that. I only meant that I can empathize with the excitement Luther and the other “evangelicals” felt, and I can understand why they found it hard to see at the time that the stodgy establishment types (or the “timorous” older humanists) who warned them of the consequences of what they were doing were actually on to something.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

That’s great. So tell me, what have you written about Luther and the Reformation. I would like to read it.

Not much. I didn’t say that I was a particularly eminent or accomplished church historian. I don’t have the kinds of publications that matter in the scholarly world (monographs and peer-reviewed articles). I’ve written brief entries for a couple of reference works (the Encyclopedia of Protestantism and the Westminster Handbook to Theologies of the Reformation ). I also have an essay on Martin Bucer’s interpretation of Romans in the volume .Reformation Readings of Romans
I’ve written a lot of articles for the popular (i.e., non-scholarly) magazine Christian History. I’m going to be the scholar-advisor for the four issues they’re planning on the Reformation to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the 95 Theses (at least, that’s the plan–my wife assures me that the guy who owns the company that publishes the magazine is very ecumenical and won’t have a problem with having a Catholic on board, but I can’t help thinking that some of the readers are going to be upset and discern, rightly, that my theological views have some impact on how I’m structuring the series, although I’m doing my best to be fair).

If you are ‘in transition’ are you changing employment?

I lost my job at Huntington University two years ago due to a budget shortfall. I wish I could claim that I was fired for becoming Catholic, which for years I thought I might be. But I was too cowardly/indecisive and managed to persuade myself not to. Then I lost the job anyway. Right now I am a stay-at-home parent and freelance writer, especially for Christian History (where my wife is the managing editor, so she uses me as a “pinch hitter”–my last piece was on the concept of vocation in the Middle Ages).

I would agree your comments about the trees and the forest, but only as long as one doesn’t get too focused on one leaf on one tree that one looses perspective in regards to the forest.

Indeed. I have explained a number of times why the leaf called “merely” was important.

Over the years I have come to understand that Lutheran apologists find my comments about Luther to be totally relevant. Relevant to the point where they chastise me with great zeal. You have even mentioned that Luther was called a ‘wild boar’ as if that accusation was of some importance.

Only because someone (I think you, but it doesn’t matter) had claimed that the papal responses to Luther were courteous and dignified.

I think your continual emphasis on rhetorical style and who is being nicer to whom is very unhelpful. You have claimed that Lutheran apologists “attack the attacker” as a distraction technique. Suppose, then, that both of us renounce such unworthy tactics from here on? I certainly haven’t done so on purpose, but it’s easy to get personal inadvertently in the heat of controversy. Let’s not be like those nasty Lutheran apologists. Let’s talk about the substantive issues

Let’s be honest, if we wanted to understand Luther vs the Jews, we would NOT go to Bainton.

I don’t remember what Bainton said on that subject for sure, but I think it was the standard “early Luther nice/old Luther nasty” that Oberman debunked?

I see both Bainton and Brecht as ‘droolers’,

Contemptuous language doesn’t do much for the conversation (and no, the fact that Luther did it doesn’t make it OK, as you shouldn’t need to be told).

always ready to ‘find the best’ in their hero.

A hermeneutic of charity is nothing to ridicule. The problem with Brecht, and to a lesser extent Bainton, is that they don’t extend the same charity to Catholics. (Brecht, for instance, takes at face value Luther’s claim that he never saw a Bible in the Augustinian convent, which is absurd)

Marius accuses Bainton of this exactly. Oberman is not as bad. As for the ones that I like – Marius of course, Grisar, (Lutheran) Kittleson.

I haven’t read Kittelson’s biography of Luther that I remember, but I’m surprised that you like him given how confessionally biased his book on Strasbourg was. However, his piece for Christian History some years ago on Luther was much better than Oberman’s contribution (both of these pieces are up for consideration for inclusion in the new Reformation series, and I’m supposed to make recommendations–it’s hard, because Oberman is a scholar I respect and was my advisor’s advisor, but the particular piece under consideration, on Luther’s pilgrimage to Rome, is a terrible example of taking Luther’s later reminiscences at face value).

 

[Contarini]

Although not biographies, I like anything by McGrath, anything by Edwards or Ozment.

Ozment, like my advisor Steinmetz, studied with Oberman. Ozment’s book on the urban Reformation accepts the common Protestant idea that Luther’s experience (burdened conscience, etc.) was typical of ordinary people in the early sixteenth century. Steinmetz thought–and I agree–that this isn’t supported by the evidence.

I also like (Lutheran) Kolb on Luther.

Do you know his book Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, Hero, on how Lutherans have portrayed Luther?

I am also quite partial to (Lutheran) Schweibert’s excellent tome of a biography. What is your impression of Schweibert?

I haven’t read him.

It seems odd to me that you would admit that your ‘friend’ was ‘seriously delusional’ and then criticize Marius for his belief that Luther was driven by fear. If you can recognize Luther’s problems from 500 years downstream, why can’t Marius chip in his opinion? Or me for that matter?

Because I think Marius is wrong. He’s reading his modern concerns into Luther, as I’ve said several times before. He takes sixteenth-century jeremiads about unbelief literally and paints a picture of a society continually doubting the existence of God and the truth of the Christian faith, and then argues that Luther struggled with that kind of doubt. I just don’t see evidence for this.

And you’re making too much of “seriously delusional.” I should just have said “really, really wrong.” I didn’t mean he was psychotic, only that he had some completely unrealistic beliefs.

Actually Marius had a degree in Divinity, and had a MA and a PhD in Reformation History, from Yale no less. As you know he taught at Harvard.

I wasn’t attacking his qualifications, but his conclusions. His picture of the sixteenth century isn’t convincing.

Are you an equal admirer of his biography of St. Thomas More?

No dispute he was an excellent writer. May he rest in peace.

You’re also right about the reaction to his book, although I think the reaction was more justified than you believe it to be (still clearly excessive, though). I was copy editor for the journal Church History at the time (a scholarly journal and not the same thing as Christian History Magazine, and we had a review panel on the book–i.e., three essays all reviewing the same book. The contributors were supposed to be Oberman, Kittelson, and Brecht, but we had to pull Brecht’s article because it was so vitriolic. (Oberman and Kittelson weren’t favorable either, but they more or less stayed within the bounds of decency.) Marius had just died, and that affected the editors’ decision to pull Brecht’s article.

If it serves your purposes to poison the well in this manner then all you are really doing is exposing your biases.

I’m not poisoning the well. I’m telling the truth about your approach as I see it. I appreciate that you are very well read on Luther (you’ve read some things I haven’t, like Scheibert), but your polemical agenda doesn’t allow you to empathize with Luther or take his ideas seriously. Your Catholic faith doesn’t require this of you (unless you think that Pope Emeritus Benedict is a bad Catholic).

From my perspective, I am finding this dialogue with a newly stated Catholic to be rather schizophrenic, and in fact, I am beginning to wonder about underlying motives.

As you know, when I first read this I was pretty angry, and also sardonically amused at your indignation concerning my supposed “personal attacks,” given how nasty the above remarks are and now snide your tone has consistently been. But I get why you feel compelled to see things that way. And I’m sorry for you.

God bless,

Edwin

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

“History” in itself won’t tell you who is a “mediocre” theologian. That’s a theological judgment. And one with which I completely disagree, particularly with regard to Luther. I would say that Luther was Tertullian and Origen combined, both in the sense that he combined the rhetorical skill of one with the imaginative gifts of the other, and in the more unfortunate sense that he pushed the boundaries of orthodoxy like the one and was a truculent, obnoxious schismatic like the other

First of all, you compare Luther to Turtullian and Origen, one of whom became a full blown heretic and the other is still suspected today of holding heretical beliefs. Neither of them are Saints or Doctors of the Church. Fort the record, according to the Church, Luther didn’t ‘push’ the boundaries of orthodoxy, he sailed right on past them with great velocity. In addition, he was not an ‘obnoxious schismatic’ but rather was judged to be an actual heretic.

You state that history cannot tell us who is a ‘mediocre theologian’. I disagree. If what you say is true then nobody could ever make an objective assessment of the theological capabilities of anyone. I would suggest that the actual historical facts of the career of a Theologian could, and in Luther’s case, DO tell us whether he was a good Theologian.

First of all, in order for someone to be considered to be a ‘good Theologian’, you should be able to expect them to know the subject of Theology correctly. In the case of a Catholic Theologian, we should be expect that that person would actually know Catholic Theology. In Luther’s case, since he was a Catholic monk, priest, Doctor of Theology, AND a Catholic Professor of Theology, we have every right to expect that he SHOULD have understood Catholic Theology very well.

We should also expect anyone who takes it upon themselves to rebuke and reformulate dozens of Catholic doctrines to know well specifically and exactly what it was that he was rebuking. In this respect, we have the record of history to show us whether we can consider Luther to be a ‘good Theologian’.

As we know, in the beginning of his revolt against the Catholic Church, Luther was warned by many, many (many), (better) Catholic Theologians that his teachings were not in line with Catholic teaching. For at least the first two years he contended that HE was the one who was correctly representing historic Catholic teaching and that ALL of them were mistaken. In other words, according to the Luther of 1517-19, ALL of those Theologians were wrong Catholic teaching and he alone (Solo Marto) was right. Many respected Scholars of all stripes document Luther’s extremely poor understanding of Catholic teaching during this period (and of course before).

In regards to Luther’s ‘interview’ with Cardinal Cajetan in late 1518:

“……on 13 October……(Luther) confessed that he was not conscious of teaching anything contrary to the Scriptures, the church fathers, the canon law, or the correct faith, but that instead he considered his views sound, true, and catholic.” Brecht, Vol. 1, pg. 254

Interestingly, Lutheran Professor, E. G. Schweibert describes Cajetan as being ‘the greatest theologian in Rome’. Brecht says that “Cajetan was one of the most educated theologians in Rome at the time.” Vol. 1, pg. 246-7. Brecht also informs us that “In his (Cajetan’s) eyes, Luther was setting about establishing a new church.” Vol. 1, pg. 250.

Writing as a then Lutheran, Jaroslav Pelikan:

“The pope excommunicated him and condemned justification by faith alone. As far as Luther was concerned, the pope had thereby also condemned the gospel. And so, in Luther’s eyes, it was Rome that had left Luther, and not Luther who had left Rome. As long as the Roman Church would tolerate the gospel it remained the church for Luther, despite its error. But when it condemned the gospel and forced Luther out, it became sectarian. If, as Luther maintained, the church is where the Gospel is, then it followed that by condemning the gospel Rome was condemning the church. It was in this spirit, and not primarily in the spirit of boasting, **that Luther said of Worms: ‘Then I was the church!’ **Because he was contending for the gospel and the gospel made the church and Rome condemned the gospel, Rome condemned the church as represented in this case by the church’s loyal servant, Martin Luther. **Luther believed that he was standing for the same gospel for which the church had stood before it became corrupt and condemned him. Thus Rome turned its back on the church, while Luther remained with the church. Such was Luther’s interpretation of what happened when he severed his relations with Rome.” ** “Obedient Rebels”, pg. 18

Of course this was written before the brilliant and insightful Pelikan ‘severed his relations with Lutheranism’. Cont, you used the term ‘seriously delusional’, but this goes past that doesn’t it?

Of course history tell us that Luther never really could identify the specific time when the Church had gone off the rails doctrinally. In fact, if I remember correctly, he kept pushing the date back towards Pentecost in his later years as he added to his poor knowledge of the Fathers.

 

[Topper17]

Lutheran Professor Schweibert addresses the exact topic of the OP:

“The exact date when Luther began to accept the principal of Sola Scriptura cannot be determined, but it was probably during his first year of teaching at the University of Wittenberg, 1508 to 1509.” Schweibert, pg. 158.

This is stunning. Here we learn of the possibility of Luther beginning to deny the authority of the Church even before he was awarded as Biblical Baccalaureate and Sententiarius degree and possibly 4 years before achieving his Doctorate.

Also in regards to Luther’s ‘interview’ with Cajetan:

“**Luther appeared humble in the beginning but became surprised when he heard stated for the first time from one of the princes of the Church, the theological ideas that he rejected as un-Christian and therefore considered excluded from the thinking of the leaders of the Church. **He was stubborn and not without pride in the superior theology of Wittenberg.” Holborn, pg, 134.

In other words, Luther considered himself to be a superior Theologian to all of those who up to that point had told him that his was treading on heretical ground. They were simply mistaken because he knew better than they did. But shock of shocks, a man of Cajetan’s caliber is also wrong! That could mean that the whole church is wrong (because they disagree with me).

“It had not been his (Luther’s) “will or intention” to elevate his own private theological concerns to the status of doctrinal issues affecting the entire church, and **he long professed the conviction that what he had “discovered” was something that the best theologians of the church must have known all along. ****The eventual realization that such was not the case precipitated his theology into the public forum of the church, both through his condemnations of those teachings into official confessional statements during and after his own lifetime.” ** Pelikan, “Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700)”, 1984, pg. 127.

How is it possible that Luther could be so poorly informed as to the facts of Catholic teaching? One factor could be lack of knowledge about the Fathers during the early portion of his revolt:

“**According to his (Luther’s) knowledge of early Christian literature, there was a sizeable gap in time between the writers of the New Testament and the earliest Church Fathers. Luther regarded Tertullian, who died in 230, as the earliest writer in the church after the apostles……he apparently did not know the writers who later acquired the title “apostolic fathers”. **He was therefore, able to invoke the historical and chronological argument in a form no longer available to theologians of the twentieth century.” Pelikan, “Luther the Expositor”, pg. 84.

This is astonishing. Here we learn that the ‘early Luther’ the one who had enough confidence in his own abilities to break with the Church didn’t know even of the existence of any of the 17 Early Church Fathers who proceeded Turtullian.

As we have learned from the above quotes (and there are many more), Martin Luther was not an ‘excellent Theologian’, he was not a ‘good Theologian’ and he was not a ‘fair theologian’. He was however a Theologian. Had he been even a poor Theologian, he would have known what everybody but him knew during the early portion of his Revolt – that his beliefs were far outside of Catholic orthodoxy.

We are left here with the fact that Lutheranism and the Protestant ‘reformation’ was founded by a man who was not a ‘good Theologian’. His understanding of his own faith and of the Fathers was very poor. It was on that poor understanding that Luther developed his criticisms of that which he didn’t understand well at all.

It was on the basis of Luther’s and knowledge and ‘abilities’ as a Theologian that Lutheranism and Protestantism were founded. Contrary to your statement, History in itself actually CAN tell you who was a “mediocre” theologian.

God Bless You Cont, Topper

 

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin,

First of all, you compare Luther to Turtullian and Origen, one of whom became a full blown heretic and the other is still suspected today of holding heretical beliefs. Neither of them are Saints or Doctors of the Church.

That’s deliberate on my part. I’m not sure why you would think that I believe Luther to be a saint or a Doctor of the Church.

Fort the record, according to the Church, Luther didn’t ‘push’ the boundaries of orthodoxy, he sailed right on past them with great velocity. In addition, he was not an ‘obnoxious schismatic’ but rather was judged to be an actual heretic.

That was kind of my point in comparing him to the two combined. Luther was a schismatic as well as a heretic. I have a somewhat different estimation of just how heretical he was than you do, and I’m basing my opinion on respected Catholic theologians like Fr. Louis Bouyer (in The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism) and Pope Emeritus Benedict, who very much respects Luther as a theologian.

Obviously Luther and Origen lived in different times and doctrine was more developed in Luther’s day, and Luther’s “Tertullian” side made a big difference (i.e., Origen accepted the authority of the Church and was completely faithful to defined doctrine as it existed in his day–more like Contarini than Luther, but much more profound and inventive than Contarini). I’m not saying it’s a perfect analogy, just saying that I see in Luther many of the virtues of both these figures but acknowledge that his ideas are not entirely orthodox and that (more seriously) he set his own ideas against the Church.

You state that history cannot tell us who is a ‘mediocre theologian’. I disagree. If what you say is true then nobody could ever make an objective assessment of the theological capabilities of anyone.

Well, I think that may be true. However, I overstated it. Obviously one can evaluate specific qualifications, contributions, etc. My point was that what counts as a “good theologian” depends so heavily on one’s own theological starting points. Luther was a powerful influence on history through his ideas, and I still suspect that you really don’t want to take the ideas seriously. He was brilliant and creative (which from a certain point of view can be a defect in a theologian). He was a poet of theology and a great master of language (yes, the language was often crude and violent, but still. . . . ) He grasped certain theological truths, such as God’s revelation through a “contrary appearance” in the Incarnation, more powerfully than perhaps anyone has before or since.

As we know, in the beginning of his revolt against the Catholic Church, Luther was warned by many, many (many), (better) Catholic Theologians that his teachings were not in line with Catholic teaching. For at least the first two years he contended that HE was the one who was correctly representing historic Catholic teaching and that ALL of them were mistaken.

He always would have believed that, although I think he did come to realize over time just how radical his ideas were (and his ideas did become more radical, at least during the period you’re describing). But obviously he always thought that his ideas were in line with the key teachings of historic Christianity.

In regards to Luther’s ‘interview’ with Cardinal Cajetan in late 1518:

“……on 13 October……(Luther) confessed that he was not conscious of teaching anything contrary to the Scriptures, the church fathers, the canon law, or the correct faith, but that instead he considered his views sound, true, and catholic.”

Brecht, Vol. 1, pg. 254

That’s a good point. What did Luther mean by that? Was he being sincere? (Surely so harsh a critic of Luther as yourself isn’t going to rule out the possibility that this was just what you say when someone from Rome comes calling?) Or is it a question of interpretation and definition? In your view, what things was Luther teaching by this point that Luther ought to have known contradicted Scripture, the Fathers, the canon law, or the correct faith?

Interestingly, Lutheran Professor, E. G. Schweibert describes Cajetan as being ‘the greatest theologian in Rome’. Brecht says that “Cajetan was one of the most educated theologians in Rome at the time.”

Vol. 1, pg. 246-7. Brecht also informs us that “In his (Cajetan’s) eyes, Luther was setting about establishing a new church.” Vol. 1, pg. 250.

Yes, indeed. Luther’s meeting with Cajetan was one of the great missed opportunities, I think. If only they had both taken each other more seriously. Cajetan didn’t really try to understand Luther’s ideas or persuade him that he was wrong–he just summoned him to obey. And Luther didn’t trust Italians. (Few Germans of that era did–one of the reasons why I find Luther’s later account of his pilgrimage to Rome utterly unbelievable–but that’s a separate issue.)

 

[Contarini]

Writing as a then Lutheran, Jaroslav Pelikan:

“The pope excommunicated him and condemned justification by faith alone. As far as Luther was concerned, the pope had thereby also condemned the gospel. And so, in Luther’s eyes, it was Rome that had left Luther, and not Luther who had left Rome. As long as the Roman Church would tolerate the gospel it remained the church for Luther, despite its error. But when it condemned the gospel and forced Luther out, it became sectarian. If, as Luther maintained, the church is where the Gospel is, then it followed that by condemning the gospel Rome was condemning the church. It was in this spirit, and not primarily in the spirit of boasting, **that Luther said of Worms: ‘Then I was the church!’ **Because he was contending for the gospel and the gospel made the church and Rome condemned the gospel, Rome condemned the church as represented in this case by the church’s loyal servant, Martin Luther. **Luther believed that he was standing for the same gospel for which the church had stood before it became corrupt and condemned him. Thus Rome turned its back on the church, while Luther remained with the church. Such was Luther’s interpretation of what happened when he severed his relations with Rome.” ** “Obedient Rebels”, pg. 18

But that qualifies the above. This wasn’t a question of ignorance of Catholic theology, but of reinterpretation.

Whatever Luther was, I think “mediocre” is a really unfitting word for him

Of course history tell us that Luther never really could identify the specific time when the Church had gone off the rails doctrinally. In fact, if I remember correctly, he kept pushing the date back towards Pentecost in his later years as he added to his poor knowledge of the Fathers.

I don’t recall that, but he certainly did say at one point that the corruption of monasticism was by God’s providence, because if monasticism had been as pure and holy as in Jerome’s day its fundamentally un-Biblical and ungodly nature would never have been shown up. That contrasts with the attitude of Calvin, say, to early monasticism.

I don’t think Luther ever would have said that the Church as a whole “went off the rails” until about 1200, but I may be wrong about that. He certainly was willing to criticize even the Fathers as not really understanding the Gospel. Again, the Reformed were on the whole more careful and more interested in getting the Fathers on their side, as were later Lutherans.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Lutheran Professor Schweibert addresses the exact topic of the OP:

“The exact date when Luther began to accept the principal of Sola Scriptura cannot be determined, but it was probably during his first year of teaching at the University of Wittenberg, 1508 to 1509.” Schweibert, pg. 158.

Interesting. Depends on what Schweibert means by sola scriptura. As I’ve said several times, Luther claimed that he learned his basic view of Scripture from Trutvetter. On what does Schweibert rest this judgment?

Also in regards to Luther’s ‘interview’ with Cajetan:

“**Luther appeared humble in the beginning but became surprised when he heard stated for the first time from one of the princes of the Church, the theological ideas that he rejected as un-Christian and therefore considered excluded from the thinking of the leaders of the Church. **He was stubborn and not without pride in the superior theology of Wittenberg.” Holborn, pg, 134.

In other words, Luther considered himself to be a superior Theologian to all of those who up to that point had told him that his was treading on heretical ground. They were simply mistaken because he knew better than they did. But shock of shocks, a man of Cajetan’s caliber is also wrong! That could mean that the whole church is wrong (because they disagree with me).

Cajetan represented a lot of things Luther already distrusted. He was an Italian, a scholastic theologian, a Dominican (rival order to the Augustinians), and a Conventual (not part of the Observant reform movement to which Luther had belonged). And he came from Rome. But yes, that interview certainly strengthened Luther’s awareness of how radical he was.

“It had not been his (Luther’s) “will or intention” to elevate his own private theological concerns to the status of doctrinal issues affecting the entire church, and **he long professed the conviction that what he had “discovered” was something that the best theologians of the church must have known all along. ****The eventual realization that such was not the case precipitated his theology into the public forum of the church, both through his condemnations of those teachings into official confessional statements during and after his own lifetime.” ** Pelikan, “Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700)”, 1984, pg. 127.

How is it possible that Luther could be so poorly informed as to the facts of Catholic teaching? One factor could be lack of knowledge about the Fathers during the early portion of his revolt:

Right. Bear in mind though that patristic scholarship was in its infancy at this point. Luther was influenced by humanist scholarship, but his training was pretty strictly scholastic. And a lot of the Apostolic Fathers either were unknown or were known in garbled manuscripts. Ignatius’ letters, for instance, hadn’t yet been sorted out into the authentic “short” and inauthentic “long” forms. So when the early Protestants questioned their authenticity, they were basically right–in the form in which they were circulated, the letters were not from the early second century. Whether Luther was any more ignorant here than scholastic theologians generally I doubt.

This is astonishing. Here we learn that the ‘early Luther’ the one who had enough confidence in his own abilities to break with the Church didn’t know even of the existence of any of the 17 Early Church Fathers who proceeded Turtullian.

You’re overestimating how available these texts were. Granted, Calvin cites Irenaeus (at least I’m pretty sure he does). If only I had a good theological library at my fingertips, as I used to at Duke, I could check the two-volume collection of essays on patristic scholarship in the medieval and early modern periods that Irena Backus edited. But I don’t have it available, so I’m not sure just when each of the Apostolic Fathers became generally known. At any rate, I’m not disputing that Luther’s patristic knowledge was mediocre at best.

I can understand why you don’t appreciate Luther’s qualities. I’m not trying to argue you into thinking he was a great theologian. However, as I’ve said above, a lot of orthodox, learned Catholic figures like Bouyer and Pope Benedict deeply respect his ideas, while of course rejecting his errors.

It was on the basis of Luther’s and knowledge and ‘abilities’ as a Theologian that Lutheranism and Protestantism were founded. Contrary to your statement, History in itself actually CAN tell you who was a “mediocre” theologian.

You’re illustrating my point. History can tell us what Fathers Luther knew about or didn’t know about. But your inference as to the general quality of his theology based on this is not necessitated by the historical evidence. It’s the result of your own set of criteria as to what makes a good theologian.

Aquinas didn’t know the Fathers well either. He doesn’t seem to have known any works of Athanasius, for instance, except for the Creed which isn’t really by Athanasius. Yet I think we would both agree that Aquinas was a very great theologian indeed

Edwin

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Please state where I have done this. The fact is I have not. My point was clearly that what is typically thought of as PI today is not what was happening in the Reformation era, just as what the Lutheran reformers of the first and second generation thought of as sola scriptura is not what one commonly finds today in some evangelical settings.

Jon, you consistently attempt to move the conversation past Luther and to the Lutheran reformers and your Confessions. I don’t blame you for trying but my criticisms are of Luther, especially of the ‘early Luther’. Also, I can’t seem to get you to comment on Luther’s use of PI.

And since you mentioned the name Mathison, he makes such a differentiation.
Mathison’s point directly contradicts your constant apologia that Luther, on his own, invented the approach Lutherans today use toward scripture, later termed sola scriptura.
Later he contrasts it with what the pop view of sola scriptura is, and what Luther is incoorectly accused of inventing out of whole cloth.

Actually the Mathison quote you posted here does not even mention Luther, which is BTW exactly the point I just made above. The above Mathison quote mentions only the magisterial reformers. As such it does not address my comments and it does not address my concerns about Luther’s early ‘model of authority’, that model being SS + His Personal PI.

As a matter of fact, I have Mathison’s book and what he says is actually extremely different than what you have represented him to say.

“Among the apostolic fathers, one will search on vain to discover a formally outlined doctrine of Scripture such as may be found in modern theology textbooks. The doctrine of Scripture did not become an independent locus of theology until the sixteenth century. What we do find throughout the writing of the apostolic fathers is a continual and consistant appeal to the Old Testament and to the Apostles teaching. During these first decades following Christ, however, we have no evidence demonstrating that the Church considered the Apostles teaching to be entirely confined to written documents………As already noted, we have broad scholarly agreement that Scripture and tradition were not mutualy exclusive concepts in the mind of the early fathers. The concept of ‘tradition,’ when used by these fathers, is simply used to designate the body of doctrine which was committed to the Church by the Lord and his Apostles, whether through verbal or written communication.” Mathison, “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”, pg. 20-21

If Sola Scriptura was according to Mathison, a 16th century ‘development’, then exactly who would you suggest was the ‘developer’ if not Martin Luther?

I don’t know where you got the idea that Mathison supported the idea that SS was taught prior to the 16th century, but if I were you I would not trust that ‘source’.

All but supplanted, except in confessional Lutheran communions, that continue to practice sola scriptura as was the practice of the early Lutheran reformers, and prior!

This is exactly my point except that you do not see Luther as practicing some form of Tradition 0. I agree that many Protestants do believe that Reformers like Luther and Calvin did teach something like Trad 0, but in fact, Luther actually DID early in his revolt against the Church.

In your quote Mathison says that this ‘radical version of Tradition 0…… attacks the rightful subordinate authority of the church’…….Can you possibly suggest that this is not exactly what Luther did? Of course he did hold to some of the ancient traditions, but rejected others. Ultimately the ones he rejected he rejected mostly because they disagreed with another of his radical doctrines, Salvation by Faith Alone. Those that we not in directly conflict with SBFA he was likely to leave in place. What did he ‘use’ to determine which doctrines to refute – his own personal Private Interpretation, his Private Judgment, a judgment aside from the authority of the Church.

Now, to me, the argument is mere background information, but it is obvious that scholars may differ on the roots and foundations of using scripture as the final norm by the Church. It is also clear that the individualistic personal interpretation you speak of, and wish to lay at the feet on Luther, only Luther, and exclusively Luther is not what was happening at the time. Lutheran theologian J.M Reu writes, in his book *Luther and the Scriptures *:

First of all, it might be true that the Occamists did emphasize the authority of Scripture more strongly than did other middle age theologians, but what not even Reu will say is that they denied the authority of both popes and councils, as did Luther. There is the other ‘minor matter’ of William of Occam being condemned as a heretic (in 1326). In his case, he actually did submit himself before a papal court after his teachings were condemned as unorthodox by a synod of bishops. Even this though does not mean that he supported a version of SS like that of the early Luther. Please remember though that I have said earlier that there were others who had denied the authority of both pope and council, but that they all had been declared as heretics. If you know of someone who was not condemend and who refuted the authority of both Popes and Councils, please provide the details.

 

[Topper17]

BTW, you neglected to cite the page number from Reu’s book, but it was from page 13. As you may know, much of the rest refutes the position you have taken regarding Occam being one of the sources of Luther’s SS. Reu quotes Occam:

“If I should have written something in this work which is contrary to Holy Writ, or the teachings of the saints, or the assertions of the Most Holy Church, I submit myself and my words to the correction of the Catholic Church – not the Church of the malignants, or heretics, or schismatics and their protectors. Though Occam thus ascribed to the Church as a whole this position as judge, which Church must then somehow function through a Council, there is noticeable in the Occamists in Erfurt a departure from this position, namely to the extent that in place of the Church as a whole, which functions through a Council, they, in contradistinction to their leader, accepted the Pope as the spokesman of the Church universal.” Reu, “Luther and the Scriptures”, pg. 14-15

Clearly Reu does not support your contention that Occam could be considered to be a forefather of Luther’s SS. Occam was condemned as a heretic in spite of a pronouncement of humility and loyalty that Luther would never have made.

From what I know, William of Occam died around 1350, long before Luther’s arrival. I also know that he and his followers (Occamists), including Biel, were Catholics. It was Catholics who influenced Luther’s strong reliance on scripture.

The way this works is that once someone is condemned as a heretic, they can no longer be called a “Catholic”. Occam may have been a Catholic but ceased to be one when he was declared a heretic.

Sola scriptura is not something Luther dreamed up on his own, and the solo scriptura practiced by later communions is not Luther’s idea at all, as it is entirely different.

To put it roughly, the difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura is that the second results in the destruction of all authority faster than the former. Sola makes appeals to the ‘Interpretation of MY church’ and solo makes appeals to me – ‘MY interpretation’. Neither appeals to the authority of the historic church the way that even Occam did. Both of them deny Apostolic Succession and both of them produce doctrinal dissension, but they do so at different rates.

Of course of the two (Sola vs. Solo), Sola will better protect Christian unity, but still it’s fatal flaw is that it recognizes no earthly authority and without that earthly, it is doomed to disunity albeit at a slower rate than Solo. There is absolutely nothing in the Structure of either SoS or SaS that will protect doctrinal unity or doctrinal certainty. As such, I see one as being slightly ‘better’ than the other but both as being fatally flawed.

The claim of the ‘authority my church’ can easily morph into the claim of the ‘authority of my NEW church’ and when that happens there is absolutely nothing that the ‘old (Protestant) church’ can say to deny the establishment of the new Protestant church because that is exactly how the old church started, as a new church to some other old church. This also applies to the original Lutheran church as it was an ‘unauthorized’ branch of the Catholic Church.

Rather than radical individualism (Tradition 0) being a corruption of the Reformation Principals it is a return to Luther’s original teaching. Despite all of the efforts of all of the various ‘more conservative’ confessions, the judgment of the individual is built into both Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura. The difference is that that individualism is right on the surface of the one and just barely below it in the other.

As for the OP question, “Can I get a quote of the first time that belief in the Bible alone was mentioned? Was Martin Luther the first one to believe it, or did someone before Martin Luther believe in following the Bible alone?”, it seems Reu and Mathison answer it.

As you can see Jon, both Reu and Mathison disagree with the claims that you have made for them. As for Luther’s beliefs on Private Interpretation, Lutheran PhD and Pastor Henry Linderman:

“When through his translation Luther placed the Bible into the hands of every Christian, he was convinced that the principal of private judgment is correct.” “Martin Luther, Man of God”, pg. 46.

This was 1522. By 1525 Luther was already dealing with the consequences of his teaching of PI and he began to move back towards a model in which the church is authoritative, his church of course.

God Bless You Jon, Topper