When was the belief in the Bible alone first mentioned?

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12094757]

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.

That’s because the history of the era isn’t sola Luther.
I did comment on it, a few posts back.

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.

Of course it does. Mathison makes my point: it isn’tsola Luther, regarding the OP. The OP isn’t, specifically, about Luther, even though he mentions Luther in it. It is about the earliest use of what he calls “bible alone”.

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?

If it appears to you that Mathison contradicts himself, then your issue is with him. I didn’t misrepresent anything, but instead quoted him directly. That the use of scripture in the way we do is not denied, but rather represents a development of “Tradition I”. That Luther plaed a key role in this use is also not to be denied. What I deny is that, 1) Luther developed it out of whole cloth, simply on his own. Reu, Mathison, and and many others indicate the influence of those around Luther, and that of Church history, 2) that Luther is responsible for what has developed as solo scriptura. Now, if you want to claim that Luther influenced those who developed solo scriptura, that’s fine as long as it is agreed that Catholics influenced Luther on this score, as Luther was educated by Catholics who were themselves influenced by Occam.

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’.

And yet you were the one who first offered that ‘source’ to defend your position.

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.

Of course I can, at least in the area of universal jurisdiction.
Some of the radicals actually believe that he wasn’t radical enough, considering his confession of the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. But that’s another thread.

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.

William of Occam isn’t the point. The point is that Catholic teachers 200 years after Occam were influenced by him and influencing students such as Luther.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12094765]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.

Again, not the point. The point is that those at Erfurt held a strong position toward the authority of scripture, from which Luther’s grew.

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.

Again, not the point.

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.

This is a reasonable Catholic view.

**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.

And one could claim that, without benefit of a truly ecumenical council, the declarations from the Catholic Church since the Schism, are interpretations from “my church”.

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.

And from the Lutheran view, PI is always under the teachings of the Church, and restricted to adiaphora.
I believe that your conclusion is incorrect regarding Reu and Mathison.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

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.

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.

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

Hi Topper: I like your points concerning Sola and Solo Scriptura. I seems to me that while both are flawed, both are used to 1) as the only authority, and 2) to somehow think that PI is the correct way or manor in understanding Scripture, at leastways by those individuals who think that they need no other authority then the Bible itself, yet the real authority is they themselves and not really the Bible because it is their own interpretation that counts not what Scripture actually says and means. This is based on preconceived preconceptions and faulty knowledge of the literary styles that were used by those who wrote what is now Scripture. They then get others to believe in what they incorrectly believe to be the final word as to what one is to believe.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

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.

None of the Popes took as much responsibility for changing doctrine on their shoulders as did Luther. In fact, you can’t name 20 of them who, in aggregate, changed as many doctrines as Luther did. This leads us to the question as to why, specifically and exactly he did so, which of course leads us to the necessity of delving into his personality, character, abilities etc.

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.

OK. Let’s review the actual quote, because Luther went far past just talking about scholasticism and canon law.

On May 9 Luther replied: ‘To speak plainly, my firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as the at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted.’ Such uprooting, he said, had now become his fixed purpose……” Martin Luther, (Carrol quoting Fife, ‘Revolt of Martin Luther’, pg. 267

To answer your question directly, scholasticism is not specifically ‘part of the Church’, but canon law certainly is a significant part of the Church. For a solitary monk, priest and Professor to suggest that he wants to bring down the papal regulations and the canon laws certainly seems to suggest that he is suggesting the bringing down of the Church altogether. In addition, we should remember that Cajetan in the same year believed that Luther wanted to start his own church. Luther would have denied this but then that is exactly how it turned out, again pointing out that many people recognized where Luther was headed even if he didn’t.

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.

Actually what I have said is that there were others who had denied the authority of both popes and Councils but that they were all (also) declared heretics. If you know of someone who wasn’t, please provide the specifics.

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.”

Mathison said that the (Protestant) doctrine of Scripture ‘did not become an independent locus of theology until the sixteenth century.’ Schwiebert said that Luther ‘discovered’ SS as early as 1508-09. Sproul said that “It was Luther himself who brought the issue of private interpretation of the Bible into sharp focus in the sixteenth century.” It is Schwiebert who also comments that Eck had charged Luther with Private Interpretation. (Lutheran) Linderman related that in 1522, Luther “was convinced that the principal of private judgment was correct.”

(Lutheran) Jenson wrote that Luther triggered schisms and asked whether he would have done what he did if he had known how it was going to turn out. Oberman relates how Luther claimed at Worms that the testimony of Scriptures are his legitimation and then states that: “For us in the twentieth century, his answer cannot be convincing , because application of the Reformation principal of sola scriptura, the Scriptures alone, has not brought the certainty he anticipated.” Pg. 220

Arthur Cushman McGiffert makes the statement that “Luther really substituted for all external authorities the enlightened conscience of the individual Christian…….though he never fully realized it, and seldom acted upon it, meant the right of private judgment in religious things.”

Mathison wrote that it was Martin Luther who ‘caused the Western Church to explode, which by the way appears to be exactly what he was committed to. He also said that Luther voiced his first public hints of Luther’s concept of sola scriptura at the Leipzig debate.

Ozment wrote that Luther started a process of spiritual fragmentation that continues even today, and also that the divisions began almost immediately with the Reformation (meaning Luther’s) success. Even Emperor Maximillian, “not otherwise known for spiritual discernment”, knew enough to write a warning to Pope Leo “saying that Luther’s doctrines, ‘if not strenuously opposed, would imperil the unity of faith, and private opinion would take the place of traditional dogma.’ (exactly what was to happen in Protestant Christianity) and ‘that out of love for the unity of the faith he would support any measures the Pope might take against Luther.” Carroll, pg 8.

 

[Topper17]

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 17th century, in my opinion.

Whether Luther was consciously teaching PI is not really the issue, especially given that so many people thought he was. Whether he was oblivious as to where his beliefs were headed is not a matter of fact. What is a matter of fact is that many better theologians warned him about where his beliefs were headed, he ignored them, and they were right.

As for Luther being the originator of SS and PI in Western Christendom, I think the case has been made. Those who don’t want to see it that way will not. Those who are willing to consider the thoughts of so many Scholars might see my argument as compelling.

Again, when I say that he was the developer of SS+PI in Western Christianity, I am saying - other than heretics. Some would have us avoid giving this ‘distinction’ to Luther by placing responsibility on this or that heretic. But then that proves my point doesn’t it?

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).

I have not ignored the ‘Reformed’. I would suggest that Luther’s influence on them came as much from his precedent setting denial of the authority of the Church as it did from any particular doctrine. In other words, they all ‘used’ the ‘freedom’ to judge that Luther ‘won’ for them to establish their own doctrines.

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.

Possibly your ‘problem’ with me is based on a misperception. The fact is that when Luther began his revolt against the Church Luther believed in Private Interpretation. He believed that his personal interpretations of Scripture trumped that of the whole Church of the whole preceding 1500 years. Granted he had to backtrack towards a model of church authority but by the time he did there had been unleashed several competing forms of Christianity, all of whom were claiming the same ‘authority’ that Luther had claimed when he broke with the Church. Backtracking to Sola Scriptura with the Lutheran church as being authoritative has not exactly protected Christian unity. My contention is that Luther used PI to create ‘separation’ between himself and the Church, and then grudgingly built his own church on the basis of his PI. Please note that I didn’t claim that Luther had this all planned out or that he was even very conscious of where he was headed. In fact, I think he was pretty oblivious about what the practical ramifications of his actions might be.

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

I’m not so much concerned with the details, like the finding of the Bible under the bench, the ‘posting’ of the 95 Theses, the statement ‘Here I Stand’, the ‘translation’ of the Scriptures. What I am more interested in is WHY those things had to be made up, why the Legend was even necessary.

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.

My biggest problem with the “Legend” is that it portrays Luther as being an excellent Theologian and Exegete. That is not true. We should reflect on what Luther ‘recommended’ should ‘happen’ to the Jews, the peasants, ‘reluctant wives’, Catholics, etc., knowing that he was quoting Scripture furiously (of course) while doing so. How can a man be considered to be a ‘good Theologian’ when he so clearly misunderstands Scripture on so many important issues, when he blatantly ‘finds’ in Scripture exactly what he wants to find in order to justify the deaths of those various groups?

 

[Topper17]

Actually, the ‘problem’ is not mine but Protestantism’s for mostly blindly trusting that anything that Luther taught could have been correct in God’s Eyes. How could he have gotten ALL of those things wrong and somehow have been so right on things like SS and Salvation by Faith Alone, when NOBODY prior to him had noticed them?

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.

True enough as far as it goes. However, I believe that fewer would believe (in Protestantism) IF the Truth about Luther were better known. As it is, probably 95+% of Protestants simply believe whatever little (and false) portion of the Legend they have heard. I believe that the reason that the Legend was constructed was because of the fact that so much of Luther’s ‘career’ and teachings show him to be nothing like what one should expect of a ‘reformer’. This is not to say that the Legend was constructed dishonestly, although that was part of it. Mostly it was constructed as a self-defense mechanism. What started out as simple embellishment became fact which then were embellished and then THAT became fact. Over the course of a few centuries the “Legend” became fact. Thankfully it seems that modern Protestant and even Lutheran Scholars are becoming much more forthcoming about the actual facts.

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.

I could not agree more about Luther being the ‘right man at the right time’. It seems like all the stars were in alignment on that one. One can only wonder which supernatural entity arranged them. It should be pointed out that the humanists and intellectuals were not fooled forever.

In part, it was the humanists who ‘made’ Luther a ‘reformer’. Of course they later abandoned him once they realized what he was all about. The peasants likewise supported him, but after the Peasant’s War, in which Luther recommended that they be slaughtered ‘without mercy’ (and 100,000 of them were), understandably, they too deserted him to the point where he did not feel safe to travel. Of course the politicians supported him because they were interested in increasing their own power and decreasing that of the Church. That happened in spades and so they maintained their support of him, especially after he had ‘proven himself’ in the matter of the Peasants War.

James Payton, a Reformed Canadian Professor of History wrote an excellent book on this aspect of the Reformation. “Getting the Reformation Wrong – Correcting Some Misunderstandings” describes how the people misunderstood what the reformers were teaching, especially Luther. Payton also deals with the popular modern misconceptions about the Reformation and the various reformers.

Ozment reveals (“Birth”, pg. 28) that the Reformation floundered between the mid 16th and mid-17th centuries:

“Whereas one-half of Europe could be counted in the Protestant camp in the mid-sixteenth century, only one-fifth would be found there by the mid-seventeenth century.”

Of course there are numerous reasons, but one of them was the fact that SS created so much doctrinal division that people began to recognize it for what it was. Of course much of this was due to the Jesuits, whom Payton called ‘wildly successful’.

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.

 

[Topper17]

Exactly. Rome and it’s hierarchy was mistrusted and for good reason. However, when viewed from our perspective, their mistrust (among other factors) resulted in exactly the doctrinal mess that resulted. As for Erasmus, I think he missed an opportunity to shape the dialogue early, but failed to provide the leadership in those early years (1517-1522 let’s say). By the time he had figured out what Luther was all about and began to actively oppose him, that particular cow was already out of the barn – so to speak. Had Erasmus recognized Luther’s teachings for what they were earlier, and possibly if he himself had not been somewhat aligned with what he THOUGHT Luther to be teaching, his opposition of Luther (earlier) could have made a huge difference.

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.

I think it is interesting that the very small percentage of the older wiser Theologians joined the Reformation cause. Mostly it was the younger less experienced Theologians who carried the banner. Luther’s efforts to close down the monasteries and in promoting a married priesthood was also a factor (among many others).

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.
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).

Personally I find this all to be very cool!

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’m sorry to hear about your troubles, but am glad that you are here on CA.

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

Actually it wasn’t me but since you prompted a comment – the papal responses to Luther actually were courteous and dignified by comparison to the way that Luther treated his opponents. That is not really debatable.

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?

You have a deal and I apologize for any offense I have committed.

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?

The reason that you don’t remember what Bainton said about Luther vs the Jews is because it was memorable or it’s ‘charity’ to Luther. It was like ‘nothing to see here so move along’, which I consider to be just another form of the “Legend”.

For the record it wasn’t just Oberman who debunked it. If you are looking to dig a little deeper into the subject of Luther vs. the Jews –

“Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism”, by Lutheran Professor Eric Grisch

“Martin Luther, The Bible, and the Jewish People”, (Lutherans) Schramm and Sterjna

“Demonizing The Jews, Luther and the Protestant Church in Nazi Germany”, Probst

At best, Luther’s ‘momentary lapse’ of seeming friendliness towards the Jews (from 1523-1526 at most) was bracketed by some very ugly attitudes and culminated in an inhumanity towards the Jews that is practically without equal in history.

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)

Both Brecht and Bainton show their bias and their works should be known for those biases. Bainton is more likely gloss over those ‘embarrassing episodes’ (like Luther’s official sanctioning of Philip’s bigamy), whereas Brecht seems far too willing to simply accept (and support) Luther’s version of events.

 

[Topper17]

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).

I see Oberman as being more likely to make a harsh but honest assessment of Luther than Kittleson. That being said, in Kittleson’s fairly short section on Leipzig (only 3-4 pages), he does fairly represent the facts. I see that debate as being one of the ‘litmus tests’. Having studied that particular debate, I have found that it is easy to get a feel for how a particular author is going to deal with Luther. Kittleson takes an honest approach, which I think is much more common to the more recent Scholars.

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.

Ozment seems so ‘solid’. I can’t imagine Luther’s burdened conscience being typical of ordinary people. ‘Ordinary people’ do not behave the way Luther did in the monastery. I have looked at Steinmetz’s book “Luther in Context” several times but have not yet pulled the trigger. I am guessing you would recommend it?

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

At some point the subject of “By What Authority Martin” will inevitably come up and at that point we should expect to see a veritable flood of Kolb quotes. I think what is very telling about his book is how differently Luther has been viewed over the last almost 500 years. Most modern day Lutherans surely no grasp of how Lutherans viewed Luther’s authority in the early days of the Reformation. This is not to mention how Luther himself saw his authority, which BTW is the most shocking and telling of all.

I haven’t read him.

I have always wondered why he isn’t better known. His book is a tome (700+ pages), is VERY detail oriented, and as such is not a compelling read. However, for the facts and especially the background, it is excellent. Like Brecht but more readable and more honest.

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.

We disagree, and this probably comes down to our respective biases. I see his depiction of Luther’s doubt as being essentially correct, and also his understanding of Luther being ruled by fear. Luther got really ugly with people when they caused him to doubt, which caused his fear of being wrong (about Salvation) to kick into high gear.

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.

I didn’t take it as meaning psychotic, but more that he wasn’t always all that well connected to reality, and in that we would agree. I also believe that he was ‘seriously delusional’ about the authority that he presumed to have had. Those outrageous claims to authority are, to put it mildly, ‘seriously delusional’.

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

As you have correctly surmised, I have not read it.

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.

Cochlaeus and Eck have been demonized for centuries. I guess Marius’s challenging of the “Legend” has earned him a place alongside them. I would bet that some Lutherans wished that he wasn’t such a great read.

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

My plan is to someday get caught up.

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.

I was certain that you understood your point but wanted to make sure that everybody else did.

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.

I have often heard about B16’s respect for Luther but when I have asked for specifics I have always gotten nothing but silence. Can you offer something substantive?

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.

It is in the ‘setting his own ideas against the Church’ that Luther declared his heresy. My concern is doctrinal purity, certainty, and unity. None of that is possible when people decide to use their PI to go against the Church.

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).

Being ‘brilliant and creative’ when those attributes are used for doctrinal change, might not exactly protect doctrinal unity and certainty. Being brilliant and creative are great as long as they are under control. Luther was totally out of control and the result has been great damage to the Church that Christ established.

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.

I would agree that Luther was a genius where language was concerned. However, he was not exactly a systematic theologian but rather a theologian of the conflict of the moment.

I am sure that people draw inspiration from reading Luther, but I am reminded of the story of one of the medieval Saint (can’t remember which one), who would read the writings of heretics, but ONLY when standing on one bare foot on a cold stone floor – lest he ‘forget’ what he was reading. As for me, I read enough Luther as it is, and if I want to read theology for the sake of reading theology, I would prefer to read someone who I trust, so that I will not have to worry about reading something and not realizing that it was heretical.

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.

I agree except for the word “always”. Over time Luther finally figured out what everybody else knew far sooner than he did – that his beliefs were NOT what were either was currently teaching or even what it had ever taught.

“**Luther was never able to say with precision at just what moment the Catholic Church had fallen away from its divine calling. As he grew older, he would push the time of the church’s fall closer and closer to its beginnings, **seeing, as one commenter has said, ‘the whole history of the church (seeming to be) under the enduring influence of the devil.’” Marius, pg. 273 (quoting Maurer)

What I find very telling is Luther’s reaction once he finally realized that his teachings were radical. Rather than realizing that in all likelihood he was wrong, he doubled down, obviously believing that his authority to establish and/or reject doctrine surpassed that of all of the Fathers and Doctors and Popes and Theologians and………that had come before him.

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?

Thanks, I too thought it was a good point. Over the years I have noticed that many defenders of Luther would prefer that we see some of his more outrageous statements as being ‘rhetorical’ or ‘theatrical flourish’ or some such thing. On the other hand, we are always asked to take very seriously those comments which make the man look good. This is a very easy argument to make but it appeals to no subjective criteria. Plus it is overused.

 

[Topper17]

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?

It is very easy to get bogged down in a debate over the validity of this or that Protestant or Catholic doctrine. Each side can claim a victory even though they have not convinced the other of a thing. On the other hand there are issues in which Luther was clearly interpreting Scripture in an horrific manner, including his ‘Scriptural teachings’ on the Jews, the Anabaptists, the peasants, the Catholics, etc. It is in those issues that we see the ‘quality’ of his Christian teaching and his exegesis. If those issues don’t cause people to actually ‘wonder’ about the man, nothing could. That is exactly why these subjects are generally ignored in the popular ‘legend’.

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.)

I agree. It was a missed opportunity, but the pre-Augsburg positions of the two parties precluded success. Luther NEVER backed down an inch and was not going to before Cajetan and Cajetan was not allowed to debate Luther, only obtain his recantation. Maybe you are suggesting that if the Church had just ‘talked nice’ to Luther the whole mess could have been avoided?

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

I disagree. Actually Pelikan says that Luther ‘believed’ rather than ‘was’ standing for the same historic gospel. When Pelikan speaks of the fact that his was Luther’s ‘interpretation’, one gets the impression that he did not agree with Luther on this point. Of course he ‘defected’ to the EO later, but not when he wrote this.

Luther’s real problem I believe was that the Church was not just automatically singing on to his radical teachings like he expected, with Salvation by Faith Alone being the biggest problem for Luther personally.

**“Along the way Luther admitted than many of not most of the fathers of the church disagreed with his view of the relation of sin and grace and the incapacity of human beings to do any good work. “**And you say, ‘Do you not believe in the sayings of the Fathers?’ I answer, ‘I believe? Who commands that they be believed? Where is the order from God concerning their faith?” Marius, pg 303-4

“Although Luther regarded justification as an essentially unitary process,** he nevertheless introduced a decisive break with the western theological tradition as a whole by insisting that, through his justification, man is intrinsically sinful yet extrinsically righteous.”** McGrath, “Iustitia Dei, Vol. 1”, pg. 182

“**It seemed entirely reasonable to him at that stage that God would not reward people unless they did something to merit that action. It was certainly the academic consensus at Erfurt. It was not, however, the official teaching of the Catholic Church…

If there were alternatives, they do not seem to have been known to Luther. **” McGrath, pg. 41

It would appear from the above that Luther’s revolt was at least partially because of a poor education as to what really was Catholic teaching on Salvation.

**“Yet even more dangerous was the idea that Luther developed over the period 1513 to 1516 as he wrestled with the text of the Bible, anxiously trying to discern what it says about salvation. There were few ideas with the capacity to dismantle great institutions and invert the judgments of previous generations. ** For Luther, the great question of life was simple and profound: how could he find a gracious God? As a younger man, terrified of hell and convinced of his own sinfulness, Luther gave an answer that was widespread in German theological circles, as it was in popular Christian culture; if he wanted to get in with God, he had to make himself into a good person. Like other Christians of the time, he believed that humanity has the capacity to make itself righteous, that when this happens God endorses this transformation, and accepts the transformed person into a relationship with him, and that his only happens through the institution of the church, which provides the God-given structures that lead securely and inevitably to salvation. **By developing his doctrine of justification by faith, however, Luther would dismantle such ideas and offer a radical, alluring alternative. **Luther found at least part of this alternative idea, which he began to develop around 1516, in earlier writers of the Christian tradition, such as Augustine of Hippo. When Paul speaks of the “righteousness of God,” being revealed in the gospel, he does not mean that we are told what standards of righteousness we must meet in order to be saved. Rather, we are confronted with the stunning, disarming, overwhelming declaration that God himself provides the righteousness required for salvation as a free, unmerited gift. God’s love is not conditional upon transformation; rather, personal transformation follows divine acceptance and affirmation.”

 

[Topper17]

Marius continued: “More radically still, Luther insisted that the believer is “at one and the same time a righteous person and a sinner.” **While Luther admired Augustine for his emphasis and on unconditional love of God in justification, he suggested that Augustine had become muddled in relation to the location of the gift of righteousness. Augustine located his gift within humanity, as a transforming reality; Luther argued that it is located outside us, being “reckoned” or “imputed” to humanity, not imparted. **

**Perhaps the chief beneficiary of this insight was Luther himself. ** **Convinced of his sinfulness and frustrated by his own impotence to free himself from the power of his sinful nature, Luther set out a theology of divine acceptance **(Luther generally used the Pauline image of “justification”) of sinners that made personal transformation and renewal the consequence, not the precondition, of God’s love. Humanity, in this conception, is like a patient who is under the care of a wise physician and on the way to recovery. The decision to treat does not pre-suppose the desired outcome but rather brings it about.

**Perhaps the most radical aspect of Luther’s doctrine of justification is its conceptualization of the relationship between humanity and God. ** How does humanity find God and enter into a relationship with him – a relationship that delivers humanity once and for all from fear of death, hell, or damnation? Luther is adamant: this relationship is made possible through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and is appropriated through faith. For Luther, faith is fundamentally an attitude of trust in God that enables the believer to receive and benefit from the promises of God. But where does the institution of the Church come into this?

**The most radical element of Luther’s doctrine of justification is the conception of salvation as a matter affecting God and the individual.” ** McGrath, pg. 42-3

The case for Luther’s ignorance of the teachings of his church has been and will continue to be made. Besides, if what he was doing was ONLY ‘reinterpretation’ then this leads us just as quickly to the issue of Luther’s “authority” to ‘reinterpret’ so much of Catholic doctrine. To challenge one or two matters is one thing but as we know, he challenged more than 4 dozen important doctrines of the Church even before he was (finally) excommunicated. This leaves us with the obvious question as to why anyone would believe that it was possible that Luther got all of those things right and that all of Christianity prior to him had gotten them all wrong. Logic would demand that we delve into Luther’s ‘qualifications’ to take so much on to his shoulders. This of course involves looking into his mental health, among other things.

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.

See above. It might be an understatement to say that he was ‘willing to criticize even the fathers’.

Among his more outrageous claims to personal authority, and in regards to the Fathers:

“**Against all the sayings of the Fathers, against all the arts and words of angels, men and devils I set the Scriptures and the Gospel . . . Here I stand and here I defy them . . . The Word of God I count above all else and the Divine Majesty supports me; hence I should not turn a hair were a thousand Augustines against me, and am certain that the true Church adheres with me to God’s Word.” **(Against Henry VIII, King of England, 1522; in Grisar, Vol. IV, 391 / from Werke [Weimar], Vol. X, II, p. 256 ff.)

Now THAT’s ‘confidence’, but I also think that ‘seriously delusional’ would fit here.

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?

Being a Lutheran one should expect that Schweibert was referring to a Lutheran definition of SS.

As we have seen, we should not necessarily accept Luther’s perceptions as to what was really happening, including happening within him. As you mentioned, he was ‘seriously delusional’. He may have THOUGHT that he learned his view of Scripture from Trutfetter, but I would bet that Trutfetter would disagree. The same thing could be said of Luther’s claim that Staupitz was the inspiritation for Salvation by Faith Alone. Both men rejected him and his teachings, and given his former closeness to them, this caused him great grief.

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.

 

[Topper17]

I would agree that you have properly represented Luther’s attitude towards the ‘interview’, but have not made mention of what Cajetan might have been thinking. Actually, I am not aware of anything prior to Augsburg which caused Luther to realize that his beliefs might not be ‘Catholic’. Granted he was warned by probably 15 to 20 people by then but I don’t remember him taking any of those warnings seriously. If you know of anything, could you please post it?

In fact, even at Leipzig, almost a year later, Luther was still at least mostly under the delusion that his beliefs were in line with the Church, or at least the ancient church.

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.

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 accept that I have probably overestimated the availability. On the other hand, there is every reason to believe that Luther’s knowledge of the Fathers was ‘less than average’. Schweibert reveals (pg. 245), that the University of Wittenberg didn’t have a library until 1512, which happens to be the year that Luther received his doctorate there. Can you imagine studying for a doctorate without a library on campus? Would you imagine that Luther received a thorough education at Wittenberg?

This is not to say that it is Luther’s fault for having a poor education. Wittenberg wasn’t exactly his idea. But he should have recognized that of all people, he might not be the best qualified to challenge the Church.

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.

I am something of a Bouyer fan also. As you know the first third or so of the book speaks of the positives of the Reformation. The last two-thirds – not so much.

“Even the most extreme of the negations adopted by Protestantism always have their counterpart of truth. The same, of course, is true of every heresy.” Pg. 175

Bouyer also takes a few shots at Luther’s understanding of Salvation:
**
“Luther was the first to have to recognize that all of the writers of the New Testament, other than St. Paul, deal a crushing to the theological structure he tried to build on the later. ……Blinded as he was by he so-called Pauline character of the structure he had erected on a few texts taken apart from their context, he did not see that St. Paul contradicted his system no less formally than did St. James. After more than three centuries, all serious exegetes are obliged by the evidence to accept this fact; there is not a single Protestant author whose works are of a scientific value who disputes it. **Extrinsic justification, a justification independent of any interior change, of any new capability given to man to perform acts pleasing of themselves to God, is so far from being a Pauline doctrine that it is quite irreconcilable with the whole body of his teaching.” Pg. 173-4

“……Albert Schweitzer, one of the greatest Protestant exegetes of St. Paul, (said) that justification by faith is not nearly so important to St. Paul as to Luther, but has been forcibly crammed by the latter into texts that, in fact, do not mention it.” Pg 173.

Bouyer may say some nice things about Luther and that’s fine. However, he basically here shreds Luther’s SBFA, which is not exactly a claim that Luther was a ‘good Theologian’.

I also see Bouyer as evidence that the more educated and intelligent the Protestant, the better the possibility of being a ‘swimmer’. After all, it seems that Lutheran Scholars swim at a much greater rate than their laity.

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.

Personally, I think it is reasonable to suggest that a ‘good theologian’ understand properly the teachings of his own Church. It also should be noted that Luther absolutely HATED Aquinas, whom we both agree was an excellent Theologian.

But then Luther could hardly be called a ‘Systematic Theologian’, if you know what I mean.

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[steve_b]

I am sure that people draw inspiration from reading Luther, but I am reminded of the story of one of the medieval Saint (can’t remember which one), who would read the writings of heretics, but ONLY when standing on one bare foot on a cold stone floor – lest he ‘forget’ what he was reading. As for me, I read enough Luther as it is, and if I want to read theology for the sake of reading theology,I would prefer to read someone who I trust, so that I will not have to worry about reading something and not realizing that it was heretical.

You describe why I prefer not to read or quote from Tertullian for example. William Jurgens in his “Faith of the Fathers” vol 1, writes on Tertullian

“His Catholic period was from 197 to 206 a.d., semi Montanist period 206 -212 a.d. his time of transition, then after that is his Montanist period.”

As Jurgen says there is no “semi Montanist” category of schism or heresy. Yet his writings at this time are becomming suspect. After that he’s a full heretic.

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

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

Over the years I have noticed that many defenders of Luther would prefer that we see some of his more outrageous statements as being ‘rhetorical’ or ‘theatrical flourish’ or some such thing. On the other hand, we are always asked to take very seriously those comments which make the man look good. This is a very easy argument to make but it appeals to no subjective criteria. Plus it is overused.

As Jurgins noted with Tertullian, Tertullian was virtually a heretic before making a difinitive break from the truth. Tertullian was developing rigorist tendencies and anticlericalism before his break from the truth. As Jurgens notes, “Tertullian outgrew even Montanism, and became the founder of a sect bearing his name” Tertullianism [Jurgens p112 vol 1 Faith of the Fathers]. isn’t that Luther’s story as well?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

That’s because the history of the era isn’t sola Luther. I did comment on it, a few posts back.

I think I would have remembered if you had made a statement in regards to Luther’s use of his own personal Private Interpretation to break away from HIS Church. Could you please point me to where you addressed that?

Of course it does. Mathison makes my point: it isn’tsola Luther, regarding the OP. The OP isn’t, specifically, about Luther, even though he mentions Luther in it. It is about the earliest use of what he calls “bible alone”.

How does Mathison specifically make your point? Remember that Mathison says that SS does not exist until the 16th century, and that Lutheran Schwiebert says that Luther discovered SS in 1508-09. OK, so who specifically and exactly ‘discovered’ SS in the 16th century prior to Luther?

If it appears to you that Mathison contradicts himself, then your issue is with him. I didn’t misrepresent anything, but instead quoted him directly. That the use of scripture in the way we do is not denied, but rather represents a development of “Tradition I”. That Luther plaed a key role in this use is also not to be denied. What I deny is that, 1) Luther developed it out of whole cloth, simply on his own. Reu, Mathison, and and many others indicate the influence of those around Luther, and that of Church history, 2) that Luther is responsible for what has developed as solo scriptura. Now, if you want to claim that Luther influenced those who developed solo scriptura, that’s fine as long as it is agreed that Catholics influenced Luther on this score, as Luther was educated by Catholics who were themselves influenced by Occam.

Here you admit that the one Mathison quote refutes your position but claim that Mathison contradicts himself with the other? There is an alternative here – that the one that you ‘claim’ does not support your position at all. That would leave Mathison’s credibility in place and merely make you wrong in the way that you understand the one quote.

I do appreciate that you will admit to Luther’s influence in the establishment of Tradition 0, (Solo Scriptura). And again, I have not really claimed that Luther developed SS out of ‘whole cloth’. Of course there were others who denied the authority of the Church prior to Luther, but they were all deemed to be heretics. Can you name even one who denied the authority of the Church the way that Luther did and was not judged to be a heretic? Furthermore, and if you actually ARE claiming that Luther wasn’t ‘first’ in claiming SS, and that this or that heretic was, then what is that really saying?

And yet you were the one who first offered that ‘source’ to defend your position.

Yes, and as you have admitted, that one quote proves my point. Either Mathison contradicts himself or you have misinterpreted his other quote.

Of course I can, at least in the area of universal jurisdiction. Some of the radicals actually believe that he wasn’t radical enough, considering his confession of the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. But that’s another thread.

Those ‘radicals’ as you call them were simply following Luther’s early teachings to their logical conclusion. As a matter of fact, Luther was more than plenty ‘radical’ when he began his Revolt. The fact is that others used the authority that he claimed for them to take his teachings to their logical conclusion.

William of Occam isn’t the point. The point is that Catholic teachers 200 years after Occam were influenced by him and influencing students such as Luther.

It isn’t the point? It was you that brought up Occam, and now that the story didn’t support your position, NOW Occam is not the point?

Again, not the point. The point is that those at Erfurt held a strong position toward the authority of scripture, from which Luther’s grew.

It isn’t the point? It was you that brought up Erfurt, and now that the story didn’t support your position, NOW Erfurt is not the point?

Again, not the point.

It isn’t the point? Occam was a heretic and he influenced Erfurt and Erfurt influenced Luther and Luther was condemned as a heretic and now that all of that is revealed, NOW Occam being judged to be a heretic is not the point? I think that this story reinforces the idea of not allowing the writings of heretics to survive. After all, if the theologians of Erfurt had not been ‘influenced’ by Occam, they might have been influenced by somebody else, like Aquinas for example? Futhermore, neither Occam not the Erfurt Theologians were Sola Scriptura.

 

[Topper17]

This is a reasonable Catholic view.

It is also a view that appeals to Scripture, to the Fathers, to logic and to reason, none of which either Sola or Solo do.

And one could claim that, without benefit of a truly ecumenical council, the declarations from the Catholic Church since the Schism, are interpretations from “my church”.

Since Lutherans are not in communion with either the RCC or the EO, that would seem put your claims regarding ‘your church’ are much less historical justification.

And from the Lutheran view, PI is always under the teachings of the Church, and restricted to adiaphora.

Then this would (again) mean that the Private Interpretation that Luther used to separate from HIS Church was invalid and in refuted by the very church he founded. This means that the Lutheran communions were built on a foundation that the Lutheran communions today reject. How do you get around that?

I believe that your conclusion is incorrect regarding Reu and Mathison.

I have explained my position and am perfectly happy to have people judge between my position and yours.

One of my points is that Luther’s education was not that good. Melanchthon seems to agree:

“Just what kind of education did Luther get when he was a student in the Liberal Arts College at Erfurt. **Melanchthon implies that Luther’s instruction at the university was not the best.” **Schweibert, pg. 134

Jon, over the years I have seen Lutherans contend that Luther’s beliefs were not all that radical, because, among other things, he learned his beliefs at Erfurt. The actual history does not bear this out.

“Luther’s reforms, it is clear, were neither an opportunistic attack on the morals of the church nor a piecemeal demand for reform here and there. His fundamental conviction was that the church of his day had lost sight of some of the fundamental themes of the Christian gospel. **After all, the theology he had been taught at Erfurt now seemed to him to be heretical, **amounting to the idea of “justification by works” – the notion that humanity can achieve its own salvation by it’s morals or religious achievements” McGrath pg. 58

Luther’s beliefs on Salvation did not come from Erfurt. This is not to say that what the Erfurt theologians believed regarding Salvation was what the Church taught. It wasn’t. But Luther’s position was different than both.

In fact, in a letter to Spalatin on 4/18/18, Luther admits that ‘my theology is poison at Erfurt, and mentioned that especially Dr. Trutfetter condemns it. Luther calls them ‘old men’.

Much is made of the fact that Erfurt declined after having been asked to pass judgment on Luther’s writings after Leipzig. Schweibert says that “Erfurt decided to remain silent.” (pg. 427) What is telling though is why.

“…Luther’s writings, and obtained their condemnation by the universities of Cologne and Louvain. That of Erfurt, which had always had a grudge at Luther, for having given Wittemberg the preference, was on the eve of following their example. But the doctor, having been informed of it, wrote Lange, in terms so energetic that the theologians of Erfurt took fright, and said nothing. Still, however, there was enough to inflame the minds of men in the condemnation pronounced by Cologne and Louvain.” Rivington, “The Story of Luther’s Life”, pg. 238

The University of Erfurt was going to condemn the writings of their alumnus after Leipzig, but did not because he threatened them. We should remember that it was at the Erfurt monastery that Luther exhibited much in the way of bizarre behavior. They knew him well.

The defenders of Luther like to point to Erfurt as the source of Luther’s teachings so as to make him appear less radical and individualistic. The facts do not support this contention.

Speaking again of Leipzig:

“The (Leipzig) debate from Luther’s point of view was not a success. He had hoped much from it, and returned home greatly disappointed. **Despite his own and his supporters’ claims, the victory was really Eck’s, not his, and it was fairly won. No other outcome was possible, and the result might have been foreseen. **Luther made a much better showing against the powerful and resourceful debater than Carlstadt, **but even his skill was unequal to the task of defending an essentially indefensible position. He committed the mistake of supposing that the radical views reached under the influence of his own religious experience were in harmony with the faith of the church. It is a common mistake.” **McGiffert, pg. 143

Good Theologians know the theology of their Church well enough to know when they are straying into heretical beliefs. Luther used his Private Interpretation to develop his ‘radical views’ and didn’t even realize that they were radical. “It is a common mistake” as McGiffert says, but I would suggest, it is not one made by good Theologians.

I would contend Jon, that that IS the point.

As Always, May God Continue to Bless You and Yours, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper: I like your points concerning Sola and Solo Scriptura. I seems to me that while both are flawed, both are used to 1) as the only authority, and 2) to somehow think that PI is the correct way or manor in understanding Scripture, at leastways by those individuals who think that they need no other authority then the Bible itself, yet the real authority is they themselves and not really the Bible because it is their own interpretation that counts not what Scripture actually says and means. This is based on preconceived preconceptions and faulty knowledge of the literary styles that were used by those who wrote what is now Scripture. They then get others to believe in what they incorrectly believe to be the final word as to what one is to believe.

I agree 100% (of course). No matter what the version of Sola Scriptura, no matter which of competing and conflicting definitions of SS we choose, they all have the fatal flaw of not being able to protect Christian doctrine. Of course, the various communions can say:

“But Topper, that it not true – WE of the XYZ communion are teaching the Gospel correctly. What you say is true about all of those ‘other’ SS denominations, but your criticism does not apply to us.”

No matter which of the Sola Scriptura or Solo Scriptura communions you turn to, NONE of them have the ability to protect Christian doctrine from corruption. They CLAIM that they do, but this is only a presumption on their part, one that actual Christian history has disproven, and since they all deny that they ‘other’ SS communions are teaching incorrectly, the only conclusion that we can draw is that they are ALL teaching incorrectly, if for no other reason than because their model of authority (Sola Scriptura) has been proven to be so fatally flawed.

Martin Luther set the precedent for Sola Scriptura in Western Christianity. According to Luther:

“The clergy are ‘office holders’ who are elected by the laity as their representatives, teachers and leaders……On the basis of this doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers, Luther insisted that every Christian has the right to interpret the Bible and to raise concerns about any aspect of the church’s teaching or practice that appears to be inconsistent with the Bible. There is no question of any ‘spiritual’ authority, distinct or superior to ordinary Christians, who can impose certain readings of the Bible upon the Church. **The right to read and interpret the Bible is the birthright of all Christians. At this stage (prior to about 1525), Luther clearly believed that the Bible is sufficiently clear for ordinary Christians to be able to read and understand it. ** Following through on his democratizing agenda, **Luther insists that all believers have the right to read the Bible in a language they can understand, and to interpret its meaning for themselves. **** The church is thus held to be accountable to its members for its interpretation of its sacred text and is open to challenge at every point.” **McGrath, “Heresy, A History of Defending the Truth”, pg. 210-11

Luther was warned that his ‘approach’ to Scripture was doing to lead to disunity, but he foolishly refused to believe these warnings. The result of that foolishness is the doctrinal uncertainty and dissension of Protestantism. Nothing but uncertainty and dissension can be the result of the practice of the church being accountable to its members on the basis of their Private Interpretations of Scripture. We should note that McGrath does not describe Luther’s teaching on PI as only applying to non-doctrinal issues.

“**The long history of Christian interpretation of the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that certain texts are interpreted in very different ways by different individuals and groups. **This poses the critically important question, Who is authorized to adjudicate between such interpretations of the New Testament? The growing emphasis upon the Catholic Church as the supreme authority in the of interpretation of the New Testament began to proceed apace in the second century and is especially evident in the writings of Irenaeus Lyons (in the second century)………

The problems that Protestantism faced here (doctrinal disunity) were famously set out by John Dryden (1631 – 1700) in his satirical poem ‘Religio Laici’ (A Layperson’s Religion) (1682). Dryden here argued that the great Protestant emphasis on the Bible merely led to the proliferation of heresy, due to the absence of any universally acknowledged, authoritative interpreter. The attitude toward biblical interpretation found within Protestantism, Dryden argues, not merely leaves it powerless to resist heresy, but actually encourages the emergence of heresy, through Protestantism’s naïve idea that ordinary Christians will be led, inerrantly and inevitably, to orthodoxy as they browse the Scriptural pages. The text of Scripture was open to all; but what of the rule by which it was to be interpreted? Protestants agreed on and respected a common authority (Holy Scripture), but they had no shared notion of a meta-authority.” McGrath, ‘Heresy’, pg. 51-2

The ‘naïve idea’ that ordinary Christians will be led to a correct interpretation is directly out of Luther’s early teachings.

In the above quote we see one of the finest of all Protestant Scholars making a direct connection between Luther’s doctrine of the ‘priesthood of all believers’ and Private Interpretation. The results according to McGrath has been various conflicting interpretations. McGrath does not even attempt to refute Dryden’s claim that Protestantism’s doctrine of the Bible encourages heresy.

How could he?

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[spina1953]

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

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

 

[Contarini]

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

None of the Popes took as much responsibility for changing doctrine on their shoulders as did Luther.

Agreed. But this is to start from Catholic premises in the first place. From a Protestant perspective, the strong claims Catholics make for the papacy as an office, even if the popes in question aren’t actually making much of a doctrinal contribution, don’t make sense in light of the personal character of many of the Popes. While some Protestants no doubt misunderstand and think Catholics believe Popes to be impeccable, the bigger point is that many Protestants have trouble understanding how Popes could be infallible without being impeccable. One would expect that if God could prevent them from declaring error, God could prevent them from messing up as badly as they often have. I’m not defending this perspective–I know what the answers are to it–I’m just pointing out that this is how many Protestants view it. And I think that’s just as plausible as your assumption that someone who “changed doctrine” ought to be free from personal flaws such as arrogance and unfairness or vitriolic rudeness to his opponents. But from a Protestant point of view–particularly a Lutheran or Reformed point of view–everyone is a sinner and so one would expect even a “great Reformer” to have flaws.

Let me summarize what I think you’re suggesting: I think you’re saying that since Luther was not particularly knowledgeable in Catholic theology and was a personally arrogant, unstable person, hence his ideas should be mistrusted. I.e., it isn’t just a matter of generalized personal flaws but of flaws that specifically relate to his ideas. And I think there’s a good deal of validity to this approach. It isn’t that I think what you’re saying has no value, but that I think you press it in a way that sidesteps a discussion of the substantive merits of Luther’s ideas. There’s no disputing that Luther was somewhat of a “wild genius” in theology. I don’t think he can be called ignorant–he was a fairly well educated late scholastic with a smattering of humanist learning, but not the match of either Erasmus or Cajetan, say, in humanist or scholastic learning respectively. (Your claims about his ignorance of patristics are a bit anachronistic, as I think I’ve pointed out already. Patristics was a very new field at this point, and Erasmus was one of the pioneers. This was one of the reasons Protestantism gained ground and then lost it later, as Catholics “caught up” in patristics and began constructing effective responses to the Protestants’ initially convincing patristic arguments.) But Augustine, as Peter Brown has pointed out, was a rather undereducated theologian too (more so than Luther, perhaps), at least given his genius and his historical importance. Luther had a capacity to put things in new ways. Of course this led him into heresy, given his personal flaws and the confusion and corruption of the time. (In contrast, Augustine was staunchly orthodox, but still arguably led Western theology in some unfortunate directions in certain respects owing to a lack of understanding of the Greek theological tradition.) But there are certain ideas Luther raised which need to be taken seriously. That doesn’t mean accepted–it means that they need to be evaluated on their own merits and not just dismissed because of the flaws of the person who came up with them.

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

 

[Contarini]

OK. Let’s review the actual quote, because Luther went far past just talking about scholasticism and canon law.

On May 9 Luther replied: ‘To speak plainly, my firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as the at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted.’ Such uprooting, he said, had now become his fixed purpose……” Martin Luther, (Carrol quoting Fife, ‘Revolt of Martin Luther’, pg. 267

I don’t see anything here that can’t be summed up under scholasticism or canon law.

To answer your question directly, scholasticism is not specifically ‘part of the Church’, but canon law certainly is a significant part of the Church.

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

In addition, we should remember that Cajetan in the same year believed that Luther wanted to start his own church. Luther would have denied this but then that is exactly how it turned out, again pointing out that many people recognized where Luther was headed even if he didn’t.

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

Actually what I have said is that there were others who had denied the authority of both popes and Councils but that they were all (also) declared heretics.

Of course. By definition. And similarly, so was Luther. So I don’t get the point. The OP question was “when was the belief in the Bible alone first mentioned.” And my point is that Luther did not invent it. I wasn’t arguing that it was orthodox. I was arguing that sola scriptura is really a negative rather than a positive claim. The positive elements of sola scriptura (what it claims about the authority and sufficiency of Scripture) can be found in orthodox theologians, but together with a firm affirmation of the authority and necessity of tradition. Ockham and his followers came closest, and of course several of them (including the Venerable Inceptor himself) were suspected of heresy. However, your suggestion to JonNC that Ockham wasn’t really Catholic would have been surprising to any late medieval Christian. Ockham was excommunicated, but this seems to have been for leaving Avignon without the Pope’s permission (connected to his siding with the Spiritual Franciscans and Emperor Ludwig of Bavaria against Pope John XXII). His ideas were never treated as outside the Catholic tradition–they were openly taught in many Catholic faculties during the late Middle Ages.

So my case is as follows:

1. The positive doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture was pretty much a commonplace among scholastic theologians;
2. The Ockhamists carried this particularly far, together with a definition of the Church (Ockham argued that the Church would still exist even if only one woman were faithful) that was certainly controversial, Ockhamist theology was part of late medieval Catholicism and Luther was taught it by theologians whose orthodoxy was not questioned.
3. Heretics such as Wyclif and Hus denied the hierarchical Church’s authority while maintaining the scholastic understanding of the authority of Scripture. Hence, they at least can be said to be genuine adherents of sola scriptura.

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

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

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

Edwin

 

[Topper17]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your post.

You describe why I prefer not to read or quote from Tertullian for example. William Jurgens in his “Faith of the Fathers” vol 1, writes on Tertullian

“His Catholic period was from 197 to 206 a.d., semi Montanist period 206 -212 a.d. his time of transition, then after that is his Montanist period.”

As Jurgen says there is no “semi Montanist” category of schism or heresy. Yet his writings at this time are becomming suspect. After that he’s a full heretic.

I agree 100%. As you know, Jurgens says to Tertullian’s “Against the Heretics”, that:

“Tertullian invokes two praescriptiones or demurrers in the work (1): 1) Christ sent the Apostles as preachers of the Gospel, so none others ought be received; and b) what the Apostles preached can be discovered only through Apostolic Churches, so only those in agreement with Apostolic Churches ought be given a hearing.” Vol. 1, pg. 119

Of course Tertullian wrote “Against the Heretics” in about 200 AD, still within his fully Catholic period. I have deliberately not read much of Tertullian’s later works but am something of a ‘fan’ of “Against the Heretics”, which I see as being in the same class as Irenaeus’s “Against Heresies”.

Both present an excellent case for the identification of heresy. Tertullian:

"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: **Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men - a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. **For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. **In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind…” **Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 32 (c. A.D. 200).

“To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.** Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. **Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith." Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 32 (c. A.D. 200).

Here Tertullian points to heresies as being ‘of a later date’ and also as being identified by their ‘diversity’.