When was the belief in the Bible alone first mentioned?

[spina1953]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Topper I like what you wrote as it is as always right on the money.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

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

As you know, I think that Luther’s use of PI to Revolt against the Church and form his own Church is an extremely important issue, especially given that Confessional Lutheranism considers such use of PI to be illegitimate. As such, I really want to understand everything I can about the matter. You say it is less rationalistic than the PI of later Protestantism. How so?

What I think is odd is that a few years earlier than the sermon on the Hearers which we have read, Luther evidenced that he understood very well how PI could lead to error. Oberman comments, (pg 173):

“The risks involved in playing careful heed to the Scriptures, in finding the thin line between using and abusing, were described unmistakably by Luther in a sermon he preached in 1515 on the anniversary of his baptism:

‘Whoever wants to read the Bible must make sure he is not wrong, for the Scriptures can be easily stretched and guided, but no one should guide them according to his emotions; he should lead them to the well, that is to the cross of Christ, then he will certainly be right and cannot fail.’ Martin Luther, WA 1.52, 15-18

In 1515, Luther appears to understand very well that Scripture can be ‘stretched and guided’, and he was probably beginning to ‘guide’ it according to his own needs even at that time. It was that ‘need’ which appears to have pulled Luther off track:

“**One can formulate Luther’s principal thus: Scripture is always to be interpreted according to the analogy of Scripture. **And this is nothing else than the analogy of the gospel. Christocentric interpretation for Luther thus means gospel-centered interpretation, understood in terms of the gospel of justification by faith alone.

On the basis of this position, Luther opposed that method of using Scripture which attempts to assert individual Luther opposes that method of using Scripture which attempts to assert individual Bible tests or passages against the understanding of Scripture rooted in the gospel…………The interpretation of individual passages must be subordinated to this (the gospel of Salvation by Faith Alone). Luther always begins with the hermeneutical principal that Scripture cannot be in conflict with Christ its head, that is, with the gospel. Only blindness and ignorance see what appear to be contradictions. The interpreter has the right so to interpret all passages of Scripture that they agree with the gospel, the obvious center of the Scripture; that is, to apply Christ-centered and gospel-centered interpretation………**Should it happen that a particular passage of Scripture is opposed to such evangelical interpretation and cannot be unified with the witness of all the rest of Scripture, then it simply does not have the authority of the word of God………” **Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, pg. 79-81

This means of course that Luther put his own version of the gospel above the Holy Bible. In the text that follows the above quote, Althaus discusses Luther’s ‘liberties’ with the canon.

Clearly, Luther’s motivation was Salvation by Faith Alone. His fear of his everlasting Salvation drove him to exactly what he wrote against in 1515 – the stretching and guiding of Scripture.

Edwin, I recognize that you are not a huge Marius fan, but the following comment is too fitting to be left aside:

Regarding Luther’s homilies shortly after his excommunication: “These homilies are taken from the New Testament and are, as to be expected, sharply focused on Christ. **Luther’s Christology has been the subject of many worthy studies that seek to shape a precise, systematic theological image of what Luther found in Christ. But perhaps it is best to see Luther’s Christ as constructed from what Luther needed. That construction hung then on whatever scriptural texts seemed to fit those needs.” **Marius, pg. 306

I call this Luther’s habit of “Finding What He Wanted in Scripture”. He absolutely HAD to “find” Salvation by Faith Alone in Scripture, and so he did.

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mike,

Hi Mike (of the United States, This is Topper)

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

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

I think the point I was trying to make, as Timothy of Ephesus, is that Sola Scriptura is flatly against Scripture. After all, the two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus read like an Instruction Manual for Bishops. Those letters make it very clear that the people were to recognize the authority of their Bishops to teach, correct, and rebuke.

In addition, Sola Scriptura could not have been the early rule of faith because it was quite a few years after the death of Christ before the first of the New Testament was written.

In our hypothetical situation, A. D. 68 in Ephesus, Paul had been martyred, but of course had earlier written the two letters to Timothy. Of course we don’t know exactly when Paul was last in Ephesus, so we don’t know exactly when Timothy was appointed by Paul to be the Bishop. The only thing we know for sure is that Timothy had been bishop for some period of time prior to receiving the “First Letter of Paul to Timothy”. Of course, as an Apostle, there was no doubt as to what was the ‘Authority’ in Ephesus, when Paul was actually there.

Over the years I have heard advocates of SS preach that the Apostles had ‘The Authority’ while they were alive but that after they died, that authority ‘transferred’ (somehow) to Scripture. The ‘somehow’ has never been described with virtually any ‘level of detail’. In this particular hypothetical, someone (like Michael of Ephesus) can claim the sole authority of Scripture, but what about before there was any Scripture. In this case, what about the period of time after Paul departed Ephesus for the last time and before his first Letter to Timothy?

Michael of Ephesus cannot appeal to the sole Authority of Scripture prior to their actually being any. It would seem that as long as Timothy was alive, the Authority would rest in him and not in Scripture. Scripture in the form of Paul’s Letter to Timothy dictates it.

Throughout Christian history, one of the main identifying marks of heresy was the denial of the authority of the Church. Of course the Reformation is a case in point.

**“The early Reformation was characterized by the optimistic belief that it was possible to establish exactly what the Bible said on everything of importance and make this the basis for a reformed Christianity.” **McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 161

As we know, that optimistic belief turned out to be completely refuted by the fact of the doctrinal diversity of those who advocated that belief.

McGrath goes on to state:

“It is one of the ironies of the Lutheran Reformation that a movement which laid stress upon the importance of Scripture should subsequently deny it less educated members direct access to that same Scripture, for fear that they might misinterpret it (in other words, reach a different interpretations from that of the magisterial reformers)………The direct interpretation of Scripture was thus effectively reserved for a small, privileged group of people. **To put it crudely, it became a question of whether you looked to the pope, to Luther or to Calvin as an interpreter of Scripture. The principal of the ‘clarity of Scripture appears to have been quietly marginalized, in the light of the use made of the Bible by the more radical elements of the Reformation. Similarly, the idea that everyone had the right and the ability to interpret Scripture faithfully became the sole possession of the radicals.” **McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 165

Is it absurd to discuss Luther as a Pope or as having claimed ‘Pope like authority’? In fact, we have already established that Luther took more doctrinal authority upon his own shoulders than any Pope in the history of the papacy. There is another huge difference. Popes are chosen by the leadership of the Church whereas Luther’s authority was self-proclaimed and in opposition to the leadership of the Church.

Luther’s original teaching of PI for every individual has become, by necessity, something much, much different; at least in Confessional Lutheranism, which clearly has found the teaching of the ‘reformer’ on the use of Scripture to be faulty. In fact, if a modern Lutheran Minister or Theologian were to teach Luther’s early views on PI, they would be solidly (and rightly) rebuked. I can only imagine that if they continued to hold to that teaching, they would be removed from their positions, as Luther was, and for the exact same errant teaching.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: I understand what you said and I agree with you. I was playing devils advocate on the issue of SS and PI which as you already know I do not agree with since it only leads to misconceptions misunderstandings and misinterpretations. I rather doubt that I am any good playing devils advocate but tried to make what I think the point of those who somehow think that SS and PI is the best basis in understanding and interpreting Scripture.

    Since the beginning of Christianity, there have been those who choose to interpret Scripture in a manor that reflects their own lack of understanding.  We can see this in Maccabees where after the overthrow of the Greeks, the Essenes as well as the Pharisees  decided that they were correct in what they believed as opposed to the Sanhedrin who were the priestly group in charge of the Temple and what the Jewish people were to believe.

    Christianity in the beginning was not without opposition in that the converted Pharisees believed that one had to be circumcised in order to be saved. They thought or believed that one still had to follow the Law of Moses although one believed in Christ as the Messiah. Over time, People questioned what was being taught till it came that a council was needed in order to decide issues of importance concerning what one was to believe. Throughout Church history they were those opposed to whatever was decided and did not agree and therefor went their own way.

The Reformation is another group who decided that they had to go their own way because they believed that the Church was not operating in the manor they thought is should be. This was mostly I think due to the abuses by Popes, Bishops and priests and others who abused the power they had. When those opposing the Church went their own way they needed an authority since they no longer saw the Church as the authority and so the Bible became that authority by which they would submit to. However, this led to PI as Luther envisioned but late denied when it did not go the way he intended.

I think one needs to remember that they are those who for whatever reason always resent authority and those who rebel against authority, and those who refuse authority of any kind, whether Church or secular. That being said, As Jesus said let those who have ears hear and those who have eyes see. As I have said a lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it and the truth is always the truth even when no one believes it.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your response.

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

I agree, it’s a pretty sad state of affairs. Most Catholics know little past the basics of the Catholic faith as compared to other versions of Christianity. If you know that little, you are never going to be in a position to even begin to try to convince people as to the truth of the Catholic Church.

Personally I have seen a LOT of people come into the Church and virtually every one of them ‘swam’ because they became convinced that the Church is what it claims to be, the Church that Christ established for us to receive the Sacraments and to know His Absolute Truth. On the other hand, of all of the people I have seen leave the Church for a Protestant denomination, I haven’t seen one of them who was aware of what it was they were leaving. It seems to me that they all leave because they want better music, ‘better preaching’, more comfortable seating, a more welcoming environment. You know, all that stuff that is much more important than the Truth.

A few years ago my wife and I went to an all weekend retreat. After the retreat we were assigned to a Small Faith Community with 5 other couples. Of the 12 of us, 5 were converts and one was a Presbyterian who read more JPII and B16 than any of the rest of us (he has since ‘swum’). What was odd about the five of us who were converts, NONE of us actually set out wanting to join the Church. Quite the opposite, all five of us did not want to join the Church, at all. However, our search for the Truth led us all to the same conclusion, and once convinced, we didn’t have any choice. Now though, we are all extremely grateful that we cared enough about the Truth to fight through the process.

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

It seems to me that not everyone cares all that much about what is True and what is False. As many of us agree, the case for the Catholic Church is pretty compelling, but you have to care enough about the Truth to do the right thing. Let’s be honest, the Catholic Church was not ‘designed’ to be ‘easy’ to be a member of, not like many of the Protestant denominations which seem to be inclined to ‘lower the bar’ as much as necessary in order to put bottoms in the seats. Christ never intended that there be conflicting denominations which compete for members.

I suspect it’s economic. They’re thinking, where would they work? Your thoughts?

I have read a lot of conversion stories. Most of the stories in Patrick Madrid’s series involve professional people who faced, among other things, professional uncertainty as a result of their swim. Those people laid it all on the line far more than I ever did and they must be admired for it. Many of them mentioned that the ‘economic thing’ was a real factor.

I think you made the case well

Thanks, but it wasn’t so much me as it was Luther. Generally it is by his own words that he can be best understood. As you have certainly noticed, Lutherans are not exactly thrilled about admitting that Luther taught PI, or that SS+PI is responsible for Protestantism’s doctrinal disunity and uncertainty.

The “Legend” of Luther depicts him as being a ‘Reformer’ of the Church, and does not generally present him as being responsible for “non-positive outcomes”, like doctrinal confusion.

God Bless You Steve, Topper

 

[Contarini]

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

I suspect it’s economic. They’re thinking, where would they work? Your thoughts?

That’s insulting as a generalization. It was true for me, in part. About the time I had pretty much overcome any genuine theological reasons I had for not becoming Catholic (around 2005), I obtained a job at an evangelical college. It was not entirely clear that I would have been fired if I had become Catholic, but the school had just fired someone for doctrinal reasons, and everyone said that it would be dangerous to put the issue to the test. So I worked hard to persuade myself that my conclusions were not really conclusive.

However, I know that you are slandering many other Protestant scholars who genuinely see no historical reason to convert to Catholicism. You can understand them if you wish to. But probably you don’t wish to.

History itself never compels any particular theological conclusion, though it casts doubt on all triumphalistic narratives, Catholic as well as Protestant or secularist. The effect of history on anyone who seriously studies it with anything like an open mind (not just with the determination to extract material for propaganda) is very unsettling, no matter what your starting point is. Newman’s famous statement was right insofar as “to be deep in history” is to cease to believe the kind of simplistic propaganda current in his day. And understandably, he couldn’t imagine another way to be Protestant, just as ex-Catholics often can’t imagine a kind of Catholicism other than the legalistic nightmare they have experienced.

If you really want to understand why scholars remain Protestant, read Alister McGrath’s Christianity’s Dangerous Idea. For McGrath, the diversity (i.e., disunion) and endlessly changing character of Protestantism are good things. They are about freedom and allowing the Holy Spirit to move in new ways. For Protestants who think like this, whether evangelicals or liberals (McGrath is an evangelical, though on the moderate side of evangelicalism to be sure), there is no conflict whatever between history and their faith.

I have been culpable for years in not becoming Catholic because

1. I came to theological conclusions years ago (the key ideas were planted in my last year of college, in 1992-3, but perhaps not fully formed until 1998) which were incompatible with McGrath’s kind of Protestant narrative; and
2. My study of church history led me to the conclusion that more conservative, traditional kinds of Protestantism (like confessional Lutheranism or Calvinism, or even high-church Anglicanism) do not have the continuity with historic orthodoxy that they claim.

You and many others assume that anyone who sees the historical point (2) must convert to Catholicism if they follow their convictions. But the theological groundwork must be there too. If you don’t think historical continuity (beyond the very basics) is important, you won’t care that “sola fide” was a new invention in the sixteenth century. (McGrath himself has admitted very clearly, in a passage much loved by Catholic apologists, that the doctrine was a “theological novum.” But he doesn’t care.)

That being said, some eminent Protestant scholars have said some very weird things about history. Dr. Timothy George, a learned and ecumenical Baptist (yes, there are such beings), claimed in a debate with Francis Beckwith that St. Augustine taught sola fide in his sermon on Psalm 51. I thought this unlikely, but I went home and looked at the sermon. Sure enough, there’s plenty of language about the sovereignty of God’s grace, but nothing about sola fide. George sees grace language and reads it as sola fide. So I’ll readily grant that to a great extent even learned Protestants (especially those, like George, who want to stress the authority of tradition in internal Protestant debates) can be guilty of some serious misreadings. But so can Catholics, when their prejudices are at stake. I’ve seen very learned Catholics engage in elaborate denials about the extent to which Aquinas’ doctrine of predestination resembles Calvinism.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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

Right, but if you agree that they don’t believe what they do out of reverence for Luther, then tearing Luther down is kind of pointless. It’s also just a bad habit to get into. A hermeneutic of charity is a much healthier habit of mind. And you don’t need to tear historical figures apart in order to defend Catholicism. You can empathize with Luther plenty and still think he was wrong–as I do.

I don’t see the above as being all that common.

It’s what I have run into in teaching church history to Protestant seminarians (at Asbury Theological Seminary, in their online program). That is to say, they all talk about Luther’s great courage in standing up to the Church and so on. And what they seem to mean by this is that because of Luther’s “PI,” as you would call it, they have the freedom to have a personal relationship with Jesus today. The specifics of what Luther believed are relatively less important to them, typically.

But you’re probably right that this is a self-selecting sample. In fact, the undergrads I’ve taught cared relatively less about Luther.

What I see is more like this:

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

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

Well, I agree that it doesn’t work. (But then, I don’t think the authority of the Church removes all doubt either, as many on these forums seem to think. Absolute certainty is a mirage, whether you seek it by Protestant or Catholic methods.)

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

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

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

The trend more and more is toward more critical analysis and honesty. But Reformation scholarship is “backwards” in both good and bad ways. We have been less affected by “theory” than other fields of church history, and are more likely to have affection and empathy for our subjects. In the 60s, social historians challenged the dominance of confessional theology in the field, but they weren’t that interested in theology. Only in the past few decades has that antagonism between social and intellectual history started to break down. Even now, the political/social historians tend to congregate in one corner of the room (or one set of sessions) and the theologians in another.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As you know, I think that Luther’s use of PI to Revolt against the Church and form his own Church is an extremely important issue, especially given that Confessional Lutheranism considers such use of PI to be illegitimate. As such, I really want to understand everything I can about the matter. You say it is less rationalistic than the PI of later Protestantism. How so?

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

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

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

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

‘Whoever wants to read the Bible must make sure he is not wrong, for the Scriptures can be easily stretched and guided, but no one should guide them according to his emotions; he should lead them to the well, that is to the cross of Christ, then he will certainly be right and cannot fail.’ Martin Luther, WA 1.52, 15-18

. . . .

This means of course that Luther put his own version of the gospel above the Holy Bible. In the text that follows the above quote, Althaus discusses Luther’s ‘liberties’ with the canon.

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

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

Clearly, Luther’s motivation was Salvation by Faith Alone. His fear of his everlasting Salvation drove him to exactly what he wrote against in 1515 – the stretching and guiding of Scripture.

Edwin, I recognize that you are not a huge Marius fan

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

Edwin

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

The Reformation is another group who decided that they had to go their own way because they believed that the Church was not operating in the manor they thought is should be. This was mostly I think due to the abuses by Popes, Bishops and priests and others who abused the power they had. When those opposing the Church went their own way they needed an authority since they no longer saw the Church as the authority and so the Bible became that authority by which they would submit to. However, this led to PI as Luther envisioned but late denied when it did not go the way he intended.

It is true that the reformers (starting with Luther) believed that the Church was not ‘operating as they thought it should’, as you put it. There were abuses by the hierarchy in areas of Church practice and there were abuses of power. These things along with other factors combined to weaken the authority of the Church in the eyes of the people. Of course, Luther’s ‘presenting issue’ was indulgences, but his complaints quickly grew to include several dozen doctrinal issues.

By what leap of logic and reason do you go from criticism of the Church in the area of it’s practices, to the wholesale rejection of dozens of well-established doctrines? How could what Luther did be seen as anything other than a total overreaction?

The Church is always in need of ‘reformation’, but that reformation must be done by people who have the right set of skills, knowledge and wisdom. In addition, reformation must be undertaken by people whose goal is to strengthen the Church, rather than tear it down. When we read the ‘lesser known’ of Luther’s early statements on the subject, we recognize that Luther was in no way qualified to be a ‘reformer’.

I think one needs to remember that they are those who for whatever reason always resent authority and those who rebel against authority, and those who refuse authority of any kind, whether Church or secular. That being said, As Jesus said let those who have ears hear and those who have eyes see. As I have said a lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it and the truth is always the truth even when no one believes it.

I agree. It seems that there are two issues here. The first is that once the Church resisted Luther’s initial thrust (the 95 Theses), it really didn’t take him too long before he was ready to tear down the Church wholesale. Rather than listen when everyone was telling him that he was wrong, Luther chose to believe that he alone was right and everyone else was wrong. This brings us directly to the questions about the nature of the man himself. What kind of man would take that kind of position? Isn’t this a demonstration of the kind of individualism that Luther taught in his early version of PI? Many Scholars point to that individualism:

“The greatness and tragedy of Luther was that he could never relinquish either the individualism of the Eucharistic cup of the corporateness of the baptismal fond. He would have been a troubled spirit in a tranquil age.” Bainton, pg. 132

“Because of his genuine piety, Luther increasingly gains general recognition beyond confessional boundaries today. **But it is recognition coupled with the suspicion that the Reformer indulged in misdirected individualism and thus had no sense of communion within the Church.” **Oberman, pg. 310

“Luther was the obedient servant as long as obedience coincided with his devotion to what he considered the will of God.” Marius pg. 330

In other words, what he personally and privately considered to be the will of God. This has PI written all over it.

**“Rather than seeking to found a Church or a kingdom of God on earth, he simply claimed the right to pronounce on doctrine, like a one-man-version of the Sorbonne, **the theological faculty of the University of Paris, which for centuries had seen itself as having a particular privilege in this regard. But he felt also compelled to do so by an authority far higher than the Wittenberg university charter: he saw himself as God’s prophet in the last days of the earth, spreading God’s good news.” Diamaid MacCulloch, “The Reformation, a History”, pg. 132

The issue of Luther seeing himself as a Prophet is one that deserves some attention. Hopefully we will be able to get to it at some point because everyone will be shocked at some of the arrogant statements the man made.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[steve_b]

That’s insulting as a generalization.

Why?
C:

I know that you are slandering many other Protestant “scholars” who genuinely see no historical reason to convert to Catholicism. You can understand them if you wish to. But probably you don’t wish to.

my college years were in the 60’s. “Scholar” then as is today, has a whole range of meaning. For me then, all my professors had PhD’s in their field. And I learned early on, because someone is called “scholar” or is called doctor so and so, doesn’t impress me one bit. For me it matters how someone thinks. Most of my professors and I mean MOST, were on the left. I had to tollerate them to get my degree then, but that’s as far as it went.

I knew even then,

Ecclesiastes 10:2 A wise man’s heart inclines him toward the right,
but a fool’s heart toward the left.

I would argue THAT’S even MORE obvious today.
C:

History itself never compels any particular theological conclusion, though it casts doubt on all triumphalistic narratives, Catholic as well as Protestant or secularist. The effect of history on anyone who seriously studies it with anything like an open mind (not just with the determination to extract material for propaganda) is very unsettling, no matter what your starting point is.

It doesn’t work that way for me. Church history complements theology

#34
C:

Newman’s famous statement was right insofar as “to be deep in history” is to cease to believe the kind of simplistic propaganda current in his day. And understandably, he couldn’t imagine another way to be Protestant, just as ex-Catholics often can’t imagine a kind of Catholicism other than the legalistic nightmare they have experienced.

Newman was historically and theologically and ecclesiastically right in what he said. “To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant” That is an absolute bullseye. No matter the stripe, Protestantism is 100% human invention started in the 1500’s…
C:

If you really want to understand why scholars remain Protestant, read Alister McGrath’s Christianity’s Dangerous Idea. For McGrath, the diversity (i.e., disunion) and endlessly changing character of Protestantism are good things. They are about freedom and allowing the Holy Spirit to move in new ways. For Protestants who think like this, whether evangelicals or liberals (McGrath is an evangelical, though on the moderate side of evangelicalism to be sure), there is no conflict whatever between history and their faith.

With all due respect Edwin,

There is no getting around the fact that no matter the stripe, Protestantism is one of The Great Heresies in history. Thanks for the suggested readings however, but when it comes to theology, It’s just me, but I have no interest Edwin in reading from heretical sources, when I have WAY too many solid resources to select from.
C:

You and many others assume that anyone who sees the historical point (2) must convert to Catholicism if they follow their convictions. But the theological groundwork must be there too. If you don’t think historical continuity (beyond the very basics) is important, you won’t care that “sola fide” was a new invention in the sixteenth century. (McGrath himself has admitted very clearly, in a passage much loved by Catholic apologists, that the doctrine was a “theological novum.” But he doesn’t care.)

I understand that some Catholics like to quote from Protestants like McGrath who might agree with Catholics on a point. Just being transparent, that doesn’t work for me. I avoid doing that myself because it makes no sense to me. Why quote someone as if he is some authority of truth then 2 minutes later go back to complete disagreement with him on other issues?

 

[Contarini]

my college years were in the 60’s. “Scholar” then as is today, has a whole range of meaning. For me then, all my professors had PhD’s in their field. And I learned early on, because someone is called “scholar” or is called doctor so and so, doesn’t impress me one bit. For me it matters how someone thinks. Most of my professors and I mean MOST, were on the left. I had to tollerate them to get my degree then, but that’s as far as it went.

Well, the fact that you are so prejudiced that you regard anyone whose views differ from yours to be not worth listening to is your infirmity. It makes dialogue with you difficult, and it makes you less credible to people who don’t already share all your ideological biases.

I repeat: you slander many excellent Protestant scholars (lots of whom are politically conservative, not that that should matter) when you imply that their reasons for not converting are economic.

It doesn’t work that way for me.

Of course it doesn’t. You admitted above that you dismissed the credentials of your professors because they had political views with which you disagreed. You aren’t approaching any of this with any degree of fair-mindedness, which is why you twist historical evidence so flagrantly and why it’s so hard to have a substantive discussion with you. You aren’t open to evidence. Your mind is made up ahead of time and you cherry-pick the evidence for something that will support what you already “know” is true.

That’s not intellectually honest.

Newman was historically and theologically and ecclesiastically right in what he said. “To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant” That is an absolute bullseye.

That requires you to say that people who go on being Protestant must not really be deep in history, even if they give evidence of great learning. This doesn’t make sense. But it’s the inevitable result of the kind of closed-mindedness to which you admit and which you mistakenly think is a virtue.

You are at odds with reality. That is your problem, and I urge you to confront it honestly. You repeatedly have to explain things away because you insist on denying any evidence that doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas. So we get absurdities like “the burning of heretics” referring to eternal punishment or Sodom and Gomorrah, when everyone at the time knew quite well that it was talking about the civil punishment of heretics. You can even look at an article of the Summa Theologiae, which is clearly divided into objections and responses, and suggest with a straight face that something clearly labeled “response” is actually part of an objection, simply because you desperately don’t want Aquinas to have said what he did say.

Can’t you see that this whole approach is wrong?

There is no getting around the fact that no matter the stripe, Protestantism is one of The Great Heresies in history. Thanks for the suggested readings however, but when it comes to theology, It’s just me, but I have no interest Edwin in reading from heretical sources, when I have WAY too many solid resources to select from.

If you are unwilling to read what Protestants say, you can’t make statements about Protestants. It’s as simple as that. Another of your more absurd claims was that one can figure out the teachings of Luther from the decrees of Trent (even though Trent wisely never mentions Luther by name).

You don’t know anything about how Protestant scholars think, and you refuse to read their books, and yet you’re quite willing to make malicious claims about their motives for not being Catholic. Your arguments are morally and intellectually bankrupt from beginning to end, and you are putting stumbling blocks in the path of Protestants by posting such opinions on a Catholic forum. That is why I am opposing you so strongly, even though I think you are a good and sincere person and admire your dedication to the Faith.

I understand that some Catholics like to quote from Protestants like McGrath who might agree with Catholics on a point. Just being transparent, that doesn’t work for me. I avoid doing that myself because it makes no sense to me. Why quote someone as if he is some authority of truth then 2 minutes later go back to complete disagreement with him on other issues?

Because people are never all right or all wrong. Given that McGrath is theologically committed to justification by faith alone, it is significant that he can recognize that it was a new idea in the sixteenth century. Of course, he can do this because he has what Gerald McDermott would call a “meliorist” view of theology–that is to say, he’s less attached to traditional theological paradigms than some conservative Protestants, like McDermott, are. McDermott is incapable of recognizing how radical Luther was–if he did, he would have to abandon Protestantism or else abandon his “traditionist” commitments.

 

[steve_b]

Well, the fact that you are so prejudiced that you regard anyone whose views differ from yours to be not worth listening to is your infirmity. It makes dialogue with you difficult, and it makes you less credible to people who don’t already share all your ideological biases.

Are you lecturing me on bias?
C:

I repeat: you slander many excellent Protestant scholars (lots of whom are politically conservative, not that that should matter) when you imply that their reasons for not converting are economic.

I made an observation based on having listened to many conversion stories, where that was an issue
C:

Of course it doesn’t. You admitted above that you dismissed the credentials of your professors because they had political views with which you disagreed. You aren’t approaching any of this with any degree of fair-mindedness, which is why you twist historical evidence so flagrantly and why it’s so hard to have a substantive discussion with you. You aren’t open to evidence. Your mind is made up ahead of time and you cherry-pick the evidence for something that will support what you already “know” is true.

I said I didn’t like their bent. I tollerated them.

Now where have I twisted historical evidence? Where have I cherry picked evidence?
C:

That requires you to say that people who go on being Protestant must not really be deep in history,

you are the one who brought up Newman and began part of his famous quote. I merely gave the actual quote.
C:

even if they give evidence of great learning. This doesn’t make sense. But it’s the inevitable result of the kind of closed-mindedness to which you admit and which you mistakenly think is a virtue.

“They” are heretics for pete sake. I choose not to read them. That’s my choice. You made your choice…job over Catholicism. We all make choices.

And since this topic on this thread is bible alone,

Here’s a couple of references

Paul and heretics
Tit 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

St John and heretics. Irenaeus tells the story of St John fleeing the bath house because a heretic walked into the bath house Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 4

I’m making choices as well
C:

You are at odds with reality. That is your problem, and I urge you to confront it honestly. You repeatedly have to explain things away because you insist on denying any evidence that doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas. So we get absurdities like “the burning of heretics” referring to eternal punishment or Sodom and Gomorrah, when everyone at the time knew quite well that it was talking about the civil punishment of heretics. You can even look at an article of the Summa Theologiae, which is clearly divided into objections and responses, and suggest with a straight face that something clearly labeled “response” is actually part of an objection, simply because you desperately don’t want Aquinas to have said what he did say.

Now who’s twisting things? I’m fine on what I actually said Not so for what you say that I said.
C:

If you are unwilling to read what Protestants say, you can’t make statements about Protestants. It’s as simple as that. Another of your more absurd claims was that one can figure out the teachings of Luther from the decrees of Trent (even though Trent wisely never mentions Luther by name).

C:

You don’t know anything about how Protestant scholars think, and you refuse to read their books, and yet you’re quite willing to make malicious claims about their motives for not being Catholic.

I don’t have to read their books, I have you to make their case.

And I make no malicious claims. I merely ask the question, with all the evidence available, I wonder why more don’t make the swim?
C:

Because people are never all right or all wrong. Given that McGrath is theologically committed to justification by faith alone, it is significant that he can recognize that it was a new idea in the sixteenth century. Of course, he can do this because he has what Gerald McDermott would call a “meliorist” view of theology–that is to say, he’s less attached to traditional theological paradigms than some conservative Protestants, like McDermott, are. McDermott is incapable of recognizing how radical Luther was–if he did, he would have to abandon Protestantism or else abandon his “traditionist” commitments.

My friend, Protestantism regardless of stripe is one of The Great Heresies in history. That’s fact. What am I supposed to say about those 2 guys you bring up?

 

[spina1953]

Why?

my college years were in the 60’s. “Scholar” then as is today, has a whole range of meaning. For me then, all my professors had PhD’s in their field. And I learned early on, because someone is called “scholar” or is called doctor so and so, doesn’t impress me one bit. For me it matters how someone thinks. Most of my professors and I mean MOST, were on the left. I had to tollerate them to get my degree then, but that’s as far as it went.

I knew even then,

Ecclesiastes 10:2 A wise man’s heart inclines him toward the right,
but a fool’s heart toward the left.

I would argue THAT’S even MORE obvious today.

It doesn’t work that way for me. Church history complements theology

#34

Newman was historically and theologically and ecclesiastically right in what he said. “To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant” That is an absolute bullseye. No matter the stripe, Protestantism is 100% human invention started in the 1500’s…

With all due respect Edwin,

There is no getting around the fact that no matter the stripe, Protestantism is one of The Great Heresies in history. Thanks for the suggested readings however, but when it comes to theology, It’s just me, but I have no interest Edwin in reading from heretical sources, when I have WAY too many solid resources to select from.

I understand that some Catholics like to quote from Protestants like McGrath who might agree with Catholics on a point. Just being transparent, that doesn’t work for me. I avoid doing that myself because it makes no sense to me. Why quote someone as if he is some authority of truth then 2 minutes later go back to complete disagreement with him on other issues?

Hi Steve B: I have to agree with you about college, university, and scholars and doctors who teach as so many are bias in their approach to what it is they are teaching and in order to get the degree from them one has to go along with the program. I know this is not true of all but some if not most. I have been told by one historian that all historians are bias in one form or another as it is their views that they wish to promote, and of course if one does not have a degree then one is not considered in any way knowledgeable. I find this sad as many are quite knowledgeable as they like studying and learning. What I find amiss in that these days one is not really thought to think but have to go along in order to get that degree.

There are plenty of professors, scholars and doctors who have very big ego’s and like to think that they know while the rest do not. I can understand that one goes to learn from them and that is ok but not all are worth their salt as far as I am concerned.

 

[Contarini]

Are you lecturing me on bias?

I’m pointing out that by your own account you are overtly and incorrigibly biased, yes.

We are all biased. Most of us try to be aware of our biases and open ourselves to evidence that may challenge our biases. We fail a lot of the time.

But if you don’t even try-and it seems that you don’t–then you are guaranteed to develop views that are pretty disconnected from reality.

I made an observation based on having listened to many conversion stories, where that was an issue

Right. And when I responded that this was unfair to many Protestant scholars, you could have said, “I’m not claiming that they are all motivated by this, only that some people who have converted have admitted that this was an issue.” I’ve confessed that it was for me. It was the generalization that upset me, because of what it implies about people I know personally whom I know to be people of great learning and piety (in fact, their example is one of the things that has in the past made me think that my own conclusions must be wrong–indeed, the problem with converting to Catholicism is that one has to be a good bit like Luther to do so). You could have qualified the generalization. Instead you announced that ever since your professors in the 60s had dared to hold political beliefs you did not share, you had had no confidence in “scholars.” Which says a good deal more about you than about them.

I’m making choices as well

Yes, and your choices disqualify you from saying anything about Protestants at all. At least from doing so credibly (obviously you have the right to say anything you like, short of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater or overtly calling for violence!).

Now who’s twisting things? I’m fine on what I actually said Not so for what you say that I said.

In post 93, after I cited the passage where Aquinas explicitly says that heretics should be killed, you said,

As you know, Aquinas in his style of the Summa, would give the objection(s) to a particular issue, (not his objections but those of the time), then he would give various answers to those questions from various sources, then he would give his answer from the Church’s position.

How is that not suggesting that the passage in question is part of an objection? Yet it is clearly part of Aquinas’ response to an objection.

I don’t have to read their books, I have you to make their case.

But you don’t trust “scholars,” remember. And you shouldn’t trust me or anyone else implicitly. I might be wrong.

And I make no malicious claims. I merely ask the question, with all the evidence available, I wonder why more don’t make the swim?

Obviously because they see the evidence differently.

Prof. Warren Smith, of Duke University, is a Methodist minister and an expert in the early Church. He told me once that he sees no evidence in the early Church for the claims of “Rome.” I think he’s wrong. But obviously he reads the evidence differently than I do.

My advisor, Prof. David Steinmetz, also of Duke, thinks (as Luther himself argued) that just as God led Christians to break with aspects of Judaism, so God led Protestants to break with aspects of medieval Catholicism. I don’t think this works, because God didn’t become incarnate in the sixteenth century. But he sees things differently.

Prof. Richard Muller, one of Steinmetz’ students and a longtime professor at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, told me that in his opinion the Reformed tradition is the valid continuation of historic Catholicism, and “Rome” is “just a big denomination.” (The force with which he and others pressed this view when I first went to Sixteenth Century Studies Conference in 1999 was one of the contributing reasons for my dropping out of RCIA shortly after returning from that conference.) I have now got over my youthful awe of him and other learned Protestant scholars, but I cannot in good conscience accuse them of a lack of learning or sincerity. I simply think they are wrong.

My friend, Protestantism regardless of stripe is one of The Great Heresies in history. That’s fact. What am I supposed to say about those 2 guys you bring up?

Look, if you think that all that needs to be said about heresy is that it’s heresy, then fine. Go be a happy Catholic and don’t make statements about Protestants at all. But if you want to talk about them, it helps to know what you are talking about. And that means that you need to understand what leading Protestant scholars and theologians are saying.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church in recent decades has made it clear that while Protestantism is materially heretical, it also has much of value and that ecumenical dialogue is a high priority for the Church. Your attitude is radically different from that of all the recent Popes. I understand that ecumenical policy isn’t a matter of doctrine and that you are free to differ with Saint John Paul II, with Benedict XVI, and with Pope Francis (not to mention the Fathers of Vatican II) in matters of tone and emphasis. I’m simply pointing out that you do differ, and that my approach (the approach that has finally led me to conclude that Catholicism is true) is much more in tune with theirs.

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

I’m pointing out that by your own account you are overtly and incorrigibly biased, yes.

And you’re not? Look at the fire that is in your post to me that I’m responding to. Where have I ever fired back at you with such bloviating?
C:

We are all biased.

Thanks for admitting that
C:

But if you don’t even try-and it seems that you don’t–then you are guaranteed to develop views that are pretty disconnected from reality.

“bible alone” is the issue of this thread. That is one of the heresies formulated by heretics. What is it that I need to “try” and understand about that? I offered the following link The Great Heresies It’s certainly not meant to be a full explanation by any means but it IS REALITY… And what it says is Protestantism is a heresy as is the heresy we’re talking about, just like the other heresies mentioned in the link, which is by no means a complete list.
C:

Right. And when I responded that this was unfair to many Protestant scholars, you could have said, “I’m not claiming that they are all motivated by this, only that some people who have converted have admitted that this was an issue.”

I said " I made an observation based on having listened to many conversion stories, where that was an issue". So I followed up with my observation

Originally Posted by steve b
I’m actually surprised given the information so readily available, there are not more who take the swim.
I suspect it’s economic. They’re thinking, where would they work? Your thoughts?

That particular comment came from my post to Topper, and I was asking him in this comment for his thoughts. Why should you feel offended? You have people you know and I have people I know. It’s NOT an overgeneralization as you say

Nothing I said there is out of line. It’s not unfair.
C:

It was the generalization that upset me, because of what it implies about people I know personally whom I know to be people of great learning and piety (in fact, their example is one of the things that has in the past made me think that my own conclusions must be wrong–

you shouldn’t be taking this so personally, it was NOT addressed to you.
C:

Instead you announced that ever since your professors in the 60s had dared to hold political beliefs you did not share, you had had no confidence in “scholars.” Which says a good deal more about you than about them.

I neither mentioned what subjects I studied, nor did I mention politics. What I did, was give a scripture passage about the right and the left. The passage was about what is in the heart. Quoted again below. I won’t deny it could be taken politically as well
C:

Yes, and your choices disqualify you from saying anything about Protestants at all. At least from doing so credibly

I disagree
C:

But you don’t trust “scholars,” remember . And you shouldn’t trust me or anyone else implicitly. I might be wrong .

“scholar” as a title by itself, from my experience carries no special weight.
C:

Obviously because they see the evidence differently…My advisor, Prof. David Steinmetz, also of Duke, thinks (as Luther himself argued) that just as God led Christians to break with aspects of Judaism, so God led Protestants to break with aspects of medieval Catholicism.

And how would Steinmetz understand John 17:20-23 ? What Jesus prayed for there proves God doesn’t divide what He established and prayed to be perfectly united as He and the Father are one…

Protestantism = division on steroids, .
C:

Prof. Richard Muller, one of Steinmetz’ students and a longtime professor at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, told me that in his opinion the Reformed tradition is the valid continuation of historic Catholicism, and “Rome” is “just a big denomination.” …

See? This is WHY titles like “professor” or “scholar” etc carry no special weight with me.

I’ll quote the passage again, that appears to have hit a sour cord with you.

Ecclesiastes 10:2 A wise man’s heart inclines him toward the right,
but a fool’s heart toward the left.

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve B: I have to agree with you about college, university, and scholars and doctors who teach as so many are bias in their approach to what it is they are teaching and in order to get the degree from them one has to go along with the program. I know this is not true of all but some if not most. I have been told by one historian that all historians are bias in one form or another as it is their views that they wish to promote, and of course if one does not have a degree then one is not considered in any way knowledgeable. I find this sad as many are quite knowledgeable as they like studying and learning. What I find amiss in that these days one is not really thought to think but have to go along in order to get that degree.

There are plenty of professors, scholars and doctors who have very big ego’s and like to think that they know while the rest do not. I can understand that one goes to learn from them and that is ok but not all are worth their salt as far as I am concerned.

Well said.

 

[spina1953]

Well said.

Thanks!!!

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

The Reformation is another group who decided that they had to go their own way because they believed that the Church was not operating in the manor they thought is should be. This was mostly I think due to the abuses by Popes, Bishops and priests and others who abused the power they had. When those opposing the Church went their own way they needed an authority since they no longer saw the Church as the authority and so the Bible became that authority by which they would submit to. However, this led to PI as Luther envisioned but late denied when it did not go the way he intended.

You said that the Reformation did ‘not go the way that Luther intended’. I do love a good understatement! Pelikan on the matter, with my comments as numbered.

“It had not been his (Luther’s) “will or intention” to elevate his own private theological concerns to the status of doctrinal issues affecting the entire church, (1) and he long professed the conviction that what he had “discovered” was something that the best theologians of the church must have known all along. (2) The eventual realization that such was not the case precipitated his theology into the public forum of the church, both through his condemnations of those teachings into official confessional statements during and after his own lifetime. (3) …

At the heart of the church doctrine that came out of Luther’s Reformation was the axiom he enunciated in 1517: “The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.” As it stood, the axiom echoed the language of theologians East and West throughout the centuries, none of whom would have questioned it. Yet all the decisive terms in this axiom – such words as “church,” “gospel,” and “grace” – came to mean something in the sixteenth century that many of these theologians would not quite have been able to recognize or acknowledge. Luther himself admitted as much when, in explaining it, he observed that “the gospel of God (as he had learned to understand it) is something that is not very well known to a large part of the church” and something that he had not learned from the scholastic theologians. (4).” Jaroslav Pelikan, Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700), 1984, pgs. 127-128

(1) First of all, amazingly, Pelikan admits that Luther’s “ideas” were this own “private concerns.” Of course, his private opinions, became, to HIM, God’s Absolute Truth, and he defended them as if they had been given to him on divinely carved stone tablets, or golden tablets as the case may be.

(2) Luther, again amazingly, actually believed that the Scriptures were SO clear, that NOBODY could possibly honestly disagree with his interpretations and so he believed that those who opposed him were either dishonestly representing their true beliefs or were unknowingly agents of the anti-christ. He could not fathom the possibility that honest faithful Christians could disagree with Him. This meant that all of those Fathers who clearly opposed “Lutheran” type beliefs were, at least, less “Christian” than Luther Himself. Of course, none of the Church Fathers taught anything approaching Luther’s beliefs in total.

(3) Once Luther realized that people were not going to simply jump on his bandwagon after hearing Him preach “the gospel”, he and the other Reformers found it necessary to develop their own Confessions. While Luther claimed that Councils could err, he not only continued for decades to appeal to a future Council, he, and also other Protestants met IN COUNCIL, to draw up the various conflicting denominational Confessions. To one degree or another, depending on the denomination, members are

What happened to the “Right” to Private Interpretation? It still exists of course. Those who disagree can simply form their own denomination if they have a “mind” to and there is NOTHING that anyone can say about it BECAUSE their “right” cannot be at one point “given” and then, later, “taken away”. When Luther realized that people actually COULD honestly disagree on matters of Interpretation, why didn’t he “backtrack” and question whether he could have been wrong on “other stuff” previously?

(4) Here we learn that even Luther admitted that his views on Salvation were novel. In addition, he defined several very important terms in a new way, it would seem so as to ‘assist’ his radical beliefs on Salvation square with Scripture.

I’m reasonably certain that when he ‘started’, Luther actually didn’t have any intention to do anything ‘radical’. But not being one to ever ‘back up’, and not recognizing how far he was from orthodoxy, it seems that Luther’s course was set early on. When he finally did realize what everyone else knew, rather than retreat to the teachings of the Church, he instead became even more self-reliant and individualistic.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[spina1953]

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

We know from If I remember correctly that he really in the beginning want to be a theologian but was persuaded to anyway. I wonder if he had not been given the position of theologian would he have gone the way he did. I also think that what added fuel to the fire was the fact that Calvin and Zwingli would not go along with his interpretations, both having their own thoughts on the matter of how Scriptures were top be applied and understood. It also appears or seems that the more the Church refused to accept what Luther wanted and what Luther was saying the more stubborn he became and the more convinced that he was correct. Having help from princes of the regions gave Luther the means to challenge the Church not just in discipline but in doctrines, which over the centuries have caused the Scriptures to mean whatever someone thinks it means and says by those who think that their private interpretations are the only correct ones to have. We saw that in Waco and other places and also in the many religious cults besides those denominations that preach hatred against anyone not of their beliefs.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

Right, but if you agree that they don’t believe what they do out of reverence for Luther, then tearing Luther down is kind of pointless. It’s also just a bad habit to get into. A hermeneutic of charity is a much healthier habit of mind. And you don’t need to tear historical figures apart in order to defend Catholicism. You can empathize with Luther plenty and still think he was wrong–as I do.

“Reverence” was not what I was thinking of. I was speaking more of respect and I would suggest that if people actually knew the Truth about Luther, meaning his various really crazy sounding teachings (Jews, Peasants, Anabaptists, Wives, ect.), they would not have so much ‘respect’ for his abilities as a Theologian. IF they knew that Truth, they might not be so prone to simply presuming that, based on what little they had heard, (and virtually all of it positive), Luther was right to oppose the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

I would also object to the term ‘tearing Luther down’, that is unless revealing the Truth about him is ‘tearing him down’. The Truth is simply the Truth. It has nothing to do with charity. If the truth about Luther is uncharitable it is because that facts about Luther are uncharitable. In fact, he was probably the least charitable Theologian in Christian history. If you would like to nominate someone else for that honor, please do so.

If a Lutheran Scholar relates something that portrays Luther in a negative light, and I quote him, am I being ‘uncharitable’. If I post something horrific that Luther wrote, am I being ‘uncharitable’? If there are facts about Luther’s career and things that he wrote that can be accurately posted and then depicted as being ‘uncharitible’ by Lutherans, then maybe, just maybe, the fault lies with Luther rather than the person who reports them here.

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

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

How could you not feel sorry for a man who was ruled by his fear, which happened to be that same fear that drove him to what you know was an errant, never before taught doctrine, Salvation By Faith Alone.

It’s what I have run into in teaching church history to Protestant seminarians (at Asbury Theological Seminary, in their online program). That is to say, they all talk about Luther’s great courage in standing up to the Church and so on. And what they seem to mean by this is that because of Luther’s “PI,” as you would call it, they have the freedom to have a personal relationship with Jesus today. The specifics of what Luther believed are relatively less important to them, typically.

But you’re probably right that this is a self-selecting sample. In fact, the undergrads I’ve taught cared relatively less about Luther.

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

“Some mysterious words addressed to Staupitz, in which Luther hints at his inward sufferings, find their explanation when taken in conjunction with the above. He assured Staupitz (Sep. 1, 1518) in a letter addressed to him at Salzburg, that the summons to Rome and the other threats made not the slightest impression on him : " I am enduring incomparably worse things, as you know, which make me look upon such fleeting, shortlived thunders as very insignificant." Grisar, Vol. IV, pg. 114

My guess is that Grisar is not one of your favorites either Edwin, but in quoting an actual letter, we see Luther admitting that his fears, fears assuredly over his everlasting salvation/death, were far greater than the fear over anything that the Church could possibly do to him. Here again we are forced to see Luther as being ruled by his fears, exactly as Marius states. This is courage?

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

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

Well, I agree that it doesn’t work. (But then, I don’t think the authority of the Church removes all doubt either, as many on these forums seem to think. Absolute certainty is a mirage, whether you seek it by Protestant or Catholic methods.