This very friendly yet intense discussion took place on my blog, in the combox for my post (with quite a provocative title!), Martin Luther in His Pseudo-Prophetic, Hyper-Infallible, "Super-Pope" Mode (Shocking Examples). Ben, a regular on my blog, makes some excellent comments in the combox, too, with several interesting links. Be sure to check those out, too, as a second reply to Nathan. Nathan's words will be in blue. Words of mine cited from the above paper will be in red.
Nathan's website is called Theology Like a Child.
* * *
"He actually believes these things."
I actually believe these things as well. And so should you. Seriously. : )
Really, when Luther speaks this way, it is within the context of defending doctrines of Scripture over against the doctrines of the church or canon law. The pope claimed to be right because he was pope (and maybe because he was the ruler of a massive enterprise). Luther claimed to be right because of Scripture.
He actually thought the Scriptures were clear enough and that their core message was obvious enough for everyone to see.
The nerve.
Yes, I actually believe this. I think it is true. Luther was much like the OT prophets. Where in RC doctrine is the existence for such prophets - such "out of the church mainstream" people - dealt with?
So you actually defend all of these ridiculous sayings of his?
Where in RC doctrine is the existence for such prophets - such "out of the church mainstream" people - dealt with?
We have saints who are extraordinary and who rebuked popes at times: folks like St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, and St. Francis of Assisi. But they didn't talk like Luther. They might rebuke a particular error, but they don't say that they have all truth, and everyone else for 1500 years was a dumbbell except them, and run down the Church, etc.
So you might say we have a prophetic tradition without the ludicrous excess that is so obviously apparent in Luther.
Yes, for the most part I defend his statements. If he actually said that "everyone else for 1500 years was a dumbbell" up to him, I'd disagree with him.
We have saints who are extraordinary and who rebuked popes at times: folks like St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, and St. Francis. But they didn't talk like Luther. They might rebuke a particular error....
On issues of faith or morals? As Luther pointed out, the issue was the doctrine. Likewise, in the Old Testament, people embraced false doctrines. Behavior was not really the issue for Luther, belief was. I'd like to know more about the prophets in the RCC who confronted the teachings (not behavior) of the mainstream church and still continued to be recognized by the church. I confess I do not know as much about this as I should, but from what little I have been able to gather, there aren't any. Maybe I am wrong.
Thanks again for your blog. Appreciate your desire to delve into these issues.
* * *
Simple Christians would have always understood such clear words (like Romans 5:1 for example), and the Church Fathers, if pressed, almost certainly would have come to see the light had they been pressed more by blatant heresies to do so (as Augustine was). In any case, very few of their writings show evidence of ideas that would explicitly mitigate justification by faith alone.
So yes. Intellectuals often create systematic frameworks which overcome the clear meaning of simple statements that even children can understand. It happens all the time.
Luther was right. People, even sincere Christians, simply suppress the truth to this or that degree (this has to do with the sinner/saint thing as well, also rejected by the RCC in spite of the clear meaning of Romans 3 and 7)
I hope Dave can answer my question. I will state my point again: the RCC has no room for prophets who would call the church away from false teachings.
You can see more about how I think (roughly) by reading this paper, which is one of the better ones out there.
The Church is protected from such false (dogmatic, binding) teachings in the first place. That is what the infallibility of the Church means. Those who rebuked popes did so when they were going against clear moral stands; were being hypocrites or wimps.
In the case of Pope John XXII (1249-1334), though, he temporarily denied (unofficially) the Beatific Vision, and there was a spontaneous reaction against him from laypeople. He denied what had been held.
With Luther it is entirely otherwise. He comes around and starts denying at least 50 received doctrines and practices (as I have documented from his pre-1521 works alone).
That's not reform: it is full-fledged rebellion and revolution: such that no institution would ever, and should never, sanction.
If I went to your Lutheran church (or whatever you are) and stated that I had a special commission from God, standing on Scripture and plain reason, and that you had 61 teachings that were false and must immediately change, I would not only not be heard or taken seriously, but would be thrown out on my ear as a nut and fruitcake.
Yet we're supposed to accept as self-evident that Luther was right, and 1500 years of Catholic Apostolic Tradition wrong. It's no different. It's not even reasonable to do such a thing, even before we get to individual theological issues.
Thanks for the engagement. I appreciate the conviction with which you write even though I think it is misled.
I do wish I had more time to continue the discussion, but I don't. I will simply make a couple brief comments and allow you to have the last word (if you please).
Dave, I would be interested in knowing the 50 or 61 things that Luther denied that had been held for 1500 years (though that sounds extremely silly to me). Please provide the link if please.
In my mind, Luther clearly did not have rebellion in mind, but was a faithful son of the Church. Further, I do not think the "Catholic Apostolic Tradition" was nearly as monolithic as you say.
I think I am confirmed in my claim by your saying the infallibility of the Church protects it from false [dogmatic, binding] teachings in the first place. Indeed, in the RCC and EO conceptions of the Church there is no room for the idea that false teachings could ever be proclaimed in the highest levels of the church. I look at the O.T. and the N.T. (see the Pharisees, who sit in Moses' seat, rejecting those teachings brought by John and Jesus) and see all the confirmation I need for the Lutheran view. Not that there is no hope - the Holy Scriptures, recognized widely from the very beginning by faithful believers everywhere, do indeed guide us into all truth.
Best regards,
Nathan
I do wish I had more time to continue the discussion, but I don't. I will simply make a couple brief comments and allow you to have the last word (if you please).
Dave, I would be interested in knowing the 50 or 61 things that Luther denied that had been held for 1500 years (though that sounds extremely silly to me). Please provide the link if please.
In my mind, Luther clearly did not have rebellion in mind, but was a faithful son of the Church. Further, I do not think the "Catholic Apostolic Tradition" was nearly as monolithic as you say.
I think I am confirmed in my claim by your saying the infallibility of the Church protects it from false [dogmatic, binding] teachings in the first place. Indeed, in the RCC and EO conceptions of the Church there is no room for the idea that false teachings could ever be proclaimed in the highest levels of the church. I look at the O.T. and the N.T. (see the Pharisees, who sit in Moses' seat, rejecting those teachings brought by John and Jesus) and see all the confirmation I need for the Lutheran view. Not that there is no hope - the Holy Scriptures, recognized widely from the very beginning by faithful believers everywhere, do indeed guide us into all truth.
Best regards,
Nathan
Thanks for your civility and your conviction as well. Here is a link to my "extremely silly" yet (unfortunately) stubbornly factual account:
50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy or Established Practice by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated)
Related papers:
Dialogue: Why Was Martin Luther Excommunicated? / Questions Concerning Luther's Expressed Obedience to the Pope's Decision Regarding His Orthodoxy
Was Corruption in the Medieval Papacy the Primary Cause of the Protestant Revolt?
I look at the O.T. and the N.T. (see the Pharisees, who sit in Moses' seat, rejecting those teachings brought by John and Jesus) and see all the confirmation I need for the Lutheran view.
It's precisely the opposite of the way you are portraying it. Jesus was not against Pharisaism per se, but against hypocrisy in particular Pharisees: a far different thing. He Himself followed Pharisaical traditions, and Paul called himself a Pharisee twice (after his conversion).
Jesus didn't reject their teaching authority at all: quite the contrary. He stated, "practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." (Matthew 23:3, RSV)
It was a rebuke for hypocrisy; not false teaching (having just upheld their continuing authority on the basis of Moses' Seat, which is an extrabiblical tradition, not in the OT). It was exactly analogous to Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians for hypocrisy. They agreed in principle, but Peter was acting hypocritically.
As so often with Protestants arguing against Catholicism, you are simply reading your prior beliefs into the text, but as we see, you have distorted the meaning entirely. Therefore, your analogy to Lutheranism over against Catholic tradition and Church authority fails miserably. This text doesn't support it at all.
.jpg)
