Posted on 10/31/2013 2:39:59 PM PDT by Gamecock
While these 95 theses are important, Luther's stance on the authority of Scripture over against Rome was not expressed in all of its maturity in 1517. The formal principle of the Reformation would become more and more conspicuous with every passing debate between these two nemeses.
In 1519 at the Leipzig debate with the Catholic debater Johann Eck, whom Luther called "that little glory-hungry beast," Eck brought the real issue to the table: who had final authority, God's Word or the pope? For Eck, Scripture received its authority from the pope. Luther strongly disagreed, arguing instead that Scripture has authority over popes, church fathers, and church councils, all of which have erred.
Luther was quickly classified with the forerunning heretics, John Wycliffe and Jan Hus. At first Luther denied such an association, but during a break in his debate Luther realized that Hus had taught exactly what he believed. Eck returned to Rome and reported his findings to the pope, and Luther left the debate only to become further convinced that Scripture, not the pope, is the sole and final infallible authority.
Luther's sola scriptura principle would be most famously articulated in 1521 at Worms. On April 17, 1521, Luther was told he must recant. After thinking it through for a day, Luther returned and declared:
Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason, for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they often err and contradict themselves, I am bound to the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise. Here I stand. May God help me. Amen.
Luther's speech is firm and straightforward: Scripture is the norma normans (determining norm), rather than the norma normata (determined norm). As he would explain in future writings, Scripture has priority over the church, for the church is the baby born out of the womb of Scripture, not vice versa. "For who begets his own parent? Who first brings forth his own maker" (LW 36:107; WA 6:561)? Luther rejected the two-source theory that viewed oral tradition as a second, extrabiblical, and infallible source of divine revelation passed down from the apostles to the magisterium. Instead, he argued that Scripture alone is our infallible source of divine revelation.
For many Protestants today, the story ends here. But the story is far from over. Reformers like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin did not pose a strict either/or dilemma: Scripture or tradition. The reformers may have rejected Rome's understanding of tradition and upheld the supremacy and final authority of Scripture over tradition. But we would be mistaken to think the reformers did not value tradition or see it as a subordinate authority in some sense. Indeed, the reformers believed tradition was on their side!
Therefore, the reformers became frustrated when certain radicals sought to discard tradition altogether. These radicals did not defend and practice sola scriptura, but instead turned to nuda scriptura or solo scriptura. Perhaps this disregard for tradition is best captured in the bombast of Sebastian Franck: "Foolish Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory—of whom not one even knew the Lord, so help me God, nor was sent by God to teach. Rather, they were all apostles of Antichrist." No wonder Alister McGrath concludes, "In the hands of such radical thinkers, the sola scriptura principle became radicalized."
I wish I could say that all evangelicals today have a crisp, accurate grasp of sola scriptura. I am hopeful that many understand how a Protestant view of Scripture and tradition differs from Rome's position. However, I am less confident that evangelicals understand the difference between sola and solo scriptura, for in some cases the latter is assumed to be the identity of the former.
Consequently, some evangelicals, intentionally or unintentionally, have followed in the footsteps of Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) who said, "I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them today, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever."
Ironically, such a view cannot preserve sola scriptura. Sure, tradition is not being elevated to the level of Scripture. But the individual is! As Keith Mathison laments, in this view everything is "evaluated according to the final standard of the individual's opinion of what is and is not scriptural." To be sure, such a view lends itself more in the direction of individual autonomy than scriptural accountability.
So how do we correct such a mistake? First, we must guard ourselves from an individualistic mindset that prides itself on what "I think" rather than listening to the past. In order to do so, we must acknowledge, as Mathison points out, that "Scripture alone" doesn't mean "me alone."
Second, tradition is not a second infallible source of divine revelation alongside Scripture; nevertheless, where it is consistent with Scripture it can and does act as a ministerial authority. The historic creeds and confessions are a case in point. While the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Creed are not to be considered infallible sources divine revelation, nevertheless, their consistency with Scripture means that the church spoke authoritatively against heresy. Therefore, it should trouble us, to say the least, should we find ourselves disagreeing with orthodox creeds that have stood the test of time. Remember, innovation is often the first indication of heresy. Hence, as Timothy George explains, the reformers sought to tie their "Reformation exegesis to patristic tradition" in order to provide a "counterweight to the charge that the reformers were purveyors of novelty in religion," though at the end of the day the fathers' "writings should always be judged by the touchstone of Scripture, a standard the fathers themselves heartily approved."
Abandoning solo scriptura does not require us to go to the other extreme, namely, elevating tradition to the level of Scripture. But it does require the humility to realize that we are always standing on the shoulders of those who came before us. For the reformers, the early church fathers were valuable (though not infallible) guides in biblical interpretation. In that light, we would be wise to listen to Luther this Reformation Day: "Now if anyone of the saintly fathers can show that his interpretation is based on Scripture, and if Scripture proves that this is the way it should be interpreted, then the interpretation is right. If this is not the case, I must not believe him" (LW 30:166; WA 14:31).
Misrepresentation of Eck.
Eck's issue was this:
"Who has authority to interpret God's Word, the Church as a body or every man for himself?"
During the final judgement, the individual will have to answer for themselves. Your parents will not answer for you, nor your spouse, your priest, pastor, deacon, bishop or pope. You and you alone will have to stand before God, perfection, all of creation and answer for every single action or inaction, every thought, and what you believe.
Philippians 2:12
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
So the harsh reality is that each of us will interpret scripture / tradition / signs / prophecy to determine what we believe is the will of God. And on Judgement Day, we will find out just how right or wrong we got it.
That is not entirely true. God would not leave us without a way to absolutely understand and follow His will for us is. And indeed He did: 2 Tim. 2:15. That is God’s pattern for us to follow if we want to be approved workmen who need not be ashamed when we stand before Him.
Catholicism teaches that a teacher of error suffers for the sins of students who sin through the error that they were taught.
So the worst murderer on the planet, the most foul pervert would suffer no punishment if he was taught that the murders were justified, or that perversion was a higher virtue.
Me, I am not into management.
From which of Eck’s writings is your quotation taken?
With the Council of Toulouse, the church had banned possession of either the Old or New Testaments including any translations. So Eck was arguing out of the side of his mouth.
ITEM #2 COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.
"Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament... we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."
So you see the church had banned Phylacteries for the Jewish People and stacked the deck against the common man.
It was clearly a time for Reformation back to the Word of God.
From http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=201060
Here is the WHOLE canon number 14 of the COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE (a local council, it appears, not ecumenical).
“14. Forbids the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament (except the Psalter, and such portions of them as are contained in the Breviary, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin), most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar tongue.”
Landon, E. H. (1909). Vol. 2: A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church (172). Edinburgh: John Grant.
“So as you see it was not the possession of the whole bible but of SINGLE BOOKS of the bible that was prohibited, the psalter (i.e the psalms) was allowed. The creation of any of these books in the vulgar tongue was prohibited to prevent poor and heretical translations.”
And there’s this [doesn’t anyone do Web searches anymore?].
From: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110328141101AAzX1h4
“A council was held in Toulouse, France in 1229 to deal with the Catharist heresy, which held, among other things that there are two gods. In order to promote their heresy, the heretics published a deliberately inaccurate translation of the Bible. To protect the Catholic Christians, the council bishops forbade the reading of that one bad translation. They never prohibited anyone from reading the Bible in its original language or an accurate translation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism
I am just reading here, not participating. But thank you for doing what every good historian should do, by looking at the historical context in which something was said or done. History is never black and white. It is nuanced.
Oftentimes, those who follow Rome hold the position that the Reformers' - and those who follow their lead - hold to a solo rather than SOLA Scriptura doctrine. We see that argument frequently on these threads. This article is a good start in rebutting that false assertion. Thanks.
Sure. I would hope that everyone understands that, especially if the teacher is teaching error in bad faith; i.e., he knows that he's teaching error.
So the worst murderer on the planet, the most foul pervert would suffer no punishment if he was taught that the murders were justified, or that perversion was a higher virtue.
Doesn't follow from your premise. Ignorance that something is wrong is exculpatory, true, but the sins you mention are sins against the natural law. The first teacher of the natural law is God, who writes that law on our heart. Ignorance of the natural law is therefore culpable to some extent. Exactly how culpable in a specific case is of course God's call, not ours.
Granted that that isn’t what the “reformers” intended. That is where their rebellion has led in the vast majority of cases, however. It ought to be judged by results, not good intentions.
There are some very “main and plain”, repeated doctrines in the Bible such that we don’t need some earthly authority to tell us what it means (usually to the empowerment of said authority).
God gave us the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to makes sense of His Word as well.
Besides, there are easily proveable historic “misinterpretations” by that earthly “authority” that discounts any claim to authority at all.
Which doesn't prove the intent was wrong either.
Using the same logic we could say the Revolutionary War had a good intent, but judging on the current state of affairs they should have left well enough alone.
Of course there are numerous Papists who prefer that America becomes a monarchy.
Was Scripture written to the church as a body, or to the people in it?
Catholicism requires a Catholic teacher to teach in bad faith: If he honestly has a difference with Catholic doctrine he is to teach Catholic doctrine.
That is the necessary outcome of a Church that falsely claims authority over men’s minds.
I would look at who sought historically to provide translations to the people, and who tried to protect the people from translations that they could understand.
Of course everyone has to interpret Scripture themselves, just because it is not practical to submit every possible decision to ‘the Church as a body’.
We have seen that ‘natural law’ is easily circumvented by dehumanizing the enemy. Cripples in Germany were dehumanized as ‘life unworthy of life’ and were medically murdered, even in Catholic hospitals.
Keep in mind they did this before the Nazis took over: It was routine to murder crippled WWI veterans. It continued until 1954, long after the Nazis had lost power, but this time they were murdering crippled WWII veterans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.