30) If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that “there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?
Simple Answer(s):
Because men are fallible and sinful.
Important Qualification(s):
1) I'm quite sure Steve Ray cannot give an accurate citation for that alleged quotation from Luther. The quotation appears to be taken from a translation/paraphrase by Joseph Lortz. Lortz provides two translations/paraphrases:
The whole history of philosophy and religion, of Christian heresies, and finally of the Reformation itself, is convincing proof of a statement that Luther himself affirmed in his First Lecture on the Psalms: “Unless doctrine is authoritatively promulgated by a living human being endowed with the authority to teach, there will be as many doctrines as there are heads.”Joseph Lortz, The Reformation: a problem for today (Newman Press, 1964), p. 246
In his lecture on the Psalms (about 1512), he had said: “Unless doctrine can be authoritatively guaranteed by one living man, there will be as many doctrines as there are men.”Joseph Lortz, The Reformation: a problem for today (Newman Press, 1964), p. 149
(Lortz's German is the same in both cases: "Wenn nicht im Lehramt durch einen lebendigen Menschen die Lehre verbindlich verkündet wird, wird es so viele Lehren als Köpfe geben.")
Notice in particular that 1512 is about five years before October 31, 1517, the famous date on which Luther posted his ninety-five theses on the door of Wittenburg Chapel. In other words, this is not a quotation from Luther at the very end of his life, but from Luther before he had even come to oppose publicly the sale of indulgences by the mechanism of the 95 theses.
2) On many important things, like sola fide and sola scriptura, Luther was not the first one to interpret Scripture as he did.
3) The Reformed doctrine of perspicuity (see some standard definitions here) does not claim that Scripture is so clear that everyone who looks at it comes to the same conclusion with respect to every doctrine.
- TurretinFan
5 comments:
“Because men are fallible and sinful.”
That includes all the reformers who were also fallible and sinful and couldn’t agree on much at all. According to Calvin, men are totally depraved so we cannot expect any sinner to come to any truth or love any truth, otherwise they are not totally depraved.
”1) I'm quite sure Steve Ray cannot give an accurate citation for that alleged quotation from Luther. “
It doesn’t really matter that much. The fact is Luthers interpretation was novel and there have been many other interpretations at the time of Luther and subsequent to Luther. This is historical fact.
“2) On many important things, like sola fide and sola scriptura, Luther was not the first one to interpret Scripture as he did.”
A dubious call if ever there was one. Norman Geisler says sola fide is a historical novelty. Anyhow – there is no faith in heaven so according to faith alone theology the saints in heaven are not justified in heaven. Now that’s a curious consequence of a Lutheran invention.
”3) The Reformed doctrine of perspicuity (see some standard definitions here) does not claim that Scripture is so clear that everyone who looks at it comes to the same conclusion with respect to every doctrine.”
Then its problematic. If you think its not so problematic just look at Jason Engwers articles on the Papacy and see how many questions he leaves unanswered about the meaning of texts such as Matt16 and so on. Its very problematic and very human.
JM
"That includes all the reformers who were also fallible and sinful and couldn’t agree on much at all. According to Calvin, men are totally depraved so we cannot expect any sinner to come to any truth or love any truth, otherwise they are not totally depraved."
Yes, Calvin agreed with Augustine against Pelagias. Does that surprise you, JM?
"It doesn’t really matter that much."
Steve's counting on readers like you - readers who couldn't care less whether what Steve is saying is actually true.
"The fact is Luthers interpretation was novel and there have been many other interpretations at the time of Luther and subsequent to Luther."
Luther's interpretation of what? Luther interpreted many things in a perfectly orthodox way, even by Roman Catholic standards. Everyone makes mistakes, though.
"This is historical fact."
Even if it is, it is not one that somehow revitalizes Steve's loaded question.
"A dubious call if ever there was one."
No.
"Norman Geisler says sola fide is a historical novelty."
Norm is hardly someone who I look up to as a great scholar. Nor is attaching his name to something sufficient for me to accept it.
"Anyhow – there is no faith in heaven so according to faith alone theology the saints in heaven are not justified in heaven."
Remarkable, eh? In heaven, the saints are glorified.
"Now that’s a curious consequence of a Lutheran invention."
... see above
"Then its problematic. If you think its not so problematic just look at Jason Engwers articles on the Papacy and see how many questions he leaves unanswered about the meaning of texts such as Matt16 and so on. Its very problematic and very human."
I've read Jason's arguments on those subjects, and none of them (even those arguments he made that I'd disagree with) made Scripture any less clear on the essentials.
-TurretinFan
Men are equally sinful, if not even MORE so, in the Orthodox and Catholic churches, but I have yet to see either one of them disintegrate into an entire big-bang of different religions...
I'm not sure what conclusion you draw from that observation, nor why you don't consider the "Protestant Reformation" as being an example of the disintegration of the area under Rome's traditional jurisdiction.
Just a follow up on the Lortz quotes. I have this book now, and Lortz doesn't provide any documentation for either the quote on page 246 or 149.
Post a Comment