Are Protestants underestimating Mary?

Ben Merritt of Cleave to Antiquity recently produced a video in which he interviewed an eyewitness of the Zeitoun Marian apparitions and concluded that he accepts the apparitions as appearances of Mary. In the comments section, Sean Luke of Anglican Aesthetics said that he holds a similar view. Other commenters also said that they're Protestant and accept the apparitions as appearances of Mary. In another recent video, Myles Christian of Canon & Creed provided "a historical survey of giants in Protestant history who held Mary in high esteem". He cites their belief in concepts like Mary's perpetual virginity, her becoming sinless after conception, and her assumption. Elsewhere in the video, he refers to a problem with Protestants "overcorrecting" errors about Mary. He asks at another point, "Are we possibly missing something that they [earlier Protestants] saw from scripture?" One portion of the video refers to an argument for Mary's assumption based on fetal microchimerism, but doesn't explain how it allegedly leads to the conclusion that Mary was assumed. He ends the video by commenting, "But if men like the reformers, who were radically committed to sola scriptura, sola fide, and the purity of the gospel, if they could hold Mary in high esteem without compromising their convictions, then maybe we can too."

Who Martin Luther Was Above All Else

"The first endeavor must be to understand the man. One will not move far in this direction unless one recognizes at the outset that Luther was above all else a man of religion. The great outward crises of his life which bedazzle the eyes of dramatic biographers were to Luther himself trivial in comparison with the inner upheavals of his questing after God." (Roland Bainton, Here I Stand [Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1978], 6)

That's something to keep in mind as so many Christians in our day keep going after the false lead of the media, whatever is prominent in the news at the moment, and giving so much attention to gender issues, the family, politics, and such while doing so little in religious contexts.

Thomas Aquinas was the Problem; the Reformation was the Solution

“Where was your Church before Aquinas”

Ever since the Reformation, Roman Catholics have been fond of asking, “Where was your Church before the Reformation”. Protestants have a good reply to that: “Where was your Church before Aquinas”.

Peter Lombard (in his “Sentences”) summarized church teaching up to that point (approximately 1150). Aquinas later opposed Lombard on one key point (“justification extra nos”, or the external righteousness of Christ), and Luther took up Lombard’s side:

In book 1, Distinction 17 of his famed Sentences, Lombard, discussing religious justification, asked: “Is the love by which we are saved a created habit in our soul, or is it the very person of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us?” Is that which heals and saves a person part of his own nature, something he himself has developed as his own possession [inherent righteousness], or is it the indwelling spirit of God, a divine power in him but not of him [alien righteousness]?

Lombard opted for the latter solution, maintaining that the love by which people love God and their fellow man so as to merit salvation [“merit” being a whole ’nother story] was the spirit of God working internally, without their aid or volition. Man is saved by an uncreated, not a created habit, by uncreated, not created, love, by the holy spirit within, not by an acquired talent he can call his very own. When the young Luther wrote hs commentary on the Sentences in 1509/10, he strongly agreed, against the majority of scholastics, with this interpretation by Lombard.

Thomas Aquinas opposed Lombard in this issue, arguing that saving charity [“charity” being “love” in the Roman Catholic schema] must be a voluntary act arising from a disposition man could call his own.

Roman Catholics claim that Martin Luther was the innovator, but in reality, Thomas Aquinas was a far more extensive innovator than Luther ever was. The problem was, “The Church of Rome” liked what Aquinas had to say, and they canonized it.

The Reformers sought to roll back many of the changes that Aquinas put into place. And in doing so, they relied on earlier traditions than did Aquinas.

It was Aquinas who not only introduced Aristotle to the Roman church, but he wrapped Aristotelian philosophy around Christian doctrine and handed it to “the Church” as a complete package. One that supported the Roman Church’s view of its own authority and necessity.

Martin Luther’s work from 1512–1517

Following up on some thoughts of mine to the effect that we ought to be thinking about a Reformation Season, I wanted to post some background information about Martin Luther. Much of this is something that many of us are familiar with, but as well, in the spirit of Pittsburgh Steelers coach Chuck Noll, you’re never too advanced to remember to practice the fundamentals.

Luther combined the threefold office of sub-prior, preacher and professor. He preached both in his convent and in the town-church, sometimes daily for a week, sometimes thrice in one day, during Lent in 1517 twice everyday. He was supported by the convent. As professor he took no fees from the students and received only a salary of one hundred guilders, which after his marriage was raised by the Elector John to two hundred guilders.

He first lectured on scholastic philosophy and explained the Aristotelian dialectics and physics. But he soon passed through the three grades of bachelor, licentiate, and doctor of divinity (October 18th and 19th, 1512), and henceforth devoted himself exclusively to the sacred science which was much more congenial to his taste. Staupitz urged him into these academic dignities, and the Elector [Frederick the Wise] who had been favorably impressed with one of his sermons, offered to pay the expenses (fifty guilders) for the acquisition of the doctorate. Afterward in seasons of trouble Luther often took comfort from the title and office of his doctorate of divinity and his solemn oath to defend with all his might the Holy Scriptures against all errors. He justified the burning of the Pope’s Bull in the same way. But the oath of ordination and of the doctor of theology implied also obedience to the Roman church (ecclesiae Romanae obedientiam) and her defence against all heresies condemned by her.

With the year 1512 his academic teaching began in earnest and continued till 1546, at first in outward harmony with the Roman church, but afterward in open opposition to it.

Reformation Videos

PBS recently aired a two-hour documentary on Martin Luther that's worth watching. The page just linked says something about "expiring" on September 27, so the video may not be available to watch for free after that date.

Here's an eleven-minute collection of clips I put together on John Wycliffe, taken from Ken Connolly's video, The Indestructible Book (Santa Ana, California: International Baptist Missions, 2004).

And here's an eight-minute video on Thomas Bilney.

Why should Jews trust Christians?

Antisemitism is on the rise in the US. Blind liberal support for Muslims translates into blind liberal animus towards Israel. Likewise, the Trump campaign has drawn anti-Semites out from under the rocks. So this might be as good a time as any to consider the question: why should Jews trust Christians? Given the persecution of Jews in church history, what, if anything, has changed? 

1. There are different ways of framing the issue. We might review some historic reasons why Jews were subject to persecution. If we reject the traditional reasons, then we reject persecution based on that rationale. For instance, Jews as well as some Gentiles claim the NT is a seedbed of antisemitism. 

i) As a Christian, I won't disown what the NT says. We've become so sensitized to how these passages have been abused that it takes an effort to hear them as they were originally meant to be heard. 

ii) The NT regards disbelief in Jesus to be culpable. I understand how Jews might find that offensive or even threatening. Keep in mind, though, that this is a two-way street. After all, many Jews regard belief in Jesus as culpable. Maimonides considered Christians to be heretical idolaters and polytheists, given their belief in the Trinity and Incarnation. Should I take offense at that? No. 

Take the 18 Benedictions, added to the Jewish liturgy, that pronounce a curse on Christians. It's really a malediction rather than benediction. Should I take offense at that? No. 

Consider what the Talmud says about Jesus:

Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, “He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whosoever has anything to say in his defense, let him come and declare it.” As nothing was brought forward in his defense, he was hanged on Passover Eve. Tractate Sanhedrin (43a).

That indicts Jesus as a false prophet, according to the classic Mosaic criteria (Deut 13:1-5). Should I take offense at that? No. 

Likewise, the OT regards paganism as culpable. So both sides consider certain theological positions to be, not merely mistaken, but blameworthy. 

iii) It's not just Jewish disbelief in Jesus that's culpable; gentile disbelief in Jesus is culpable. 

2.  And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” (Mt 27:25).

i) Although Matthew attributes this to the entire crowd, surely that's rhetorical. Presumably, they didn't come there with a script which they recited in unison. To the contrary, this is a spontaneous outburst in response to Pilate. They didn't know ahead of time what he was going to say. 

Probably, what happened is that one person in the crowd said it, and the rest of the crowd nodded in agreement. Or perhaps some of them repeated it after one person initially said it. Matthew uses general language to indicate consent. Not that everyone said it, but they agreed with the sentiment. 

ii) The speaker or speakers lack the authority to inculpate later generations in their misdeeds. It's not their prerogative to extend the blame for their own misdeeds to later generations who did nothing of the kind. In fact, the Mosaic law repudiates that principle: "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut 24:16).

Just because their statement assigns corporate responsibility to Jews in general doesn't make them collectively guilty. The speaker had no right to implicate others who were not party to the original misdeed. You can't make people complicit in wrongdoing by saying they are complicit in wrongdoing. They must actually be complicit in wrongdoing.

iii) The Jews who participated in the death of Christ died 2000 years ago. They have already been judged. 

iv) However, someone might say that when Jews continue to reject Jesus, that's an extension of the original crime. There's a grain of truth to that, but it's not confined to Jews. Rejecting Jesus is blameworthy in general, whether you're Jewish or gentile. 

In addition, there's often no significant distinction between Jews and gentiles. Many Jews are secular Jews or cultural Jews. Many Jews never read the NT, or even the OT. They are only Jewish in the sense that they had some Jewish ancestors. 

v) Although there's a sense in which disbelief in Jesus is a punishable offense, it's not my prerogative to punish that offense. That pertains to eschatological judgment. I'm not responsible for what you believe. It's not my duty to punish blasphemy, heresy, &c. You are accountable to God, and not to me, for what you believe. It would usurp God's prerogative for me to avenge blasphemy, heresy, &c.

vi) Conversely, Jesus was executed on a charge of blasphemy. So my own position is far more lenient than the traditional Jewish position. 

3. You are of your father the devil (Jn 8:44).

i) In context, that's a reference to the Jewish opponents of Jesus. 

ii) It's a two-way street. His opponents accused Jesus of being possessed. Both sides do that. 

iii) "Son of Belial" accusations are a stock feature of intramural Jewish polemics. 

4. and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9).

Passages like this (1 Thes 2:14-16 is another case in point) have their background in 1C Jewish persecution of Christians. However, the proper Christian response is not to retaliate, but to love and pray for our enemies and persecutors (Mt 5:43-48). Likewise, the default position of evangelicalism is to evangelize the lost. 

Moving further into church history, what accounts for the historic antisemitism in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy? Several factors:

5. The separation of church and synagogue led to interpreting the Bible in ways detached from its Jewish milieu. 

i) However, the Third Quest for the historical Jesus accentuates the Jewishness of Jesus and the Jewishness of the NT. 

ii) Likewise, the messianic Jewish movement fuses church and synagogue. Both developments serve as a salutary corrective.

6. Supercessionism 

This is too complex to analyze in detail, in this post. 

i) However, as regards antisemitism, it conflates distinct issues. Replacing the old covenant with the new covenant is hardly equivalent to replacing Jews with Christians, or Jews with Gentiles, or Israel with the church. That's a category mistake. 

ii) As the Jewish Virtual Library puts it:

"All warnings and rebukes contained in the Jewish scriptures were applied to the Jewish people, while all praise and promise were applied to the Church."

Clearly that's arbitrary. Either consistently apply both OT maledictions and promises to the church, or don't apply either one to the church. 

7. The early church arose in autocratic societies with kings, emperors, and aristocrats. That gave the medieval church an authoritarian mindset. For instance, the polity of the Roman church mirrors the ancient Roman upper class: the pope is the counterpart to the emperor, the bishops ("princes") are counterparts to Roman aristocrats. By the same token, the Orthodox church has always been an organ of the state. 

The patrician aspect was further bolstered by the fact members of the upper clergy were often drawn from the ruling class. That was the educated class. 

Within that framework, theological dissent was treated as insubordination. Jews were treated in much the same way as "heretics" and "schismatics". The notion of civil tolerance for theological dissent was alien to that mindset. 

If, however, you reject that autocratic paradigm, then you nullify that rationale for religious persecution. As a low-church, free-church evangelical, I reject the autocratic paradigm. 

8. There's the question of how conversion is understood. Do we define conversion in terms of personal conviction or public conformity? If the latter, then that fosters a policy of mass conversion based on coercion rather than persuasion. This, in turn, underwrites the traditional one ruler/one religion policy (cuius regio, eius religio).  

Likewise, if you think saving grace is channeled through the sacraments, which function ex opera operato ("by the very fact of the action's being performed"), then conversion is not about convincing people to believe. 

Moreover, spiritual change is induced, not by the direct action of the Spirit, but mediated by sacramental actions, viz. baptism regeneration rather than immediate regeneration. The church becomes the mediator of salvation. 

By contrast, evangelical traditions that stress sola fide and immediate regeneration place far more emphasis on the persuasion and individual responsibility. Likewise, on a Zwinglian view, the sacraments aren't channels of saving grace. For an evangelical like me, there's nothing in my theology that would even give a foothold to coercive conversion. 

9. After transubstantiation became dogma, Catholics accused Jews of "Host desecration". Literally torturing wafers to make them bleed.

That's a dramatic example of how superstitious theology can be dangerous. 

10. Jews were scapegoated for the black plague. Accusations that Jews poisoned wells.

i) To begin with, that reflects a prescientific understanding of how the plague was transmitted.

ii) More to the point, since Jews were hardly immune to the plague, it would be mass suicide for them to engineer an outbreak, even if that was within their power. Jews were just as susceptible to infectious disease as their gentile neighbors.  

11. Let's take another historic example: Luther's antisemitism. What accounts for that? I'm not a Luther scholar, but this is my impression:

i) The law/gospel dichotomy has the potential to denigrate the OT and Judaism. In fairness, that's not distinctive to Lutheran theology. Baptist and Anabaptist theology accentuate the discontinuities between the old covenant and the new covenant. 

The potential for abuse is not a logical implication. Moreover, you have theological traditions that see more continuity between the old covenant and the new covenant. 

ii) Luther was a reactionary. Responding to Catholic legalism. And he could view Judaism through the same prism. 

That's a fairly idiosyncratic posture. Driven his personal experience. 

iii) It's sometimes said that Luther's antisemitism was theological rather than racial. Certainly there's some truth to that. However, his case against the Jews was larded with malicious urban legends about the Jews, viz. Jewish physicians plotting to poison Christians. That isn't theological. Rather, that reflects social conditioning. That's part of the European culture he was born into. 

iv) There were, however, eminent Lutheran theologians like Melanchthon and Osiander who took different position than Luther. Both men published tracts attacking the infamous blood libel. 

By contrast, Catholic polemicist John Eck, at the request of the bishop of Eichstätt, responded with a tract defending the blood libel. 

a) The blood libel is absurd. To begin with, kosher laws require Jews to drain blood from meat. If Jews are forbidden to consume animal blood, consumption of human blood would be even more prohibitive.  

b) Since Jews were already a threatened, persecuted minority, it would be mass suicide for them to kidnap Christian kids to exsanguinate. 

v) We might ask why some Protestants at the time took a more sympathetic view of their Jewish neighbors. One reason might be that back then, if you wanted to learn Hebrew, it was natural to study Hebrew with a rabbi. Once you befriended the rabbi and his family, it was harder to credit malicious rumors about Jews. 

By contrast, medieval Catholicism, which relied the Vulgate, had no use for Hebrew. It was Protestant Reformers who insisted on going back to the source. 

Faith Alone In Hilary Of Poitiers

Hilary of Poitiers' commentary on Matthew was recently translated into English by D.H. Williams (Commentary On Matthew [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012]). Williams, a patristic scholar who's a Protestant, thinks Paul's concept of justification through faith alone is found in Hilary's commentary. Hilary uses the term "faith alone" in some places when describing his view of justification, and some of his other remarks suggest the same concept without using that terminology. However, elsewhere Hilary makes comments that are suggestive of baptismal regeneration or some other form of justification through works.

Disputes over justification in the church fathers involve several issues. I want to outline some of those before going on to discuss Hilary's significance.

“Pope Francis“ learns what Martin Luther knew: “Be a sinner and sin boldly”

Pope Francis: “Sin Boldly”

Roman Catholics never seem to tire of misquoting that famous Martin Luther quote, which came in a letter to Philip Melanchthon, in which he said, “Be a sinner and sin boldly”. Here is some context from that letter:

If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner [LW 48:281-282].

Meanwhile, here is the context of Bishop Bergoglio’s remarks:

Priests, brothers, and sisters in Catholic religious orders around the globe should “wake up the world” by being “real witnesses” [they have been fake witnesses so far?] to a counter-cultural way of life that relies on generosity and self-forgetfulness, Pope Francis told a meeting of superiors general of religious orders in November.

Those religious, the pope also added, should also not be afraid of making mistakes or even committing sins.

“You should be real witnesses of a world doing and acting differently, “ the pope told some 120 leaders of male religious orders during a closed-door Nov. 29 meeting at the Vatican, according to a new account of the event released Friday by the Italian Jesuit magazine La Civilta Cattolica.

“But in life it is difficult for everything to be clear, precise, outlined neatly,” the pope continued. “Life is complicated; it consists of grace and sin.”

“He who does not sin is not human,” said the pope. “We all make mistakes and we need to recognize our weaknesses. A religious who recognizes himself as weak and a sinner does not negate the witness that he is called to give, rather he reinforces it, and this is good for everyone.”

Maybe some day Rome will figure out what the Reformation was all about.

Why Calvin and not Luther?

I certainly don't agree with everything he says, but he makes some telling points:

"Why Calvin and not Luther?"

Discordia

"Lutheran Insulter"

Chris Pinto Caught Cherry-Picking Martin Luther

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/luther-vs-lutheranism-on-baptism.html

Carl Trueman on Reading Martin Luther Well

Reading Luther Not Wisely But Well: Part One

Reading Luther Not Wisely But Well: Part Two

A.G. Dickens, commenting on Luther’s Grasp of Critical Scholarship

By focusing too narrowly upon his emotional experiences many observers have failed to grasp that he became an expert in the critical methods of textual study introduced by Valla, Erasmus, and Reuchlin. Luther saw in the flight of Byzantine scholars to western Europe a divine plan to expand Greek scholarship, the essential key to Christ’s and St. Paul’s teaching. He demanded an expert application of linguistic humanism as the foundation of a scriptural Christianity, distinct from both scholasticism and the popular cults. This renewed religion should be related not solely to salvation but also to Christian service on the lower plane of the commonwealth. Without these rational and humanist approaches, Luther could not have attracted so many scholars and statesmen to his cause. (Dickens, “The English Reformation,” pg 82).

It’s interesting to see that Luther’s approach here was not only doctrinal at the core, but that he did not hesitate to enlist the help of scholars and statesmen.

“Luther and Calvin, Sittin’ in a Tree…”

http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/luther-and-calvin-sittin-in-a-tree/

No, not “K-I-S-S-I-N-G”. But they agreed on something. Luther said:

Listen to the incarnate Son, and predestination will present itself of its own accord. Staupitz used to comfort me with these words:

“Why do you torture yourself with these speculations? Look at the wounds of Christ and at the blood that was shed for you. From these predestination will shine. Consequently, one must listen to the Son of God, who was sent into the flesh and appeared to destroy the work of the devil (1 John 3:8) and to make you sure about predestination. And for this reason He says to you: ‘You are My sheep because you hear My voice’ (cf. John 10:27). ‘No one shall snatch you out of My hands”’ (cf. v. 28).

Martin Luther, vol. 5, Luther’s Works, Vol. 5 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 26-30, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, Luther’s Works, 5:47 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1968).

Bonhoeffer on Luther and Costly Grace, part 2

Justification by God’s costly grace involves the justification of the sinner, not the justification of the sin.

Following up on the first part of Bonhoeffer’s treatment of Luther and Costly Grace, I want to point out that it’s Roman Catholics who want to “justify sin”.

Consider this explication from the not too distant past:

What’s tripping you up here is thinking that venial sins are violations of God’s law. So you’re not yet seeing the basis for the difference between mortal and venial sins. Venial sins are not violations of the law; they are not violations of love. They are deficiencies or defects in carrying out the love that is the spirit and principle of the law.

Venial sin in relation to God is very much like doing something minor or unintentional that troubles one’s spouse but does not break the friendship with one’s spouse (say, failing to remember to readjust the seat in the car, so that it is easier for the other person to get in). It is not a violation of the law of love. When you get into the car and find the seat not readjusted, you don’t justifiably turn to your spouse and say, “You violated the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself.” That would obviously be way over the top, because the failure was not purposely chosen out of spite or apathy; the spouse loved and loves you, and the inaction did not destroy that love or indicate its absence.

Bonhoeffer on Luther and Costly Grace, part 1

In his formerly world-renowned book “The Cost of Discipleship” (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. edition, printed 1963), Dietrich Bonhoeffer made the distinction between “cheap grace” and “costly grace”. In his words, “cheap grace is the deadly enemy of the church” (45).

Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjacks’ wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church’s inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be if it were not cheap? …

Lutheranism is application; Calvinism seeks to understand

Given that a number of Lutherans are commenting here, I think it’s important to try and further the understanding between them and the rest of us “Reformed Radicals” (as they tend to regard non-Lutheran Protestantism) by looking at some of the differences between us.

And following some others, I believe that the difference between “application” and “understanding” is one of the simplest ways to describe the differences. It’s very largely the same theology that’s being discussed.


In comments below, Jim Pemberton gave one of the best summaries I’ve seen of where Luther fit into the overall Reformation:

There is certainly much to appreciate about Luther's key role in the Reformation, but he was a stepping stone. His own theology changed throughout his life. I find it interesting, indeed telling, that our idea of reformed theology today differs from his purpose of reforming the RCC in that he never wanted to break away from the RCC. He only wanted to reform the theology and he labored to reconcile much of the RCCs ecclesiology with what he was discovering under the idea of sola scriptura. But since the ecclesiology he was trying to reconcile was still a product of sola ecclesia, I wager he had more to reconcile than he ever got around to. Given another lifetime, he may have discovered this conflict and given the rest of his thinking over to sola scriptura.

Luther wasn’t in a mood to throw things out.

Lutheranism arose out of Martin Luther’s personal struggles, which, at their earliest, arose in answer to the question “how am I made right with God?”

Not long afterward, Luther’s theology seemed to evolve out of a pastoral desire to teach his followers “how should we then live?”

It was his experience in the monastery that he sought to “reform” in some way, and bring it to the common folk.

In another comment thread, the Lutheran writer Nathan Rinne described it this way:

We view justification differently. These differences exist not so much because Luther is hard to understand, but rather because justification as envisioned by Luther cannot be understood apart from its practical application,

In that regard, Luther’s Small Catechism (1529) for example is very personal. The admonition “the head of the family should teach [these things] in a simple way to his household” is repeated throughout the work.

* * *

On the other hand, Calvin famously began his Institutes with the following statement:

Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.

He was seeking to understand.

His treatment through the four books of the Institutes then follows a systematic pattern, through: “The Knowledge of God the Creator”, “Knowledge of God the Redeemer in Christ”, “The Way in Which We Receive the Grace of Christ”, and book four, “External Means” and “The Society of Christ”.

Later Reformed theology tended to follow this pattern of stepping back and looking at the “big picture” of Christian theology in a logical and comprehensive way, following the general pattern of “prolegomena”, then “Theology proper” (the study of God, generally), creation, sin, Christ and redemption, and the church.

* * *

This comports nicely with a blog post from a while ago that described the major differences among the earliest churches of the Reformation as if “church tradition” were a “junk drawer”. It went like this:

We all have a “top dresser drawer” into which we throw everything that there's no other place for. Over time, it just gets full of all different kinds of things. In church history, “tradition” kind of filled up the way that drawer does. And there were four different ways that the Reformers dealt with that drawer.

The Lutherans went through the drawer, looking for things that weren't Biblical. Lutheranism took out the things that weren't biblical, but they left everything else in there.

The Reformed took the drawer and dumped everything out on the bed. Then they went through all that stuff, checked it over carefully, and put back the things that were Biblical.

The Anglicans opened the drawer and took out one thing, called "the Pope," and put back in one other thing, called "the Archbishop of Canterbury." (This was probably the least analogous parts of the metaphor, given the 39 articles and all.)

The Anabaptists took out the whole drawer, dumped everything in the trash, and lit the trash can on fire.

Luther didn’t want to throw anything out.

Martin Luther’s Understanding of Baptism

Since most of our readers are Reformed, and since the Lutheran concept of baptism has been brought up, I thought it would be helpful to share what Bernhard Lohse, a Lutheran Professor of Church History and Historical Theology, has written about Luther’s view of the sacraments in general and of baptism in particular:

Formation of a new, Reformation theology of baptism went hand in hand with Luther’s entire theological development, particularly during his first lectures on the Psalms and Romans. In dealing with the sacraments, concentration on questions such as judgment and gospel, righteousness and faith, or on the divine promise and human confidence, led to a new impulse and important consequences: the criterion under which Luther dealt with baptism and baptismal usage. In other words, the relation of baptism to life from the perspective of the acceptance of the divine judgment promised in baptism took center stage. Since Luther’s understanding of the nature of sin was more radical than the theology of late scholasticism, he could no longer share the view that baptism purges inherited sin, of which a mere “tinder” (fomes) remains, and against the seductions of which the baptized can successfully resist.

Reformation Day Free Download: R.C. Sproul’s Luther and the Reformation

As of this morning, I was still able to download this lecture series [audio version] and study guide for free.

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/reformation-day-free-download-rc-sprouls-luther-and-reformation/

The Lutheran Mind

When I left Roman Catholicism, I was looking first of all for polemical tools that would describe the differences between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, but also for a church body where I could fellowship. I found both of these very readily in the Reformed world. For some reason, Lutheran materials seemed harder to find.

But Concordia Seminary in St. Louis has produced a large number of classes and lecture series through iTunes U. Here’s an introductory theology series called “The Lutheran Mind”, which I’m listening to right now.

This seems to me to be an appropriate way to introduce oneself to Lutheranism. Lutherans do seem to have a different “mind” from the Reformed. Over at Andrew Clover’s Lutheran and Reformed Discussion, I was very surprised to find some hostility to even some basic Reformed teachings, such as the Westminster Catechism Question 1: “Man's chief end is to glorify God, And to enjoy him forever.”

It seems as if Lutheran theology today relies very heavily on Luther’s “Theology of the Cross”, which really makes every person (believer or not) into either a “Theologian of the Cross” or a “Theologian of Glory”. At this point, I think some Lutherans might mistakenly tend to categorize the statement in WSC Question 1 as something that a “Theologian of Glory” might say.

At any rate, while Reformed theology is very well-ordered, “systematic”, perhaps even “scholastic”, Lutheran theology seems much more down-to-earth and practical. Luther’s Small Catechism is a series of instructions, for example, many of which begin with the phrase, “As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household…”

Luther himself made this observation about his own writings:

by God’s grace a great many systematic books now exist, among which the Loci communes of Philip [Melanchthon] excel, with which a theologian and a bishop can be beautifully and abundantly prepared to be mighty in preaching the doctrine of piety, especially since the Holy Bible itself can now be had in nearly every language. But my books, as it happened, yes, as the lack of order in which the events transpired made it necessary, are accordingly crude and disordered chaos, which is now not easy to arrange even for me.

From John Dillenberger, “Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings”, New York, NY: Anchor Books, ©1962, “Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther’s Latin Writings, 1545”, pgs 3–4).

Still, several of Luther’s writings to this day are foundational, confessional documents for Lutherans, and they may be found in the Book of Concord.