Is it Time to Reconsider Luther?
28 07 2007The following article was written by our friend and contributor, Abrosia De Milano:
Maybe protestants have followed the wrong Reformer. Was it truly Martin Luther whom God called out of the malaise of the Renaissance to correct His church and lead a new movement back to the true church? Can an argument be made that it was Erasmus, one who never left the Roman Catholic Church, who was the true torch-bearer of reform?
Erasmus can be called the Renaissance Man, par excellence. He embodied
the time in that he was at once scholar, humanist, monk; he was a humorist, linguist; a genius, if any ever existed, and an advocate of peace between people—even of peace towards his enemies.
Erasmus’ work The Complaint of Peace reminds the reader that Jesus had spoken the
imperative “Blessed are the Peacemakers.” He did not hide behind the excuse that the state had a right of self-defense, and that Christians ought to support war. Erasmus writes, “No greater enemy of goodness or of religion can be found.”
Humanism—not the secular humanism that rejects God—was the mark of Erasmus’ intellectual endeavors. It was not that man was the measure, but that God had endowed humanity with great gifts. These gifts had to be recognized, and drawn out to see the full glory of God that dwells in humanity. He followed the great tradition of the Dutch humanists. This led his work to be marked by an irenic spirit, one that seeks peace and reconciliation, in contrast with Luther’s fury.
It can be said that Erasmus would be one to whom Kant might say “Understanding is sublime, wit is beautiful” (From Kant’s Of the Beautiful and the Sublime). This could not be said of Luther.
Luther was seeking to overwhelm the perceived ignorance of his opponents with scalding critique. He sought to maintain enmity, rather than find common ground with which to carry on intellectual conversation. Calvinist scholar R. C. Sproul writes this of Luther, “The first key to Luther’s profile is found in his tempestuous outbursts of anger and his intemperate language. He was fond of calling his critics ‘dogs’. . . . his language was at times earthy, salted with scatological references” (The Holiness of God, p. 75).
Is this intemperate one, this man who used insult and invective to blast his intellectual and theological opponents, the Chosen One of the Reformation? Perhaps this title was given too easily to such a one as Luther. Maybe it is time Protestants (and Baptists, and other evangelicals) rethought Luther. Maybe it is time to transfer the reins of our faith to a man of peace, one of those opponents whom Luther engaged as one engages a hated enemy. Maybe it is time to consider Erasmus as the True Reformer—or to look elsewhere altogether—as to the one whom God truly called to speak out the abuses and sins of the established church of the 16th century.
Most protestant denominations that are around today came from subsequent splits from the original split that Luther led. Most of us don’t even know who the men were who led the split that produced the denomination that led to our church flavour. Hence these men do not have an influence in our individual lives.
Jesus Christ only spoke of one church, the body of believers in Him that make up His spiritual bride. It is this Jesus that we follow, for no other name under heaven given among men by which we may be saved. So we shouldn’t follow Luther or Erasmus but Christ.
I wish I knew more about church history and could comment on what you say as “most protestant denominations came from subsequent splits from the original that Luther led . . . ” I can say that people follow those with whom they agree, those whom they fear, or those to whom they had no choice but to follow.
It is true that there is only one scattered church. However, it is undeniable that people follow people. Yes, there is one True Shepherd, but people follow men and women whom they perceive to have God’s calling.
It is important to have historical perspective on those that we follow after.
We ought follow those people who follow Christ, just as the early church looked up to Paul.
Thank you for your comments
Ambrosia
I agree with Ross’ statement but nevertheless there seems to be a heck of a lot of significance to what Ambrosia has written. It would come under the heading of church history and we all know what inevitably happens when we don’t study history. In fact, it’s happening as we speak. How many people are following men (false prophets?) when they believe they are following Christ?
Logio, (Ambrosia), can you sum up the differences that Erasmus had with Luther over the concept of free will? After reading your piece I have done a little research into the man but (at this time) not prepared to delve too deeply into the scholarship.
I will don my cape, check my records, and give you and answer–
Okay, I am back from my archives (a box full of note cards). To summarize, Erasmus wrote the Point side of the argument, known as Diatribe, or On the Freedom of the Will. Erasmus wrote, “In the Name of Jesus . . . Among the difficulties, of which not a few crop up in Holy Scripture, there is hardly a more tangled labyrinth than that of ‘free choice’, for it is a subject that has long exercised the minds of philosophers and also of theologians old and new
. . .” (Luther and Erasmus, Free Will and Salvation, page 35). The introduction to the same book notes, “What Erasmus does reject is the idea that man has no active part to play in securing his own salvation . . .”
I have to admit that the quotes I have recorded from Luther are answering Erasmus’ rhetoric, not asserting Luther’s views on salvation. I will have to check some old research or consult “The Bondage of the Will” and come back with a less evasive answer.
Ambrosia
I will say that Luther saw that the will was bound in determinism–that there is such a thing as Prevenient Grace. Prevenient Grace means that God is working in the hearts and minds of all people. He would also say (as is recorded in the Ausburg Confession) that baptism is necessary for salvation.
So? In an infant, the will is bound in the the fact of baptism that was chosen by godly parents or surrogates. In an adult, the will is bound in the choice made through prevenient grace, as acted out in one’s choosing to be baptized and come to Christ.
This is different from Calvinism which says that God chose some before the foundation of the earth to be saved–to His glory. He also chose some to be reprobate and be lost–also to His glory.
If I had a direct quote, it would be better (and more scholarly). However, let me say that to Luther, there is an element of choice in salvation, as would be included in many modern day evangelical views. However, all of this is bound (no pun intended) in the person allowing his or her will to be molded and superintended by God.
Erasmus takes a more graceful, almost universal approach to the question.
Erasmus wrote,”the authority of the Scripture is not here in dispute. The same Scriptures are acknowledged and venerated by either side. Our battle is about he meaning of Scripture.”
As I wrote above, the tack I embarked on for the article posted was from a course in Rhetoric. I was trying to show that Erasmus’ rhetoric is one that promotes irenic exchanges–that his words speak for themselves. Luther takes a much harsher tone, and seeks to attack the person, not the words.
In doing so, Luther nails Erasmus hard.
More to come
Ambrosia
It seems that rather than rethinking Luther, we should take a look back at all the men and women that God has used in the history of the Church. There are tons like Michael Sattler, Alexander Campbell, Ulrich Zwingli, etc etc who played major roles in reshaping the Church and each should be looked to for their part. Luther certainly had some theology that was bad to say the least, but he also contributed a lot to reforming the church in a good way. Let us look back and imitate any servants in the Kingdom and imitate them as we see them imitating Christ.
Can you be specific? Maybe Luther wasn’ t involved (or Zwingli for that matter) but it was German Lutherans who persecuted early anabaptist groups such as what is now the Brethren, Swiss persecuted the groups who would become the Amish and the Mennonites. The sons of the reformation treated these groups with persecution and death.
How much has the church been “reshaped.” Consider the Ausburg Confessions, which begin with the term Let them Be Anathema who . . .
What I am saying is that the Rhetoric of Luther is harsh and invective–while Erasmus is seeking to make peace with his opponents.
Please be specific as to how Luther, etc. contributed.
Dont get me wrong–Luther’s reverence for God is amirable. But his tone is harsh. I also think, and this is a supportable hypothesis, that his rhetoric carried much of what he was doing. He may have convinced himself of his own importance based on raising the pitch of the arguments, rather than providing substance to his opponents.
Let the conversation continue
Ambrosia
Be specific, please.
Great discussion. Some of my Catholic friends still see Luther as The Great Heretic and divider.
Erasmus’ notion of ‘non-secular humanism’ clarifies something that has long bothered me in conservative evangelicalism - the idea that human effort can’t produce anything of value. True, our best efforts still can’t get us to God, but anything beautiful and true that is shaped by human hands reflects the God who created us. If we ourselves are created by Him and in His image, what shouldn’t our works reflect Him?
[…] There’s a great discussion (and insightful comments) at Sharp Iron discussing the real value of Martin Luther in bringing about the Protestant Reformation. […]
To Steve–It is hypocritical of Evangelicals to hold that position. I have been in evanglical churches of every stripe. They say “it is allGod” or “God is all over this.” When a person tries to challenge the power structure, they are told to back off, essentially (in fact, I think the Catholic Church is more friendly–or desparate–towards volunteerism). Besides, evangelicals pick and choose, allowing some to be on their own, so to speak, while hurling invectives at those who don’t make the team.
Anyway, I have to admit I am a great admirer of Erasmus. His voice comes through loud and clear amidst all of the noise of history. If you want to have an enjoyable and somewhat entertaining intellectual journey, read some of his pieces that include Enchirdion, The Complaint of Peace, and In Praise of Folly. If you like to write, try some of the exercises in rhetoric Erasmus has left for us in Copia. And if your read the Bible–his contributions to the King James (not directly) and other modern translations are invaluable.
Thank you for the comments, and I’m glad I could be of some help.
Ambrosia
Ambrosia,
I’m not sure if I would consider myself a ‘recovering evangelical,’ but I certainly see your point. I just left - after 8 years - a very conservative congregation. As I step back, I can see threads of Gnosticism in many such churches. The notion that the flesh is evil and to be avoided is rampant. I still firmly believe that we cannot come to God through our own works, but to decry any human effort or work as unGodly seems even worse to me. Perhaps that’s why many evangelicals resist any concept of social justice.
Steve
Hmm…that’s an interesting remark you make, Steve. A puritanical link to Gnostism - I’ve never heard or considered that before. It makes more than a little sense and is worth further exploration. Any sources that you might suggest or is this wholly your idea?
Yeah–exactly, Steve.
Reject the flesh (not really) see faith as “pure spirit,” exalt virginity (make sex icky) and create a world that does not (and will never) exist. Sounds like Gnostics.
Lemme have at this a little, and I’ll come up with a dinger. I heard, from Dr. Ralph Gore of Erskine Seminary (through some tapes from a mail order seminary I used to “attend”) that the Eastern Church was very gnostic–interested in mystical relationships and trying to guess the nature of God. Gore says, in counter to the East, that the West was more concerned with the judicial relationship between God, the judge, and man.
Okay–we think the judicial triumphed–but I would argue otherwise.
Modern evangelicals place the judicial relationship as the initiation rite into the body of believers. Nothing particularly mystical happens, except the rebirth (however that works). The rest of the time is spent trying some form of mysticism or another. All of the mysticism, whether pentecostal on one extreme, or those who reject and say the Bible is the means of God speaking on the other extreme, is earned (that’s right, I said earned) on the basis of righteous living. The cleaner the vessel, the reasoning says, the more insight into God (or from God).
Steve, I too am a recovering fundamentalist/evangelical, and I feel guilty telling you. I’ve been a Baptist, an AGer, a Four Square, a Calvary Chapel-ite, and Bible Church member. For the most part, these churches either impart a course of legalism, or try to prove they are not. For the most part, they duck any attempt at a rational view of history. They exalt such folks as Sir Robert Anderson (for interpretations of time) the Plymouth Brethren guy (for pre-tribulation) and reject intellectualism and any form of biblical criticism.
Anyway, let the conversation continue.
Ambrosia
I know a great book, but it is a little heady. It is called The Fourth Gospel by C. H. Dodd.
Well, Google turned up a bunch of stuff on Gnostic Puritanism, some of going back awhile, even Belloc thought this.
Is that aspect of Fundamentalism that looks upon the flesh as evil, is that what we are talking about? Is it legitimate to make this accusation?
Christian,
For better or worse, that one was mine, though I’m probably not the first to have that thought. Ambrosia certainly took it and ran with it.
I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath as there is much good in evangelical Christianity. Not everyone in that camp has their knickers in a wad all the time. But I would like to develop this further and will put up a post in the next few days. Feel free to blog it yourself.
Christian,
Is that aspect of Fundamentalism that looks upon the flesh as evil, is that what we are talking about? Is it legitimate to make this accusation?
Yes to the first; I’m not sure about the second. My thinking on this came after we were asked to leave our church because we held to an old-earth creation view. The pastor put it in very clear terms that science was not a valid way to evaluate Scripture. You either accept Genesis as written (i.e., 24-hour creation days) or you reject it in favor of science. My thinking was that the Creation revealed the Creator, but he didn’t buy that. His position was that science was valid only as far as it confirmed [his interpretation of] Scripture.
That put me in mind of an earlier study of Gnostic heresies, which emphasized the spiritual over the physical. I’m not sure that it’s valid to say that evangelicalism is inherently Gnostic, but it certainly appears that there are parallel concepts.
Yes! Yes! and Yes!
I believe that is the root of pre-tribulationism. I am not saying this is the view Darby, since I don’t have a quote. But the idea that “this world is not my home” seems to prevail in the anecdotes I have heard in many an evangelical/fundementalist circle.
I am going to call on Calvinist scholar Gordon Spykman, late of Calvin College in Michigan. Spykman sets the battle in array by pointing out the tension between the biblical promise of a restored paradise, verses the various desires and schemes that have come down the way during the millennia. One example of this is the fight over the nature of the believer’s choice in salvation that ruled the later part of the Reformation period (See The Synod of Dort and The Writings of Arminius, Volume I for primary source material on this debate). Spykman writes that the Calvinists lost their vision: “This quest for assurance of salvation took center stage so completely that it left eschatological issues waiting in the wings.”
Anyway, the fundementalists became pundits of eschatology, as Spykman notes, with the advent of the Scofield Reference Bible, “masses of evangelical Christians set out to recover lost ground.”
Okay, what does this have to do with the flesh/spirit/etc. controversy?
The 20th century was a dangerous time to be alive–and an equally exciting time. However, for the period from 1918 through 1945 (and beyond) the average person faced a cycle of deep poverty, cataclysmic war, political uncertainty–and this cycle repeated itself–culminating in the horrific events of Vietnam, and eventually the 911 attacks (I know, that’s the 21 century–but I’m on a roll here). It was natural to look for an escape.
So, as the need for escape grew, so did eschatological schemes. As the schemes grew in popularity, intellectual voices from seminaries (and other sources) joined the debate. Unfortunately, many evangelicals adopted the attitude “when the trumpet sounds, I’m out of here!” and other sloganized doctrines.
As a result of this, and the backlash to the immorality of earth’s cultures, Christians (especially in the United States) wanted out. The out included demonizing things that were good, like God’s creation, in preparation for the rapture. Somehow, the doctrines spread that only “true Christians” would go, so you’d better be ready. “You’d better not be listening to secular music when Jesus comes, or you’ll be in trouble” was the mentality that spread.
Anyway, this can be easily called “gnostic fundementalism.” Declare the flesh evil in order to make one’s self ready for the rapture.
Now you see why I took the moniker Logiopath. I’m crazy about words.
Ambrosia
Yeah,Steve. I just think we need to be careful about our language. Is it correct to assume that evangelicals, on the whole, are of a similar mind to your pastor?
I still consider myself to be an evangelical, but I guess that I might not fit the bill any longer. (Although I really do think it is all about the Good News and not the Bad News that so many preach)
Anyway, Steve, we went to a church with similar views. I signed that I agreed with them so I could join (young earth, pre-trib rapture, etc.) but I did not.
Ambrosia
Christian Beyer–I guess you’ll always be Christian?
Heh, heh. At first Abrologio, I was thinking that your prose may have been just a tad purple, but then I remembered the bumper sticker; “In Case of Rapture this Vehicle will be Without an Operator”.
My brother in law, a very conservative, fundamentalist evangelical (whew! what a mouthful) is waiting impatiently for the second coming, when he and his family and hopefully many of his friends will meet the Lord in the air. There is a sense of despair and hopelessness for this planet and by association his life as well. He looks forward to the day when the non-believers and the sinners will get their cumuppence. In spite of this, he is still a pretty good guy.
Of course the problem here is that Christ said the we were going to be in for a big surprise. I’d wager that there are going to be some pretty disappointed fans of Jenkins and LaHaye.
Hello again, Steve.
I think it is a simplification to say “Gnostics prefered spirit to flesh.” Gnosticism, as I understand it from Dodd’s The Fourth Gospel, is similar to Plato’s view of God. That behind the scenes of what we see is God, whom we cannot know or see. The ones doing the work are the Arcons (demigogues or demigods) who act on behalf of the will of the universe, or God behind the scenes.
James Montgomery Boice notes that the Gnostics thought of themselves as ‘knowing ones’.” Part of this was to say that Jesus was not actually incarnate in the flesh. John’s Gospel answers this (and Dodd points out is actually paralleling Gnosticism, rather than combating) by saying “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory as the only Begotten of the Father.”
Anyway, I think we forget Jesus’ incarnation because it is a messy proposition.
Boy, we’ve come a long way from Luther and Erasmus, haven’t we?
Ambrosia