Martin Luther versus the "New" Perspective on Paul

Here I submit a passage from Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will, in which to my delight, Luther attacks (if I may be a bit anachronistic) the “New Perspective on Paul” (NPP), which apparently when apparently when Dunn and Sanders and Wright discovered it, was really nothing new under the sun. Luther here denies that Paul means “ceremonial laws” by works of the law, or a NPP advocates call it “covenant badges” like dietary laws and circumcision.

Martin Luther. Bondage of the Will pages 302-304. [Library of Christian Classics edition]

“But they are in the habit of trying to get round Paul here, by making out that what he calls works of the law are the ceremonial works, which sine the death of Christ are deadly. I reply that this is the ignorant error of Jerome, which in spite of Augustine's strenuous resistance – God having withdrawn and let Satan prevail – has spread out into the world and persisted to the present day. It has consequently become impossible to understand Paul, and the knowledge of Christ has been inevitably obscured. Even if there had never been any other error in the Church, this one alone was pestilent and potent enough to make havoc of the gospel, and unless a special sort of grace has intervened, Jerome has merited hell rather than heaven or it – so little would I dare to canonize him or call him a saint. It is, then, not true that Paul is speaking only about ceremonial laws: otherwise how can the argument be sustained by which he concludes that all mean are wicked and in need of grace? For someone could say: Granted we are not justified by ceremonial works, yet a person might be justified by the moral works of the Decalogue, so you have not proved by your syllogism that grace is necessary for these. Besides, what is the use of a grace liberates us only from ceremonial works which are the easiest of all, and which can at the lowest be exhorted from us by fear or self-love? It is, of course, also untrue that ceremonial laws are deadly and unlawful since the death of Christ; Paul never said that, but he says they do not justify and are of no advantage to a man in the sight of God as regards setting him free from ungodliness. Once this is accepted, anyone may do them without doing anything unlawful – just as eating and drinking are works that do not justify or commend us to God (1 Cor 8:8), yet a man does nothing unlawful when he eats and drinks.

They are also wrong in that the ceremonial works were as much commanded and required in the old law as was the Decalogue, so that the latter was neither more nor less important than the former. And as Paul is speaking primarily to Jews, as he says in Romans 1:16, no one need doubt that by works of the law he means all the works of the entire law. For it would be meaningless to call them works of the law if the law were abrogated and deadly, since an abrogated law is no longer a law, as Paul very well knew. He is therefore not speaking of an abrogated law when he speaks of the works of the law, bot of the law that is valid and authoritative. Otherwise, how easy it would have been for him to say: “The itself is now abrogated!” -then we should had a clear and unambiguous declaration.

But let us appeal to Paul himself as his own best interpreter, where he says in Galatians 3:!0: “All who rely on works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.'” You see here, where Paul is making the same point in the same words as in the epistle to the Romans, that every time he mentions the works of the law he is speaking of all the laws written in the Book of the Law....”

God without Christ?

Came across this great quote on Reverand Paul McCain's Website:

He who wants to know God, love God, worship God, and serve God should learn to know Christ aright, should love Christ, should worship Christ, and serve Him. To know, love, worship, or serve God without Christ is impossible.

-Martin Luther

Luther on Thanksgiving

Well, this is Martin Luther on the Eucharist which comes from the Greek meaning "to give thanks." So technically, Martin Luther on the Eucharist is Martin Luther on thanksgiving. I've been studying Martin Luther on the Eucharist (for those who don't know that word, that's "The Lord's Supper" for my Presbyterian friends, "Communion" for my Baptist friends, and that weird snack other Christians have in their worship for my Watermark friends). Luther was careful not to speak of the Lord's Supper as transubstantiation, even though arguing over the mechanics of the Eucharist was not Luther's main concern. (nor is my thoughts on the mechanics exactly like Luther's, though close) Luther believed that a great many benefits come from this means of grace given to the church. Here I will share a few that he identifies:

Forgiveness
Luther's primary language about the Eucharist would not be the first concept most other Protestants would associate with the Supper. For Luther, the Eucharist contains with it the forgiveness of sins. Luther explains how he means this in two ways. Luther uses the concepts of pledge and sign.1 As a sign, it signifies the promise of forgiveness given to the believer. As a sure pledge, the Eucharist is assuring to the believer that they have the forgiveness of sins. This is not a resacrifice, but rather the Word coming to the believer to declare this forgiveness, like the word preached.2 When received by faith, the believer has fellowship with Christ.

Fellowship with God and Others
Luther places the “significance or effect of this sacrament is fellowship of all the saints.”3 From this fellowship, all other benefits flow. As Christ has, so His body has in fellowship with him in Christ's life.4 Obvious was the fact that the Eucharist was a fellowship with God through Christ. Luther takes the obvious and fleshes out the meaning of fellowship to also include a fellowship with all other saints. As the church is the body of Christ, and the Eucharist is the sacrament of the body, these two things should not be separated. Such a close relationship between the congregated church body and the sacrament led Luther to have reservations about private celebrations and even taking the Super to the sick apart from the worship service.5
Fellowship in the Eucharist is fellowship in the church. Luther brings out the opposite of the fellowship in the Eucharist being “excommunicare” or excommunication. The opposite is “to receive a sure sign of this fellowship and incorporation with Christ and all the saints.”6 To receive the sacrament then is assurance of union with Christ, because union with the Church is union with the body of Christ.

The fellowship offered in this union is not merely profit. Luther warned that “There are those, indeed, who would gladly share in the profits but not in the costs.”7 Christ experienced loss and suffering in his life. Now, the church suffers loss and pain and to have fellowship in the body is to have fellowship in suffering. Luther offers the illustration of a man injuring his foot. The whole body bends itself towards the foot and covers it, alleviates stress from it and cares for it for the pain is seen not only on the foot but even on the other end of the body on the face, and “once it is cared for all the other members are benefited.”8

In the Eucharist, Luther sees shared misery. “You must in turn share the misfortunes of fellowship.”9 In this fellowship, the Christian fills in the sufferings of Christ, who no longer suffers in heaven, but His body does on earth. For the continuing repeated suffering of the innocent, the Eucharist is taken repeatedly.10 The call for the partaker is to “help the poor, put up with sinners, care for the sorrowing, suffer with the suffering, intercede for others, defend the truth, and...risk life, property and honor for the betterment of the church.”11

Reminder of Need
The suffering of the body points to the need of grace. “Therefore, we need the strength, support and help of Christ and of his saints.”12 Luther goes so far as to say the Eucharist is not for those of no suffering, misfortune or anxiety, but for hungry, needy and anxious. For proof of the necessity of this condition, Luther goes to the instance of the institution of the Lord's Supper. Christ frightens the disciples with the trials that await Him. He also scares them by the announcement that He will be leaving them and one of their own will betray Him. “When they were thus full of sorrow and anxiety, disturbed by sorrow and the sin of betrayal, then they were worthy, and he gave them his holy body.”13

The Eucharist was instituted for the needy and hungry. The language of Luther echoes Christ's words to the Pharisees that Christ came to call sinners, not the righteous.14 The meaning is not that Christians ought to only come when they need it, but Christians always need the grace of the Eucharist and Christians ought to be made to feel their need of grace. The disciples had the same destiny before Christ spoke to them in the Supper as they did after the meal. The different was not their condition, but their awareness of their condition. “On your part, you ought to be impelled by your own need” to come to the Eucharist.15

If Christians are aware of their need, they will desire to take the Eucharist frequently. Luther speaks of the Eucharist so closely with the preached word that one should not think the Eucharist is some magical granter of grace to him. Rather, the Eucharist is another means of communicating the gospel of Christ to the believer. Proper understanding of the Eucharist is essential in the same way that preaching the gospel rightly is important. The believer should never tire of hearing the Gospel and so should never tire of taking the Eucharist. The problem is “we hardly know any more what purpose this sacrament serves or how it should be used...This is the fault of preachers who do not preach the gospel or the sacraments, but their humanly devised fables about the many works of satisfaction to be done and the ways to live aright.”16 When the preacher reminds the believer of their need for grace, rather than flattering them with pronouncements of their ability to fulfill all duties, then the believer will desire the preached word and the sacrament more frequently.

Strengthening and Gladdening
Because of the sufferings of the church and the sinfulness of humanity, the Eucharist is needed in a positive way (or as Luther puts it: profits). The responsibility to shared sufferings is assumed by the believer, but the believer is not sufficient to meet these demands. Luther takes two of the positive benefits of the bread and wine in the Eucharist from the Scripture's description of the purpose of bread and wine. In Psalm 104:15, the Psalmist writes that God gave “bread to strengthen man's heart” and “wine to make glad the heart of man.”

Luther takes as further proof of the strengthening of the Eucharist Acts 9:18-19, where Paul is given back his sight and then is “baptized and taking food was strengthened.” Luther takes this food as being the Eucharist.17 The strengthening of the Eucharist consists in the forgiveness offered in the Eucharist. Where our sins accuse and attack us, the Eucharist reminds the believer of the payment for sin in the life and death of Christ.

This strengthening results in joy. The wine in the Eucharist communicates the gladdening of the heart of the believer. “Let him go joyfully to the sacrament of the alter and lay down his woe in the midst of the community of saints and seek help from the entire company of the spiritual body.”18 In this sure sign of Christ's love for the person, “The heart cannot but rejoice and be strengthened.”19

Organic Union
The reality of the Eucharist resides in union with Christ. Although Luther begins by using the word fellowship for the relationship between Christ and the believer, it soon becomes apparent that Luther means more than friendly relationship. The union the believer has by faith is one that is more vital, real and organic than mere relationship. Although Reformation theologians assailed the mystics, the sacraments remain a mystical subject. Luther conceives of the union with Christ a believer enjoys illustrated in the Eucharist as “no more intimate, deep, and indivisible union than the union of the food with him who is fed. For the food enters into and is assimilated by his very nature, and becomes one substance with the person who is fed...thus in the sacrament we too become united with Christ, and are made one body with all the saints, so that Christ cares for us and acts on our behalf.”20 The Eucharist enables some understanding of union as we share in the benefits of Christ though vital union.

Desire and Hope
Christians, for Luther, should be seen frequently coming to the table. When one considers that greatness of the gift of the sacrament, given by Christ, what would restrain the believer from coming? Although Christ left the means of encounter with Him by the Word by way of the ear, so too did Christ leave a means of encounter with Him by way of the eyes and the hands. The desire of believers to come into the presence of their Savior should be evident. So obvious was this to Luther, that if one was known to be frequently absent from the table, they ought not to be considered a Christian.21 If Christ instituted the Supper to remember Him with “the very words, 'as often as you do it,' imply that we should do it often.”22 If one is truly a Christian, how often should they wish to remember their Savior? If rarely or never, are they truly a Christian?
Ultimately, the Eucharist is comforting. “We see now how necessary this sacrament is for those who must face death, or other dangers of body and soul, that they not be left in them alone but be strengthened in the fellowship of Christ and all saints.”23 When the need compels the believer to the table, the Eucharist comforts them. For the needy, it is “pure, wholesome, soothing medicine.”24

Luther ends one of his treatises on the Eucharist with this imagery: “Baptism leads us into a new life on earth; the bread guides us through death into eternal life. And the two are signified by the Red Sea and the Jordan, and by two lands, one beyond and one on this side of Jordan.”25 Luther here compares the former pre-Christian life to Egypt. In Egypt, God's people were under slavery. To free them from this, God led the Israelites through the Red Sea, paralleling (as Peter and Paul also pick up on) Christian baptism. After being freed from slavery (Egypt with the Jews, Sin and Death with Christians) now God's people are fed with bread (manna from heaven for the Jews, Eucharist for the Christians). The bread is a sign of God's care and sustaining in between lands, no longer in Egypt, but not yet in the Promised Land.
The Eucharist represents the continual, sustained nature of faith. Though every believer has a point of entry into the Christian life, they also have the time after to live within. The food for the journey is the Gospel of Christ pictured by body in bread and blood in wine. Therein is the sustaining and joy of the Christian. Therein is the suffering and comfort of fellowship for the Christian. Therein is the reminder of need and the promise of forgiveness. Because all these benefits are exhibited in the Eucharist, the benefit of hope is given to those who partake of the bread and wine. For Luther, the Eucharist is no mere rite, but the visible word of the Gospel.


References:

1 Martin Luther. “Luther's Larger Catechism.” Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1959), 449
2 Martin Luther. “Luther's Larger Catechism.” Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1959), 450.
3 Martin Luther. “The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, 1519.” Luther's Works: Volume 35: Word and Sacrament I. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 50
4 Martin Luther. “Luther's Larger Catechism.” Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1959), 452
5 Harry Boonstra. “Home Communion” Reformed Worship. Issue #13. retrieved at: http://www.reformedworship.org/magazine/article.cfm?article_id=44
6 Martin Luther. “The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, 1519.” Luther's Works: Volume 35: Word and Sacrament I. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 51
7 Ibid., 57
8 Ibid., 52
9 Ibid., 54
10 Ibid., 55
11 Ibid., 57
12 Ibid., 55
13 Ibid., 56
14 Matthew 9:13
15 Martin Luther. “Luther's Larger Catechism.” Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1959), 454
16 Martin Luther. “The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, 1519.” Luther's Works: Volume 35: Word and Sacrament I. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 56-57
17 Ibid., 53
18 Ibid., 53
19 Ibid., 54
20 Ibid., 59
21 Martin Luther. “Luther's Larger Catechism.” Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1959), 451
22 Ibid., 452
23 Martin Luther. “The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, 1519.” Luther's Works: Volume 35: Word and Sacrament I. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 65
24 Martin Luther. “Luther's Larger Catechism.” Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1959), 454
25 Martin Luther. “The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, 1519.” Luther's Works: Volume 35: Word and Sacrament I. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 67

Luther and Media

Reformed Forum had an interesting discussion of Luther and media. The discussion of Luther and publishing leads to a discussion of blogging (shorter than books, expressing ideas in a few paragraphs) and Twitter (thoughts limited to 140 characters). Carl Trueman makes some good points on how the less space is given to a topic, the less meaningful the treatment becomes.

I'm finding blogging to be true to his pronouncement. Blogging has helped me advance my own thinking and clarifying my ideas especially with feedback. Yet, the short medium often disallows, and discourages thoughtful interaction. (for example, my short incomplete post on a frustration with a disregard for the Old Testament led to unintelligible comments and my post on how not to argue, which seems to be a symptom of how our thought has been shaped by shorter media.) Our ability to give time to consider a lengthy argument in modern media forms has nearly disappeared. This is why we do not track with 30-minute sermons, or understand the Bible in larger sections than a verse or two at a time.

Reformed Forum: Luther and Media

Tradition Envy

When I look to other traditions, there are certain traditions I have little or no envy over. I don't read many Methodists. I'm not impressed with their theology or homiletics. Sorry. No offense, but I'm just not interested. There are some traditions that I can enjoy certain theologians and persons, such as Anglicanism. I love many Anglican theologians and hymn writers (like John Newton, William Cowper, C.S. Lewis, etc.) I enjoy the occassional Episcopal Euchraist or liturgy. But, ultimately, I what I like about Anglicanism is where it has commonalities with the Reformed Tradition.

Then, there is the one tradition I truly have tradition envy over. The Lutherans. Not usually their theology. I'm a 5-point Calvinist. I think the Lutheran approach to Free Will is 10-fold better than Arminians, but still too weak...still, not Luther-like enough. But I will tell you where I do envy Lutherans:

1) Homiletics. Conservative Lutherans know Law and Gospel. They distinguish the two to the point of predictable regularity in their sermons. And that's great. We could learn from their homiletics.

2)Devotional material. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod has released seven resources that has made me ask: Why don't we have this?! Sure, the book of Concord is a book of confessions like the Westminster Standards. No envy there. Our theology is better anyway :)



But also see:


The Lutheran Study Bible – Yeah, there is a “Reformation Study Bible” and the new ESV Study Bible, that some say is covenantal. But the Reformation Study Bible was made to be so broad that it should be called Reformish or Reformesque rather than Reformed. Sacramental Theology and Ecclesiology are both weak in key passages to accomidate Reformed Baptists and other possible customers. The ESV Study Bible's notes are New Covenantal rather than covenantal. So, ironically, the notes on the sacraments and Law and Gospel in the Lutheran Study Bible are closer to true Reformed ideas than in the Reformation or ESV Study Bible.

Lutheran Service Book – A book of liturgies. The CRC (Dutch Reformed) have produced practical works like this (see Worship Sourcebook). But the conservative Presbyterians have only produced a hymnal. A good hymnal, but it needs more liturgy.

Treasury of Daily Prayer – Wonderful daily readings from Scripture, OT, Psalms, and NT. Also includes songs to sing, prayers to pray and quotes from figures in Church History, from the Apostolic Fathers up to the 20th Century. But 90% of the reading is Scripture, to get one in the Bible daily. How great is that?

Lutheran Book of Prayer – Daily prayers to aid morning and nightly prayers and gets one started when praying on other topics when one does not know how to start.

Reading the Psalms with Luther – An introduction to each Psalm to aid understanding from Martin Luther himself.

After exposure to these resources, and in the case of “Treasure of Daily Prayer” and “Lutheran Book of Prayer” my personal use, I would love to have resources more in line with the Reformed Tradition along these lines. A real Reformed and covenantal Study Bible. A Reformed Book of Prayer. A Reformed Treasury of Daily prayer with selections from the Three Forms or Westminster instead of Book of Concord. But, oh well. Until such things happen, I'm content to read my Westminster next to my Lutheran Book of Prayer. But I'm really tempted to get a Lutheran Study Bible and carry it to church. When asked why, I would reply: it's as close to a Reformed Study Bible in English. Sad but true.

Hymn: Luther's Best

I was told of a Lutheran gathering where the worship leader decided for time's sake to just sing the first verse of this hymn. The pastor immediately got up and declared that they must finish the song, for Satan was still winning! Luther's greatest hymn, based on Psalm 46, is a story. It is the story. Singing it in church for the past two weeks continues to take me on an emotional roller coaster. From lowly despair, to hope, to joy. I can never by a Psalms-only Puritan because of this wonderful hymn.

A MIGHTY FORTRESS IN OUR GOD

1. A mighty fortress is our God,
A Bulwark never failing;
Our Helper He amid the flood
Of mortal ills prevailing;
For still our ancient Foe
Doth seek to work us woe;
His craft and pow'r are great,
And armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not his equal.

2. Did we in our own strength confide,
Our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side,
The Man of God's own choosing;
Dost ask who that may be:
Christ Jesus it is He;
Lord Sabbaoth His name,
From age to age the same,
And He must win the battle.

3. And though this world with devils filled,
Should threaten to undo us
We will not fear for God hath willed,
His truth to triumph through us
The Prince of Darkness grim,
We tremble not for him
His rage we can endure,
For lo his doom is sure
One little word shall fell him

4. That Word above all earthly pow'r,
No thanks to them abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours
Through Him who with us sideth;
Let goods and kindred go,
This mortal life also;
The body they may kill;
God's truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever!

Martin Luther on the Parable of the Sower

"True it is unpleasant to preach to those who treat the Gospel so shamefully and even oppose it...What business is it of mine that many do not esteem it? It must be that many are called but few are chosen. For the sake of the good ground that brings forth fruit with patience, the seed must also fall fruitless by the wayside, on the rock and among the thorns; inasmuch as we are assured that the Word of God does not go forth without bearing some fruit, but it always finds also good ground; as Christ says here, some seed of the sower falls also into good ground, and not only by the wayside, among the thorns and on stony ground. For wherever the Gospel goes you will find Christians. "My word shall not return unto me void" (Is. 55:11).”

Luther on Ecclesiastes 9:8

Ecc 9:8 Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking on your head.

"You are living in the midst of vanity. Therefore enjoy life, and do not let yourself come to ruin through your indignation, but drive the grief from your mind. You can not mock the world more effectively than by laughing when it grows angry. Let it be enough for you that you have a gracious God. For what is the malice of the world in comparison with the sweetness of God? He is not urging a life of pleasure and luxury characteristic of those who do not sense this vanity, for that would be putting oil on fire; but he is speaking of godly men, who sense the vexation and troubles of the world. It is their downcast hearts that he wants to encourage."

Simul Justus et Peccator

On Christians being "Simultaneously Sinner and Saint":

“The saints in being righteous are at the same time sinners; they are righteous because they believe in Christ whose righteousness covers them and is imputed to them, but they are sinners because they do not fulfill the Law and are not without sinful desires. They are like sick people in the care of a physician: they are really sick, but healthy only in hope and in so far as they begin to get better, or, rather: are being healed.”

-Martin Luther

Why I Cannot be a Roman Catholic (Part 2): I believe in Tradition.

In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul recounts how Peter acted hypocritically, denying the gospel in his works, eating according to the Law with the circumcision party. The circumcision party believed membership in the community required subscription to the Jewish law. Paul rebuked Peter to his face, in front of everyone, for his deeds which proclaimed a false doctrine (2:14).

I began to wonder, what would have happened if Peter told Paul to take a flying leap? What if Peter excommunicated Paul? Who the heck was Paul, a murderer and by his own admission the least of the apostles (1 Cor 15:9), who wasn’t even around when Christ gave to Peter (Matt 16:19) and the other apostles (Matt 18:18) the right to bind and loosen. How dare Paul?!

Paul, one of lesser authority rebuked one of higher authority over the importance of the purity of the gospel. But what if Peter commanded Paul to recant? Paul was disrespecting the dignity of Peter’s office and causing disrepute to Peter’s ministry and the appointment of Christ.

Question: What happens when apostolic authority is challenged by apostolic doctrine? Biblically, apostolic doctrine trumped apostolic authority.

Actually, the question can be asked differently now, for we do not have divinely appointed apostles in the same manner today. The question today focuses on the nature of apostolic tradition. Roman Catholicism when confronted with a man calling for repentance played their card of apostolic authority. Martin Luther was not to question the authority of the church, for this was the nature of apostolic tradition according to the Pope: the transfer of authority.

What is Apostolic Tradition?
The difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants is NOT the acceptance of tradition by Catholics and the rejection of tradition by Protestants. For Scripture itself speaks to tradition, sometimes negatively, but the tradition of the apostles is always positive such as in 1 Corinthians 11:2:

Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Biblical Christianity requires “maintaining the traditions.” So what is the primary nature of apostolic tradition? Our answer is clear in 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

The church is commanded to hold firm in the traditions “taught.” Tradition is primarily the content of faith, not the transfer of authority over what is taught. That is tradition’s own self-understanding as well. It is in 2 Thess 2:15, and in early church history. Why else would the Athanasian creed say salvation was based on the catholic faith, which was the doctrine of Christ’s assumption of human flesh for the accomplishment of salvation (with no mention of authority of the Pope)? The Athanasian creed defines the catholic faith as doctrine, not authority. Irenaeus defended his doctrine because his teacher was Polycarp, and Polycarp’s teacher was the Apostle John. Irenaeus had tradition on his side, a tradition of a taught doctrine of catholic faith.

Galatians 2:11-14 presents a vivid picture of what happens when apostolic authority clashes with apostolic teaching; the apostolic faith takes precedence over all authority. Obedience to apostolic tradition means defense even against those higher in authority who contradict the gospel, be they a priest, a Bishop or even the chief of the apostles Mr first Pope himself Peter. Paul even includes himself, an apostle of authority, as under the standard of measurement, in the same book, in 1:8:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

The Protestant case is that of, as Jaroslav Pelikan put it, “obedient rebels.” The Reformation is a question of “catholic substance and protestant principle.” The obedience of the Reformers was to the catholic faith in rebelling against the claim of apostolic authority to invalidate a call to repentance. Peter denied the gospel in deed and then repented. Rome denied the gospel in deed, then invented (or solidified the teaching of) another doctrine of the gospel to validate its deeds. Remember, Luther did not seek to found a new church, he sought repentance - he got excommunication when he refused to recant his call to repentance. To say Luther was unconcerned about the church or unity would be like saying John the Baptist had his beheading coming to him for not respecting Herod or the Pharisees. The gospel defines the church, the church does not define the gospel. The first Reformation confession, the Augsburg confession, claimed to teach nothing new, that "the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church catholic" and is but the catholic faith so very old, - the gospel of Christ and Paul explained so well by Augustine and the fathers. That is, it taught the Reformation faith - the catholic faith.

So was that truly the case with Luther against the Leo X? I submit that it was, but more on that in Part 3.

Until then, enjoy:

The catholicity of the Reformation

The more I read about the Reformation, the more I am interested in what I would call the second-generation Reformed ecumenism. The Reformed and Lutheran camps were at odds in the first generation between Zwingli and Luther, but second generation reformers John Calvin, Phillip Melancthon, Thomas Cranmer, Martin Bucer and Bullinger all made moves towards uniting the Reformed, Lutheran and Anglican streams in one Reformation confession. Often the starting point was the Augsburg Confession, especially as explained by Melancthon. Tragically, the more ardent Lutherans rejected Melancthon's efforts as compromise and liberalism, the Church of England went from the golden age of Protestantism under Edward VI to the brutal rule of Catholic Bloody Mary in which Cranmer was burned at the stake, and so reconciliation was thwarted, despite its Biblical mandate.

I recently encountered an interesting article online I thought I would recommend. It is not a published article, but most of the article consists of cited quotations of documents and correspondence. It highlights the efforts of John Calvin towards unity, but this was not at the expense of purity, as the author concludes:

"For Calvin the fundamental criterion for unity was pure doctrine."

McGrath's Dangerous Idea?

Alister McGrath's new book "Christianity's Dangerous Idea" on the Reformation has been getting some positive buzz lately (here and here). After listening to a recent interview with McGrath (mp3) McGrath repeats something I first heard him say on a documentary on Luther. McGrath summarizes the "Dangerous Idea" as this: The Reformation was about the right of every individual to interpret the Bible for themselves. Now McGrath is 1000 times smarter than me and has been a Luther scholar for longer than I have been alive, but that summary bothers me. Wouldn't that make Luther the father of Liberalism that says "it is all about what it means to you, rather than an objective meaning."

Paul Althaus, a Lutheran scholar, said: “Luther never understands the priesthood of all believers merely in the sense of the Christian's freedom to stand in a direct relationship to God without a human mediator. Rather he constantly emphasizes the Christian's evangelical authority to come before God on behalf of the brethren and also of the world. The universal priesthood expresses not religious individualism but its exact opposite, the reality of the congregation as a community.”

Has anyone read the book yet? Am I getting the wrong conclusion from McGrath? Or is he right about Luther's individualism?

[I've loved McGrath's contributions to a theology of science and spirituality, where evangelicals are lacking, which is why he is distressing me here!]