Was the Reformation a Mistake?

Matthew Levering,Kevin J. Vanhoozer

• Publisher: Zondervan Academic
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9780310530725
• Topic: Teologia e religione
• Subtopic: Teologia cristiana

Was the Reformation a mistake?

In its actual historical context, it hardly seems fair to call the Reformation a "mistake." In 1517, the Church was in need of a spiritual and theological reform. The issues raised by Renaissance humanism - and by the profound corruption of the Church's leaders, the Avignon papacy, and the Great Schism in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries - lingered unresolved. What were key theological problems that led to the Reformation?

Theologian Matthew Levering helps readers see these questions from a Catholic perspective. Surveying nine key themes - Scripture, Mary, Eucharist, Monasticism, Justification and Merit, Saints Priesthood, and Scripture - he examines the positions of Martin Luther and makes a case that the Catholic position is biblically defensible once one allows for the variety of biblically warranted modes of interpreting Scripture. At the same time, Levering makes clear that he cannot "prove" the Catholic case.

The book concludes with a spirited response by "mere Protestant" theologian Kevin J. Vanhoozer.

X

CHAPTER 1

SCRIPTURE

The subject of this chapter is Scripture and its interpretation. For the Catholic Church’s position today on this subject, the reader should consult paragraphs 51–141 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as the Second Vatican Council’s Dei Verbum and Benedict XVI’s recent apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini.¹ Protestants and Catholics agree that Scripture is God’s authoritative Word. The disputed question then is how God’s scriptural Word is handed on and interpreted. Having discovered to their dismay that (in their view) several of the Catholic Church’s doctrinal teachings were not in fact scripturally grounded, Luther and the other Reformers sought to renew the church on better doctrinal foundations. My proposal in my biblical reflection is that Scripture teaches that the church is the faithful interpreter of Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If this is so, then it follows that if the church failed to be able to faithfully determine matters of doctrinal truth for the whole people of God in each generation and across generations, Scripture itself would fail in its truth.

LUTHER’S CONCERN

In Martin Luther’s 1520 “An Appeal to the Ruling Class of German Nationality as to the Amelioration of the State of Christendom,” he inquires into why the pope’s interpretation of Scripture must be accepted while contrary interpretations, even when set forth by intelligent and reputable scholars, must be rejected. He begins by noting with rhetorical force that “the Romanists profess to be the only interpreters of Scripture, even though they never learn anything contained in it their lives long.”² These “Romanists” claim that even if a pope is morally decadent and intellectually inept, his formal teaching about matters of faith cannot be in error. This claim, however, does not itself have a scriptural basis, and therefore is an invention of the Romanists.

Indeed, this Romanist claim makes Scripture itself useless. Why should Scripture be consulted when (allegedly) the truth is found instead in the tradition as understood by the pope? Scripture here takes a decided backseat to the pope, who is supposed to be a servant of Scripture. According to the Romanists, the church under the pope is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to arrive at the right interpretation in matters of faith. The Holy Spirit here allegedly guides even a morally corrupt and faithless pope (or a morally corrupt and faithless church), despite the fact that such a pope (or church) could not have the indwelling of the Spirit promised by Christ. Furthermore, once all authority rests in the decision of the pope and in the established teaching of the Catholic Church, appealing to the actual text of Scripture no longer has real authority, since the church under the pope will not admit to a single error in matters of faith. Indeed, all copies of Scripture could be burned, and the church could simply go on as before, making its own decisions and directed by its supposedly Spirit-inspired (but obviously corrupt) leaders.

Luther suggests that the church under the pope would do well to recall St. Paul’s observation that people who are attempting to speak God’s Word should listen to each other (see 1 Cor 14:30), as well as to Jesus’s confirmation of the prophecy that “they shall all be taught by God” (John 6:45). From such biblical testimonies, it would seem that neither the pope nor whatever happens to be traditional in the church should not have the last word, when confronted with a better interpretation of Scripture. After all, Luther emphasizes, Scripture never says that the most powerful person in the church must be believed, and Scripture never says that morally corrupt and ignorant shepherds will be infallible leaders of Christ’s flock. Luther also points out that the pope’s claim to be able to make a definitive interpretation cannot be tested. If the pope erred, how could this be demonstrated if no appeal to Scripture and no independent interpreters were allowed? It is a vicious circle: believe my interpretation of Scripture because Scripture, according to my interpretation, grants me infallible interpretative authority.

Fortunately, humble persons can still read Scripture and, in faith, receive the Holy Spirit. Such persons will be able to perceive, as Luther does, that Scripture itself gives no warrant to the papal domination of biblical interpretation. Here two biblical texts seem to stand in Luther’s way: Matthew 16:19 and Luke 22:32. With regard to the former, Luther answers that the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 16:19) are given not only to Peter but “to the whole Christian community,” and, besides, the keys “have no reference to doctrine or policy, but only to refusing or being willing to forgive sin.”³ So the keys cannot be appealed to exegetically as a basis for the unlikely papal claim never to have made a doctrinal error. With regard to Luke 22:32, where Jesus tells Peter “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail,” Luther points out that the faith of many popes, as shown by their deeply immoral behavior, has already failed. Thus, Jesus was praying for Peter and “for all apostles and Christians”—for all who have real faith—but certainly not for all popes.⁴

Luther hammers home the sheer incongruity of the notion that popes can interpret Scripture better than others. He urges, “Think it over for yourself. You must acknowledge that there are good Christians among us who have the true faith, spirit, understanding, word, and mind of Christ.”⁵ Once this is acknowledged, then surely the “mind of Christ” (cf. 1 Cor 2:16) is possessed better by those who have faith than by those who do not; and a quick tour through fifteenth-century popes (my example, not Luther’s, although he would agree with me) suggests that faith was not their strongest attribute. Those who have the “mind of Christ” are by definition able to interpret the Word of God. Luther draws the evident conclusion: “Why ever should one reject their opinion and judgment, and accept those of the pope, who has neither that faith nor that spirit?”⁶ Luther also points out that the Nicaean confession of one, holy church is not a confession of one, holy pope; we should instead believe in the church, which cannot be concentrated “entirely in one man.”⁷ The point is that the pope should not have determinative authority regarding the interpretation of Scripture in the church.

Luther seeks to liberate Scripture from captivity to the pope, so that the Word of God can freely speak to believers without the distortive weight of the false interpretations and inventions added by the church under the papacy over the course of centuries. The freedom and capacity of Christians truly to hear God’s Word is attested by St. Paul: “The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one” (1 Cor 2:15). For Luther, there are such spiritual men alive today, and it is unlikely that the pope is among them. No matter what the grounds may be, Luther argues, it can never be right “to allow the spirit of liberty—to use St. Paul’s term—to be frightened away by pronouncements confabricated by the popes.”⁸ Instead, God’s Word has been given to believers so that believers might interpret it. When believers do so, they find that the church under the pope has invented numerous things not found in Scripture and has distorted the gospel of grace. The only possible thing that believers can do, therefore, is to follow the Word of God, come what may. In proclaiming their Christian liberty to obey the Word of God, believers should invite the pope, and the entire church under the domination of the pope, to follow the true scriptural path. Luther exhorts, “We ought to march boldly forward, and test everything the Romanists do or leave undone. We ought to apply that understanding of the Scriptures which we possess as believers, and constrain the Romanists to follow, not their own interpretation, but that which is in fact the better.”⁹ For Luther, there is no reason why believers cannot reform the church and overcome the Romanists.

What if, however, the Romanists cite all sorts of learned and powerful authorities? Should we not listen to the biblical reasoning of those to whom we are subject, and who excel us in authority and perhaps also in learning? Luther replies that God’s pattern is to speak his Word through the weak rather than through the powerful. As examples, he offers Abraham’s being taught by Sarah (Gen 21:12) and Balaam being taught by his ass (Num 22:28). He asks rhetorically, “Since God once spoke through an ass, why should He not come in our day and speak through a man of faith and even contradict the pope?”¹⁰ Lest someone think that contradicting the pope is always wrong, he reminds them of Paul’s stern correction of Peter (Gal 2:11). When dealing with the Word of God, therefore, Christians have the responsibility to hear and speak the Word, even at great personal cost and even in the face of powerful authorities. Luther states that “it is the duty of every Christian to accept the implications of the faith, understand and defend it, and denounce everything false.”¹¹ Put more bluntly, “Even if the pope acts contrary to Scripture, we ourselves are bound to abide by Scripture.”¹² Nothing that the pope (or the church under the pope) teaches that does not “abide by Scripture”—that invents things that distort the gospel of grace and faith or that impinge upon Christian freedom—can be accepted by Christian believers.

Once the unbiblical authority of the pope has been removed, every doctrine taught by the pope must be vetted for its accordance to the Word of God. Every doctrine or practice that does not have clear biblical warrant must be rejected. Throughout his post-1517 career, Luther labored tirelessly at this task of reform. In his 1525 “The Bondage of the Will,” disputing against Desiderius Erasmus, Luther responds to the charge that the church’s authority is needed because Scripture is not always clear. He rhetorically asks Erasmus, “Is it not enough to have submitted your judgment to Scripture? Do you submit it to the Church [under the pope] as well?—why, what can the Church settle that Scripture did not settle first?”¹³ Luther goes on to say that either Scripture will be the judge and measure, or else the church will be; both cannot have the determinative role. The key question, then, is whether one objects “to there being a judge [namely, Scripture] of the Church’s decisions.”¹⁴ In Luther’s view, Erasmus would prefer peace to truth, and that is why Erasmus wishes to accept the church even when it goes against or beyond Scripture.

Erasmus, of course, goes further and argues that Scripture is often not fully clear, given the depths of the mysteries involved. Therefore, Scripture cannot be easily interpreted and thus cannot itself easily be the determinative measure of doctrinal questions, since one theologian-exegete will say this and another that. Although Luther grants that the mysterious depths of God cannot be plumbed and are not plumbed by Scripture, he denies that Scripture fails to be clear. Indeed, he considers that “the notion that in Scripture some things are recondite and all is not plain was spread by the godless Sophists . . . who have never yet cited a single item to prove their crazy view; nor can they.”¹⁵ Once one posits that Scripture itself is unclear, believers who lack learning give up on reading Scripture, since they imagine that God does not teach them clearly through it. Luther suggests that Satan uses the notion of Scripture’s obscurity “to scare off men reading the sacred text, and to destroy all sense of its value.”¹⁶

Does this mean, then, that Luther is actually denying that Scripture can be difficult? On the contrary, Luther knows full well that “many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate.”¹⁷ But the reason for their difficulty is not due “to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance”; and, besides, such difficulty “does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture.”¹⁸ These contents fundamentally are Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son; the triune God; Christ’s suffering on the cross for our sins; and Christ’s resurrection, ascension, and everlasting reign. If one reads Scripture correctly, one finds Jesus Christ. He is not obscure or hidden, but rather makes all things clear. Luther concludes, “You see, then, that the entire content of the Scriptures has now been brought to light, even though some passages which contain unknown words remain obscure.”¹⁹ The Light has come and illuminated not only the whole of Scripture but also the mysteries of salvation and the Trinity. Thus, those who claim that mere believers cannot be trusted to understand Scripture, with the result that the church under the pope must interpret it for them, are being disingenuous.

In emphasizing that “the contents of Scripture are as clear as can be,” Luther also points out that the words (or passages) that are obscure are made clear by other passages in Scripture. He observes, “What God has so plainly declared to the world is in some parts of Scripture stated in plain words, while in other parts it still lies hidden under obscure words.”²⁰ Even if some passages are rather obscure, the whole is bathed in light. God has revealed himself clea...