Refuting an SSPX Priest's Claims About Luther
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 фев 2021
- My website: www.justandsinner.org
Publishing house: www.jspublishing.org
Patreon: / justandsinner
This video addresses comments made by SSPX priest and seminary professor Fr. Wiseman on Luther's relationship to nominalism and secularism. I spend this video correcting several misunderstandings that were presented regarding Luther's view of faith. A following video will more specifically address the nominalism accusations.
Thank you for sharing your vast Scriptural and theological knowledge with us Luthertubers. God's peace be with you.
Secularism has a variety of causes. It is way too simplistic to blame it simply on Luther.
Laziness being top of the list.
It’s easy to have no higher purpose
It's just lazy history studies it's like claiming Luther started the reformation... He really didn't he was a vital cog in the peice
So Jay Dyer said the same thing about Luther causing secularism. I was frustrated because Jay didn't use scripture at all to make his points. It was jus like " Luther is a heretic and nomalist and is regurgitating old ideas refuted by the church fathers ". Without any scripture to show how Luther was wrong. He said he read bondage of the will and some of Luther's commentaries but his conclusions didn't square with what I have read from Luther and even more so what I know from scripture.
Surprisingly the Scriptures don't have much to say about whether universals are ontologically real or merely conceptual, but I'm sure Paul was going to get around to penning a thousand page philosophical treatise after getting the whole sola gratia thing settled with the Romans and Galatians. Ultimately when the Fathers or anything become an authority in itself instead of rightly subjected to Scripture, you put the authority of fallible men on par with that of God, and inevitably you will end up disregarding the commandment of God for the tradition of Men, as our Lord puts it.
@@stallard9256 When you put Scriptures above anything else, you are also putting the authority of some men above the rest, i.e. the men who wrote the Scrpitures. But you don't believe that this is a fallible authority, because you think those men were inspired by the infallible authority of God. Well, Catholics believe the same thing about the councils and the pope. So the only difference between you and Catholics is that Catholics believe the infallible authority of God inspired more than just the authors of Scriptures. In other words, the only difference between you and Catholics is in the number of men you believe to be inspired by the infallible authorithy of God.
@@vituzui9070 finally someone that taked the lutheran position in it original form, and not by a image imposed to lutherans :P
Having come from a lifetime in Evangelicalism and converted to confessional Lutheranism, I must say that the circle seems to have come back around. Much of what the priest is arguing would be argued by many Evangelicals as well!
Yeah there definitely seems to be many similarities between the Roman and modern evangelical perspectives (despite appearances)
@@pjwg How are Rome and modern evangelicalism similar?
@tracygriffin4439 yea they seem like different religions almost
You should join in a discussion with the guys at the Reason and Theology channel.
The French were most responsible for modernism. When did they become Protestant? Anti-clericalism in France was entirely rooted in internal Catholic matters.
I have love for RC's...but wow, they really read the strangest things into the clearest explanations.
I love reading Kretzmann's Commentaries. I have read both NT volumes, completed OT vol.1, and currently in Psalms in OT vol.2 .
My late Grandfather knew Kretzmann, they attended the same OLC (Orthodox Lutheran Conference) church in the Twin Cities back when the OLC was around.
Got THE THEOLOGIA GERMANICA from Just and Sinner. Mind blowingly awesome! Thanks for publishing this golden little book.
I would really appreciate a video dealing with the Lutheran perspective on apostolicity and apostolic succession.
He has one
Thank you for the video.
Could you make a video on the Lutheran understanding of grace? And could you give some resources on the subject?
Thanks!
I have a link for a must-read on this topic which I will post below this one just in case YT auto-filters out links
Hi Dr. Cooper, thanks for this, great video. Just wanted to point out that James Swan, whom you mentioned near the 40-minute mark (I think), is indeed still blogging over at Beggars All. 🙂
He never seems to run out of misinformation to respond to.
ruclips.net/video/YK_xqBxXDBU/видео.html
Thank you so much for explaining the context of the "sin boldly" (mis)quote! It's always bothered me, and I never knew how to respond when people bring it up. I had no idea he was not talking about actual sin.
Godbless bro....shade some insight about the passive and active righteousness a great distinction in soteriological aspect of our Past and present Salvation in Christ....
Can you discuss some puritan works i love to hear that in your podcast episode and i will be waiting so soon....shalom
Hey mate i wanna be a teacher of theology in my university in greece athens ...can i find a platform to ask u
I could not understand which author it was you are working on right now. Can you write it down?
Petrus Nakskow
@@DrJordanBCooper Thank you!!
is there a lava lamp just off camera? why does it keep turning orange and then going back to normal?
21:40 face palm
I was first interested in Christianity because of the benefit to humanity that modernity has created. After some thought about it was that modernity obviously came out of Christianity itself, it's seeds seems to be in the Bible, slowly developing as more and more people develop an internal freedom. After having learnt more about Christianity I can now clearly see also the bad sides of modernity, but by no means is it a bad development overall. It is a step on the way were humanity is walking. It has it's set of benefits and problems.
Certainly, not everything about modernity is bad. So many of the #tradlife types look back on the premodern period with rose tinted glasses in a way that just isn't honest with history. I'm not one to argue that we need to bring back monarchy or something of the sort, and I think that our representative system of government works better than most.
@@DrJordanBCooper hello. I was wondering if there are you-made custom filters that prevent comments from appearing. They disappear immediately (and no offensive words, of course)
@@timurermolenko2013 No, I have no custom filters. Not sure why comments wouldn't appear unless marked as spam.
@@DrJordanBCooper okay thank you
@Dr. Jordan B Cooper, I am sure you know but Brad Gregory's book is not a strong as some make it out, I look forward to the next podcast! As to Brad Gregory's book, Philip Benedict, “Review: The Unintended Reformation.” American Historical Review 118, no.
1 (February 1, 2013): 144-46, highly qualifies Gregory's argument. Also Gregory's claims that state sanction was the only reason that Protestantism flourished can just as easily be laid at the feet of late medieval Rome. Even Gregory grants that Roman Catholic countries contributed to nationalism with the Reformation divide (i.e. page 152-3, 159-161). And even that was the political reality of the time, this does not mean that Luther's ideas were false, any more than Einstein's theory of relativity, though it seemed to contribute to pop-relativism (See Novick, "That Noble Dream," 136).
i'm pretty sure Fr @ 21:40 was not talking about those who are not in a state of grace. Of course those apart from Christ cannot do anything to merit salvation. What they are opposing is the idea that even in a state of grace man's work does not affect his salvation whatsoever. This would bar one from increasing in Justification to eventually obtain perfect holiness. It would also bar one from losing salvation. Both of which (increase in justification and loss of salvation) are attested by scripture and tradition.
Grace that must be maintained by your works is no such thing, Romans 11:6, Gal. 3:3, etc. Justification cannot "increase"; either your sins are wholly covered by the blood of Christ and by his intercession he saves you completely (Heb 7:25, Rom. 4:7-8), or they are not. As Psalm 130 famously ponders, who could stand if God kept track of iniquities? There is no middle ground between salvation and damnation. This is why it is so important to distinguish justification from sanctification, our growing in holiness, which is always inchoate. Nobody is perfect, there is no righteous man before God (Ps. 143:2, Eccl. 7:20, Rom. 3:10-20, etc.), and if we seek to be justified by our righteousness instead of Christ's, we imperil ourselves. Scripture is also clear that the Shepherd never loses any of His sheep (John 6:37-40), so neither should we number those who fall among them.
@@stallard9256 It's the typical Roman conflation of justification and sanctification. They just don't seem to be able to comprehend that they are two related but distinct things. As has been noted, the Romans are often quite fond of putting the sanctification cart in front of the justification horse.
@@stallard9256 The church does not teach works maintain justification. I agree there is no middle ground between salvation and damnation, Either you are ALIVE AND GROWING or your dead. One cannot be alive in christ and simultaneously not grow in christ. In order to grow in Christ and avoid death requires saving Grace through faith working in Love.
Catholics distinguish initial Justification through faith alone, that no man can merit,from progressive justification(also called sanctification), which continues throughout his life which requires obedience to Christ commandments, through GRACE. (you guys always seem to forget that about the catholic position.) In addition justification is a forensic term, but not MERELY forensic in the way Paul uses it. Righteousness includes actual cleansing and renewal of the soul.
Rom 5:19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous
The word “made” in Greek is “katestathesan” which refers to a real, actual, ontological change in the person’s soul.
Forgive me if i'm mistaken, but i recall that Lutherans hold to Baptismal Regeneration. Baptism then would be the instrument of grace through which one is saved.
1 Pet 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Romans 6:3-6 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
Titus 3: 5-7 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Clearly Scripture Teaches 1. Baptism Saves, 2. Baptism Changes a man, not just his status; "our old self was crucified" 3. Justification therefore involves transformation of the inner person. What els does St.Paul say?
1 Cor 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.
Hmmmm. Sounds like increase in justification to me. Which only makes sense if justification is not merely forensic. As to your point about my righteousness vs christ righteousness, this ignores catholic teaching. Christ righteousness is what enables us to grow in holiness. Scripture also makes clear that we will individual be judged based on our Ontological righteousness.
Matt 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Rom 2:6-10 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
Not all works are condemned in scripture as paul is only targeting those require Works of the Law to enter heaven by their own merits disregarding the merits given to them by Christ on the cross.
Rom3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Paul does however commend good works done in a state of grace.
Gal5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
We see clearly Paul distinguishing Works of the law and works done in a state of grace which equip one with the supernatural virtues of Faith,Hope, and Love. The greatest being Love.
The protestant explanation of Christ righteousness being credited to the account of the sinner works well as an explanation for the catholic view ironically. Because if Jesus' righteousness is in the sinner's account and he uses that righteousness he receives to grow in personal righteousness, that sure sounds biblical to me.
Matt 25:14-15 For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability.
St. Augustine put it beautifly when speaking about God rewarding based on what we did with christ righteousness in us. “In Crowning their Merits You Crown Your own Gifts”
And if it were true that justification made us righteous in Gods eyes once and for all time never to be lost why would john say...
1 John 1:9 “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
And you guys already know about James
James 2:19-20 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe-and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
More verses about losing salvation:
catholic-restoration.com/2020/04/27/losing-salvation-answering-protestants-with-the-bible/
www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation/
In addition the early church were not confused either about justification.
www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/01/church-fathers-vs-reformation-pillar-faith-alone-sola-fide.html
So no i don't think Catholics and the early church are confused about Justification.What does confuse me is the continued veneration of Luther's Novel view of Justification by intelligent protestants.
@@Daniel_Abraham1099 thanks for proving Catholicism doesn't teach the true Gospel. "Progressive justification" is junk and totally made up by your denomination to justify their works based salvation.
triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/judgment-according-to-works.html?m=1
Brad S. Gregory's _Unintended Reformation_ deals with this topic extensively.
Luther's empowering the state against the Church is a historic fact. He was not the only actor in this development, but it would not be unfair to say that he was the primary catalyst in the transformation from Christendom to the modern, secular nation state.
Agreed. Imagine you're one of many dukes in HRE. would you want to broke off of Roman influence and be your own boss? Or keep being submitted to Rome because "it's always been this way"
@@timurermolenko2013 Of course, they chose secularization. But the counter-reasoning would never have been mere historic precedence.
@@Catholic-Perennialist though Rome-centric centralization wasn't viable anymore due to the fact that people lived in different states with different religions. However, national identities weren't formed yet at all. So it wouldn't be too hard to reunite the people. Look at Religion of Peace, which conquered good chunk of the world right after its creation and establishing central authorities.
Saying *'against the Church'* is a very dubious claim to make. Yes, in something like The Babylonian Captivity or Address to the German Nobility, Luther argued that the state should take a proactive role in the Reformation, but that is in no way the same as him empowering the State against the Church.
@@kale1410 Did you read _The Unintended Reformation?_ I do not pretend to give the necessary nuance of an entire scholarly work within the span of a RUclips comment.
And what was the motivation of the secular rulers in their break with the Church? Typically: greed and sanction for sexual vice. These were both satisfied by Luther's work.
This is very confusing to me. Augustine actually says that the Fall has left permanent damage on human nature. The soul can no longer perfectly control itself and the body, which makes people susceptible to the enticements of the world ('concupiscentia'). Since Luther was an Augustinian monk, he would certainly have viewed human nature as permanently damaged. Augustine defines the soul as a "certain substance partaking in reason and suited to rule the body" (De quant. anim. 13.22). Accordingly, the essence of man could not have remained the same after the Fall. Sin must not be viewed as a kind of dirt that sticks to human nature; it is not "sin nature" plastered onto human nature. Rather, sin means the reduction of good. The conclusion is that human nature must have suffered privation at the Fall.
I listened to the full podcast episode from SSPX. And I think Dr. Cooper is misunderstanding what the priest is saying at around 14:40. He's not denying that humans lack ability. Us Catholics agree with that. We believe that we must receive God's prevenient grace first, before we can come to Christ. What the priest was talking about, is how Luther's scruples encouraged him to invent a new system of justification, that does not involve changing his intrinsic state from unrighteous to righteous.
I am not good with abreviations. Who are SSPX.
A priestly fraternity that was excommunicated by John Paul II in the late 1980s. They have an irregular status with Rome. They always employ the Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. They are kind of extremist in their ideology and very far off from mainstream Catholic thought.
@@Melvin_Thoma Thank you.
I'm not sure that was a refutation. I listened to the whole podcast and he recognizes there are Lutheran distinctions but he wishes to show Luther's influence on modern philosophy especially in Germany. I haven't read all my Luther but I have read my German philosophy and it didn't sound like the priest was far off. And the justification of this I believe is that no Lutheran is in the place to call another Lutheran "not following the tradition." and whether you like it or not many German Lutheran's did absolutely read Luther the way he described. Whether that's a good reading of Luther or not becomes irrelevant in this context
HYPE
Hype
Modernity starts pretty much with the reformation
Modernity began with the Reformed branch of the Reformation.
@@CornCod1 this is just a Lutheran spin on the argument Dr Cooper is objecting to
If only Roman Catholics would read the smalcald articles ( which was written by Luther) then they wouldn’t be making these nonsense claims that Luther thought you could live however you pleased.
But if they read them they would have to admit to being wrong... Just like if they think Lutherans read the church fathers we would become roman catholics
@@user-sm5tu9dq6p Reading the Fathers has kept me Lutheran and made Rome less and less attractive.
Luther actually wrote "Sündige tapfer,...".
"Sin boldly" is a very particular translation.
"Sin brave,..." or "Sin courageous,..." would be way closer to what luther wrote.
"Tapfer" has no quantitive conotation whatsoever.
greetings from Germany.
From the Luther side, is there any plan to unite with the mother church (RC)? When?
When the pope recants of his error, accepting his authority is of human order and that he has no divine right for binding the consciences of of christians with his doctrine and he has to recant of the decrees of trent where he anathematized the article of justification, which is to say very much until the second coming of Christ.
Personally I believe Martin Luther's good works are a blessing.
good works that opened the vaults of ancient heresies like nestorianism and arianism and thousands and thousands of communities with varying theology
@@atlinc.s6525 Luther never held to or even indirectly helped any of those heresies. Why does he take all of the blame for all of the heresies Rome equally failed to prevent proliferating when your church is supposed to be the bastion of orthodoxy? The "thousands and thousands" is of course a complete canard that even many Roman apologists cringe at (the figure is the number of religious legal bodies [whether they be a church, charity, chaplaincy, etc.], which for Rome as well of course stretches into the hundreds).
@@atlinc.s6525 You mean the vault of heresies that are explicitly rejected in the Lutheran Confessions? Or are you talking about the Anabaptists?
Dr. Cooper, as Catholic Convert from the LCMS, thank you for correcting the many exaggerations and errors in that SSPX's priests presentation. That being said, I really wish you would interact with higher quality Catholic arguments and interlocutors. There are many to choose from that would be much more fruitful in moving Catholics and Lutherans towards a better understanding of each other than a presentation like this one from this SSPX priest (or your other video with Ben Handelman) that is riddled with strawman arguments.
There is a grain of truth in almost every point the SSPX priest brought up and he unfortunately was just not very accurate in his presentation of the supporting evidence. For example, while it is false to say that Luther taught there was no inner transformation of the believer at conversion/baptism, it is true to say the Lutherans reject the idea that we are completely cleansed of original sin and all sins at our baptism. Your ministry is called Just and Sinner, after all, which is an artifact of this very core Lutheran idea that does stand in stark disagreement with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Of course, this all flows out of the real disagreement over what is the formal cause of our justification: the Lutheran idea of Christ's very own righteousness being imputed to us as a covering for the original sin that still inheres in us vs. the Catholic idea that sanctifying grace is infused in the person on behalf of Christ's meritorious work on the cross and completely removes the stain of original sin.
Also, I completely agree with you that this SSPX priest made a very poor case in trying to demonstrate Luther was an antinomian. Luther wrote a disputation against antinomianism, after all! However, though Luther and the Lutherans after him try to carefully show their sola fide view of the gospel is not the same as antinomianism, I would argue there is no way to hold that view consistently and avoid antinomianism. I think this contradiction is something that Luther just didn't think through well enough and is why you can see him say things like:
"Whenever the devil worries you with these thoughts, seek the company of men at once, or drink somewhat more liberally, jest and play some jolly prank, or do anything exhilarating. *Occasionally a person must drink somewhat more liberally, engage in plays, and jests, or even commit some little sin from hatred and contempt of the devil, so as to leave him no room for raising scruples in our conscience about the most trifling matters.*" Luther, Martin. Luther's letter to Jerome Weller (1530) WA BR 5:518-520.
or
"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].
This just doesn't comport with what our Lord taught us in the Bible. Jesus didn't say it is ok to sin sometimes. Or Jesus didn't say it is impossible to be perfect so you just have to sin sometimes. Jesus said:
Matthew 5:48 New International Version (NIV)
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
John 14:15 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
Matthew 7:21-23 RSV-CI
“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’”
I also think you don't give the argument that Luther's ideas lead to the secularization of the world we see today enough credit. Clearly, Luther did not intend for this happen. Nonetheless, there is an extremely strong case that can be made showing that Luther was one of the key dominoes in this chain leading to our modern world. Timothy Gordon's book "Catholic Republic" and Robert Reilly's book "America on Trial" are both very good recent works on this topic. I completely agree that Luther was not a nominalist himself, but his tendencies in that direction lead to so many of his errors that ultimately lead to the downfall of the classical theistic realist tradition in Protestant thought. I think this conclusion is almost unavoidable when you simply look at how much disdain Luther had for Aristotle and the scholastic tradition and the resulting move of all Protestants away from these ideas. Here is just one of many examples of this disdain for Aristotle from Luther:
"Again, his book on Ethics [Aristotle] is the worst of all books. It flatly opposes divine grace and all Christian virtues, and yet it is considered one of his best works. Away with such books! Keep them away from all Christians! Let no one accuse me of exaggeration, or of condemning what I do not understand! My dear friend, I know well whereof I speak. I know my Aristotle as well as you or the likes of you. I have lectured on him and heard lectures on him, and I understand him better than do St. Thomas or Scotus. This I can say without pride, and if necessary I can prove it."
Luther, Martin. An Open Letter to The Christian Nobility (Proposals for Reform: Part III)
Luther is just flat out wrong here. Many of his own Lutheran contemporaries disagreed with him too and kept on teaching the Ethics at Wittenburg. However, this distrust of Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy has clearly worked its way deep into almost all of Protestantism today and the connection to Luther is clear.
This distrust of reason coupled with the idea of sola scriptura, most certainly lead to the desacralization of many elements in Christianity, skepticism over the authority/indefectibility of the Church, and the rise of the nation state. I believe the desacralization of marriage, especially, has given way to many of the ills of the modern world as their views of sexual ethics has taken Luther's ideas and pushed them much further than he would ever have wanted them to. This seems to be the logical outcome though of severing the authority of the Church and natural law from our theological epistemology in favor of a secular state where people base their ethical framework on their own subjective interpretations of the Bible (sola scriptura) or just remove God altogether and go on their own subjective feelings (secular relativism). Our modern world is reaping the consequences of Luther's bad philosophy and theology. I wrote a post on my blog on how these ideas of Luther’s that lead to the secularization of the world is what sparked me to investigate Catholicism more deeply and ultimately convert once I realized how many things I was taught incorrectly about Catholicism from Lutherans. www.follyofthecross.com/fullness-of-the-truth-pt-1-how-the-natural-law-lead-me-to-the-catholic-church/
I don't think this is an argument that Lutherans should simply dismiss. I also don't think that this is an issue that should divide our two Churches. I would love to see Lutherans embrace a more scholastic and classical theistic view of the faith again, because as you said, they did at one time try to hold on to some of these elements (e.g. Johann Gerhard). I have always appreciated your tendency to do just this, Dr. Cooper, and is why I think you are such an important voice in the Lutheran world right now. Christianity cannot bring the modern culture back towards a biblical view of man and morality without the natural law tradition. We need to undo the damage that Luther's disdain for the natural law (in the full Aristotelian-Thomistic sense) has caused the world.
Again, there is so much nuance that this SSPX priest simply got wrong. However, I didn't hear anything in your presentation that deals with the types of arguments that one would find say in the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy. Unfortunately, presentations like this one from this SSPX priest do more harm than good as they prevent both sides from dealing with the core issues of the disagreement. I pray that you will start to seek out better arguments to deal with so that we can truly make progress towards understanding each other and not just knocking down poor representations of real grievances that we have with each other.
Thanks and God bless!
I think you've hit on something with the critique of Aristotelianism. In fact, much of the Lutheran critique of Rome can be oversimplified as Lutherans objecting to the repaganization of the Catholic faith by Rome's rather uncritical embrace of Aristotle.
@@pete3397 Exactly. I think it undeniable how much Luther's dislike of Aristotelian-Thomistic thought drove his theology and explains a lot of how ended up where he did on theological topics. Unfortunately, it has been a very slow burn to see these philosophical ideas of his metastasize into things he never would have wanted, but are just his conclusions being pushed all the way through to their logical ends, and this is the modern world we are left with that tries to live life as if the natural law doesn't exist.
"Aristotelian-Thomism" was little respected by anyone who did not wear a Dominican habit in Luther's time. The obscene overinflation of Thomas Aquinas and his theology is by far the most distorting factor on contemporary appraisal of Scholasticism and medieval theology as a whole. Thomism was very much a minority position after the time of Ockham, and only survived as it did because the Dominican order forced all of its friars to conform to his theology under threat of sanction and even expulsion (the monastic orders were extremely clannish and fought theological battles with the rancor of Canadian hockey fans). The majority of scholastics were naturally much more intellectually free, and philosophy and theology advanced in several conversing streams (Franciscan [Scotism/Ockhamism]/Augustinian/eclecticists, etc.), despite Thomas apparently perfecting both in the 13th century. The Protestant scholastics were as much heirs to this tradition (eclectically of course) as the Roman theologians who continued along these lines. Even to the 17th century, Scotus was notably the most prominent figure in this line, and his school was the largest until the Franciscan order was dissolved in many places.
Thomism first rose outside of the Dominicans among the Jesuits to the chagrin of the former, who felt free to innovate on the positions entrenched for centuries as Thomist orthodoxy. Scholasticism in its totality was moribund after the 18th century after philosophy had moved on from Aristotelian categories, and the Thomism the Roman church is flush with is an affectation of the 19th century, where successive popes decided that the best remedy to innovation was to force Thomas down the throats of every Roman theologian. This was the dreaded "manualism" that killed any possible dynamism in the Roman church, and saw its reaction in Vatican II and its nouvelle theologie.
This is just some of the background necessary to understand why Luther, for example, had a low view of Thomas. I should also point out that Aristotle's reputation is not too far off Thomas': the fervid Aristotle worship of Thomas' time was officially condemned by a church council in Paris, which rightly pointed out that he was a Pagan who cannot and should not be deferred to unthinkingly or ever in a point touching the faith. Afterward, Aristotle was a legitimate figure to critique, and schoolmen consciously departed from and contradicted him (as the council pointed out, ideas like the eternality of the world are really irreconcilable with Christianity, and yes, Aristotle taught it). Luther's detraction of Aristotle was very much in line with this, and few today would defend e.g. slavery as a moral good even as they lavish Aristotle and his apparently impeccable ethical framework.
None of this means that "classical theism" (whatever that really means) is wrong and must be discarded. But conversely, neither should we yoke our theology to a Pagan philosopher or a Roman monk. Christianity is true whether people look at it from a Platonic lens like Augustine, an Aristotelian one, a Cartesian, Kantian, or what have you. Don't buy into any overblown historiography that makes Luther or William of Ockham or Scotus or whoever the scourge of Christendom because they dared to question St. Aristotle.
@@stallard9256 I certainly wouldn't advocate for holding to a glamorized view of Thomism as if it were some perfect and entirely unified theological system handed down by God from heaven in the Middle Ages. History is messy. There is no doubt about it. As you point out the Council of Paris did indeed for a short time condemn a few of Aquinas' views, but his teacher, Albert the Great, was able to lay the groundwork to later vindicate him and, in short order, Aquinas was declared a Saint and later a Doctor of the Church. Luther and many others were also certainly reacting against many abuses and errors being taught at his time. A book like "Luther and Late Medieval Thomism: A Study in Theological Anthropology by Denis Jansz does a good job showing how misinformed Luther was on Aquinas, likely due to many "Thomists" in his time teaching extremely distorted views of Aquinas' actually teaching. Luther, likely would have agreed with Aquinas in a great deal many more places if he simply knew what Aquinas actually taught.
Historical development of philosophy aside, the point that I and many others would make is that it was Luther's overreaction to distorted versions of Aristotelain-Thomistic ideas that have lead to the rejection of key metaphysical concepts of reality that have dire consequences on so many things: namely the loss of a teleological and an essentialist view of reality. While one can easily get lost in all the debates of the manualists over the minutiae of obscure details and simply write off the whole project, it comes at the cost of decoupling reality from God's natural law. We can't make sense of the world without teleology and essentialism. When people try, things like so called gay "marriage" or transgenderism begin to be advocated for as if they are rational expressions of the human person when they are, in fact, anything but rational.
While I greatly appreciate your insistence at not glamorizing the historical view of Thomistic thought, I don't think it is possible at this point to deny that Luther threw the baby out with the bathwater and opened the flood gates for so many abhorrent ideas that came out of Protestantism and the subsequent Enlightenment when they rejected the core tenants of classical theism: namely, essentialism and teleology. And this is on top of the consequences of Luther's desacralization/secularization of many things in Christianity (e.g. marriage) and the move to an individualistic interpretation of the faith via sola scriptura. These are just some of the key elements of Luther that spun out of control metastasizing in to the world we see today. Again, you bring up many great points that need to be considered when one is digging in deeper into these issues, but there is a reason why the Catholic Church holds many of Aquinas' ideas in such high regard. This realist tradition of classical theism is the reason why the Catholic Church is able to hold out against the many errors of the modern world: contraception, divorce, abortion, so called gay marriage, transgenderism, etc. Stopping these errors of the modern world is something that Luther's sola scriptura and divine command theory of morality is simply not able to do. In fact, sola scriptura is part of the reason why many Christians also fall prey to accepting many of these same errors. It is time that the rest of Christendom help us reclaim these intellectual traditions of classical theism and show the secular culture just how irrational their ideas are, for I fear if we don't all join in this effort, Christianity may soon find itself an underground movement again.
Thanks and God bless!
@@Stormlight1234 The first question I have up front would be, is Thomas really that important? Were Capreol et al. distorters of True Thomism(TM) or just independent minded schoolmen? How well did Luther understand Aquinas? Did he read him directly? How much would he agree with him if he read him more closely?
Well, what does it matter? If we dispel the empty myth that Thomas was *the* juggernaut of Roman theology in the Middle Ages (or even all that important in Luther's time), why would his lack of engagement matter? Luther did engage him somewhat, which I will talk about later, but the earth would still revolve around the sun, and the Scriptures still enlighten, even if one had never read the summa.
You're still bewitched by the terrible Neo-Thomism historiography, unfortunately, as you decry Luther destroying teleology and essentialism and the whole natural law that the Jews miraculously understood just fine without substances and accidents. The first point simply is that, contrary to Roman claims, Luther did not reject teleology, did not reject essentialism, and did not undermine "classical theism". Luther was no philosopher, and very barely ventured into the realm of pure philosophy, but he was tutored an Ockhamist (which again, contrary to Thomists, was not an evil doctrine of devils conspiring to destroy Christianity), and sympathized with Plato. This still puts his philosophy, to the extent that he had a coherent system, firmly in the essentialist and teleological categories, and though he generally tries not to avoid theologizing in abstract philosophical terms, occasionally betrays his learning and demonstrates that he was still ultimately a medieval.
What he was, however was a fierce theologian, and on those grounds he rightly savaged Thomas. The tonsure as a second grace akin to baptism, grace inhering in sacraments, saints and relics mediating grace, satisfaction as proper to confession, rejection of attrition (i.e. demanding perfection in confession), etc. are all terrible distortions however much you might like Thomas' philosophy, and that was Luther's main area of concern. There really isn't anything in terms of theology I think Luther would have got better reading Aquinas, which we should not be surprised by when he was working principally from the Bible and not cobbled together quotes from Fathers, questionable superstitions and a Pagan philosopher.
It is true that many statements of his show his deep suspicions of the influence of philosophy on theology, and perhaps no more pointedly when, channeling Tertullian, he called the summa the quintessence of heresy. But that has to be understood in the context of letting our philosophical priors overrun theology, which I'm sure you'll agree was as damaging when the rationalists did as when the schoolmen did. The Gospel does not require elaborate philosophical systems to understand, and if we have trouble fitting one to the other, it is better to let our human philosophy fail than divine revelation.
Luther was a very bombastic figure who reveled in exaggerations and overstatements. For his part, he heartily approved of his friend Melanchthon's systematic theology, the Loci Communes, which is as rigorous as Aquinas' summa. Protestant theologians followed his example, and while scholasticism still reigned, figures like Gerhard, Turretin, and others engaged it just as well as Roman theologians. The charge that the Protestants suddenly broke with scholasticism is totally unfounded.
What did eventually overthrow Protestant scholasticism was movements in secular philosophy, with figures like Descartes radically challenging Aristotelian assumptions, which followed with figures like Ramus. It is easy to get swept up in the Thomist fable and see this as the start of modernity and so the beginning of the end, but that is again massively overblown. Plato dominated Christianity after the point at which Christians started to think systematically to the high middle ages, and almost nobody read Aristotle until then, even in the East. How was theology until then? It wasn't exactly worse than Aristotle's reign, even if it wasn't necessarily much better. Was Aristotle the missing element? Of course not. So why would breaking with Aristotle again be the downfall of all theology?
There are many theologians in the modern era who have managed to expound the faith faithfully and systematically without recourse to Aristotle. We should certainly hope it's possible given he isn't mentioned once in Scripture. It is possible to understand the natural law without reading Ethics, it is written on our hearts!
I can fully understand the desire to seek something to moor yourself to against the decadence of this era, and there is again nothing wrong per se with Aristotelianism or even Thomas' peculiar philosophical doctrines. But we have to be sure that we are rooted in Christ, in His Word, first and foremost. No amount of philosophy will save us without Him.
God bless.