I took a few minutes to work through the material posted on the CARM boards from the Catholic Treasure Chest article. Only the first section was posted. It appears the material is simply a rehashing of information taken from two Roman Catholic sources:
Martin Luther, His Life, and His Work', by Hartmann Grisar, a German Jesuit, 6 volumes, 1930 Vol 4: pgs 388-389. 'Church History', by Fr. John Laux, M.A., 1930, Pgs 420-434Grisar has been cited extensively on this blog, so I'm well aware of the approach taken. The pages from Grisar in question can be found here. The book by Fr. Laux, as far I can tell, is not available online. What follows is a response to to Mr. Stanley's first section (as cited on the CARM boards). His words are in red...
Martin Luther (1483-1546) is to be given the credit for inventing the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Bible Only or Bible Sufficiency).This isn't accurate. Even Roman Catholic scholars admit it. For instance, Franz Posset states in his recent book, The Real Luther, "As an aside, on the eve of the 'Reformation' there was a canonistic tradition supporting the assertion of the supreme authority of Scripture over councils or ecclesiastical authorities"(p. 63). He then argues that the reformed friary Luther joined had Constitutions, and in Chapter 17 of these it states "the following directive is given which suggests the meaning of the maxim Scripture Alone, '(A friar) is to read the Sacred Scripture avidly, listen to it devoutly, and learn it fervently. Sacram scripturam avide legat, devote audiat et ardenter addiscat.' "
Consider also such people previous to Luther like Wessel Gansfort (1419-1489):
"As long as it seems to me that the pope or theologians or any school assert a position contradicting the truth of Scripture, my concern for scriptural truth obliges me to give it first place, and after that I am bound to examine the evidence on both sides of the question, since it is unlikely the majority would err. But in every case I owe more respect to canonical Scripture than to human assertions, regardless of who holds them."- Wessel Gansfort (1419-1489) [Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966),99-100].
No Christian ought "to subscribe to any statement of an assembly against his conscience, so long as it seems to him to assert anything contrary to Scripture." Wessel Gansfort (1419-1489) [Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), 64].
He had separated himself from the authority of the Papacy and the Magisterium, and thereby so doing lost all authority regarding Church matters.
Luther was deemed a heretic and excommunicated from the Roman church without a fair hearing. Luther swore an oath to uphold the Scriptures, it was an oath he was required to make by the Church of his day. In essence, one could argue that the Church, via this oath, required Luther to work toward reformation, and it was they that inadvertently called him to do so. However, since the Papacy balked at Luther's every move toward that end, it's obvious the Papacy would have never called forth any to reform the Church. The corrupt Papacy should have commissioned Luther to reform the corrupt Papacy and Church? ....now there is a likely scenario!
"Luther's claim to authority as a teacher of God's Word is the common claim of every Christian who proves his belief from the Scriptures. The infallibility of the Scriptures becomes the infallibility of the teachers of Scripture. They can challenge the world as Isaiah did: "To the Law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them"; or Christ: "The Scripture cannot be broken"; or Paul: "Though an angel from heaven preached other gospel to you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed!" (source).
Here's another thing to consider, (compliments of a footnote in the recent edition of Luther's Works), the Wittenberg Reformers were willing to go quite far in making concessions to Rome:
"In the interest of peace in the empire, moreover, Luther and his Wittenberg colleagues were prepared to make major concessions to the jurisdictional authority of the Catholic bishops. Accordingly, at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, Melanchthon, acting with the full knowledge and support of Luther and the Saxon government, offered restitution of the jurisdiction of the Catholic bishops over the Evangelical congregations on the condition that the bishops ordain Evangelical priests and recognize the legitimacy of Communion in both kinds, clerical marriage, and the Mass in German. This offer remained on the table through all the failed attempts of the 1530's and 1540's to find a peaceful solution to the religious divisions in the empire" (LW 59:276).
He then turned to the Bible, a book, as the sole source of authority. Can a book ever be a sole source of authority? Can the Constitution of the United States stand alone without an authoritative body to interpret it? What authoritative body is there to resolve disputes between opposing interpretations of the laws written within it? How long would this country have lasted if the founding fathers had not had the foresight to establish a Supreme Court, which has the final word in the interpretation of the Law of the Land? This country would have been split into factions right from the very beginning.
Luther is simply one of a number of people throughout history that have held Scripture as the sole infallible rule for the church. This does not deny that there are other authorities over the life of a Christian, but it does deny that there are other infallible authorities over the life of a Christian. All authorities less-than-God are subject to the sole infallible rule of the Scriptures. See William Webster and David King's, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume III- The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura (WA: Christian Resources, 2001). There are numerous people throughout history that look to Scripture as the sole infallible rule, and likewise recognize lesser authorities governing the life of the church. See some examples, here.
The very earliest mention of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura was by Martin Luther as he was questioned in the Synod of Augsburg (Germany) in October 1518.
This claim that sola scriptura originated with Luther was shown to be blatantly false above.
Reformation historians don't typically refer to Luther's meeting with Cajetan as "the Synod of Augsburg." In fact if you Google "Synod of Augsburg" you'll get hits to many different meetings. Further, I'd be interested in seeing any statement from Luther using the phrase "sola scriptura" during his meetings with Cajetan. On the other hand, Luther certainly argued against Cajetan using the authority of the Scriptures.
Interestingly, Cajetan argued during this meeting that the Pope was above councils and Scriptures. Now you tell me if Cajetan actually had the correct view of Rome's authority during this meeting? If you think Luther was guilty of false doctrine, you should throw Cajetan in with Luther as well.
In his appeal to the Council, Luther placed the Bible and his interpretation of it, above the Pope.
Certainly Luther and Cajetan discussed authority, and, as I stated above, Cajetan placed the Pope over both the Scripture and Council. The reason for this sort of confusion is the Roman Church didn't have this stuff completely worked out. That is, Luther and Cajetan weren't discussing something new, they were discussing an authoirty issue that had been around for a long time. As to Luther's "interpretation", you seem to assume Rome has actually infallibly interpreted the Bible. Demonstrate then what Bible passages Luther interpreted while in dialog with Cajetan were against an infallibly defined Biblical text.
Even so he admitted the authority of the Synod and of the Bible were equivalent, only in the hope that the Synod would give him a favorable decision.
I'd be very interested in seeing anything from the October 1518 negotiations with Cajetan in which Luther did this. I simply don't recall this from Augsburg, October 1518. This point appears to be directly taken from Grisar on page 338, a point that Grisar doesn't footnote. He may be referring to Luther's account of his meeting with Cajetan at Augsburg (WA 2; LW 31) since that's the context he's working in. There Luther argues for the authority of the scriptures over a pope or council.
In the Leipzig Disputation in July 1519, Luther went a step further and declared that Scripture ranked above a Church Council, and that Ecumenical Councils had already erred in matters of faith. As a result he was branded a heretic.
Certainly many of the papists thought Luther to be a heretic before 1519, but it's my understanding he was officially deemed a heretic at the Diet of Worms in 1521. As to Luther going "a step further" this ignores the sort of people Luther was up against. They were arguing things like, "He who does not hold the teaching of the Roman Church and the Pope as an infallible rule of faith, from which even Holy Scripture draws its power and authority, he is a heretic."
There seems to be a contradiction here, as Luther was a Catholic Augustinian Monk, and therefore was well aware that it was Catholic Church Councils which finalized the canons of both the Old and the New Testaments. Now at Leipzig, he declared that the product of the Councils ranked above the Councils themselves.
Luther learned about the Scriptures, Baptism, and the Pulpit, etc. from the church of his day, in the same way the Prophets were born into a society in which the religious structure of their day was functioning, and gave the Old Testament people a religious context to live in. The visible church indeed promulgated the Scriptures and Christian doctrine. Who can deny this? But simply because they did so, does not mean a council of the visible church in Rome infallibly declared the canon of Scripture. Luther held that the Church was God's hand maid and servant. It does not create God's Word, God's Word creates the Church. As the servant of the Word, it gives the Word to the body of Christ, His people.
As creatures we are dependent on God's purposes in giving us His inspired Scriptures. God "providentially preserves the Scriptures and leads His people to a functional sufficient knowledge of the canon so as to fulfill His purposes in inspiring them" (James White, Scripture Alone, p. 103). For God to do this, His Church need not be infallible. God's people though have recognized God's Word long before any alleged infallible magisterium came along.
Herman Bavinck points out:
"As the various writings of the OT originated and became known, they were also recognized as authoritative. The laws of YHWH were deposited in the sanctuary (Exod. 25:22; 38:21; 40:20; Deut. 31:9, 26; Josh. 24:25f.; 1 Sam. 10:25). The poetic products were preserved (Deut. 31:19; Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); at an early stage the Psalms were collected for use in the cult (Ps. 72:20); the men of Hezekiah made a second collection of the Proverbs (Prov. 25:1). The prophecies were widely read: Ezekiel knows Isaiah and Jeremiah; later prophets based themselves on earlier ones. Daniel (9:2) is already familiar with a collection of prophetic writings including Jeremiah. In the postexilic community the authority of the law and the prophets is certain and fixed, as is clear from Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah. Jesus Sirach has a very high view of the law and the prophets (15:1-8; 24:23; 39:1f.; 44-49). In the preface his grandson mentions the three parts in which Scripture is divided. The LXX contains several apocryphal writings, but these themselves witness to the authority of the canonical books (1 Macc. 2:50; 2 Macc. 6:23; Wisdom 11:1; 18:4; Baruch 2:28; Tob. 1:6; 14:7; Sir. 1:5 [marg.]; 17:12; 24:23; 39:1; 46:15; etc.). Philo cites only the canonical books. The fourth book of Ezra ([= 2 Esdras] 14:18-47) knows of the division into 24 books. Josephus counts 22 books divided into three parts. In the opinion of all concerned, the OT canon of Philo and Josephus was identical with ours." [Reformed Dogmatics I, 393-394].
Luther was warned by the Church in June 1520, in the Papal Bull "Exsurge Domine". The Church did everything it could to reconcile with him but he refused, thus setting the stage for his self ex-communication.
This is simply wishful thinking. Cajetan actually shouted down Luther loudly yelling "Recant!" at him. This is simply one example of the nonsense Luther was subjected to from Rome's defenders.
Exsurge Domine wasn't even accurate. Despite being a papal document, I would argue Exsurge Domine isn't really any sort of infallible help, as Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin explained. I would also point out that Rome's sharpest minds didn't quite know what was going on either when they put Exsurge Domine together. Note this comment pertinent to the failure of Exsurge Domine:
"As a legal document Exsurge Domine presumed the theological refutations provided by Prierias, Cajetan, and, most demonstrably, Eck. The brief denunciations and an incomplete statement of Luther's teachings provide little opportunity for determining the finer points of magisterial objections to the reformer (Hillerbrand 1969, 108-112). The document contains no hierarchy of condemnation, never distinguishing which of the forty-one errors are heretical doctrinally and which are merely "offensive to pious ears" [Gregory Sobolewski, Martin Luther Roman Catholic Prophet (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001), pp. 67-68].
Now digest the weight of this statement. It claims Exsurge Domine "contains no hierarchy of condemnation," and "never distinguishing which of the forty-one errors are heretical doctrinally and which are merely "offensive to pious ears."
He was formally ex-communicated on January 3, 1521 through the Papal Bull 'Decet Romanum Pontificem'.
Exsurge Domine said that the Pope could, "without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation..." Decet Romanum Pontificem spoke of Luther's "depraved and damnable purpose." It called for any of the faithful who were sympathetic to the Lutherans to shun them, so that they "may escape divine vengeance and any degree of participation in their damnation." It further declared concerning Luther and his followers: "...these and the other sentences, censures and punishments... we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation." However, the great German Catholic historian from the Universities of Breslau and Bonn, Hubert Jedin held that Catholicism never condemned Luther by name at Trent, and that no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound. Isn't that an irony? The very man the Catholic Treasure Chest thinks is so awful has no actual infallible ruling against him from Rome.
A secular Council called the "Diet of Worms" was convened by the Catholic Emperor Charles V in April 1521, and Luther was again asked if he was going to retract, or maintain, the ideology of his many books. Luther stood firm. An Edict issued by this Council in May 1521, branded Luther as a heretic and an outlaw.
Well, Bob Stanley said above he was branded a heretic in 1519. Which is it? This is the problem with doing cut-and-paste on a discussion board: The material cut-and-pasted can bite you if one doesn't check it carefully.