Martin And John
We celebrate 10th and 25th anniversaries, and so on. But today is a biggie--the 500th anniversary of a debate between Martin Luther and John Eck. Luther you've heard of. John Eck was an important theologian of his time, and a major opponent of Luther. They had a series of debates that lasted a few weeks in 1519.
First, we see people with different assumptions from us. There are so many things that were believed on both sides that would seem so foreign to the average person--even the average Christian--today.
Second, events like these can be seen as turning points that change the world we live in, even if the conditions of the time and the beliefs expressed seem remote. For better or worse, the arguments of Luther and Eck affected billions of lives.
Yet most people aren't particularly aware of their debate. And why should they? They have lives to live, and can't be intimately familiar with every big moment from the past. But it doesn't matter if you care about history or not, since it cares about you.
posted by LAGuy @ 8:26 AM
4 Comments:
Luther's theological novelties were extremely important, but equally important was the novel way he went about persuasion. He fought on two fronts: he debated theologians in formal settings and in print (always in Latin), and he printed pamphlets presenting his views in simple, clear language (always in German).
Theologians study the former, but I think the latter was the more important. Half of the German-speaking world ended up following him, and that would never have happened if he hadn't appealed to the masses.
The Luther-Eck debate was both brash and subtle, because each man had to ostensibly try to convince the other, while primarily focusing on the audience. This meant that manuevering one's opponent into saying something that the audience (which, in a sense, included all of Christendom) would find awful.
On this point, Eck succeeded. Not by getting Luther to deny the pope's doctrinal authority, for the extent of the pope's teaching authority was a disputed question within Catholic theology at the time. Rather, he succeeded by getting Luther to deny the authority of an ecumenical council, which was a point that all Catholic theologians (and even Orthodox theologians) agreed on.
By rejecting the authority of councils, Luther crossed the Rubicon -- or maybe the Rhine? If neither popes nor councils had doctrinal authority, then every single Christian's interpretation of Scripture was as good as any other's.
At the time, Luther didn't think this was a problem, because he honestly believed in the "perspecuity of Scripture" -- any reader, learned or otherwise, can correctly understand the truths of Scripture. So Luther encouraged everyone to read the Bible for themselves.
But by the end of his life, after realizing that private interpretation of Scripture was leading the Protestant world to continual fragmentation, Luther went along with the Lutheran princes of Germany who assigned a catechism written by Luther himself to young Christians. After studying this catechism, the best students were allowed to graduate to studying Scripture.
Oops, make that "perspicuity."
I guess creating a world where all Christians can interpret the scriptures was how Luther changed the world, more than his particular interpretation.
I would definitely agree.
I always found it funny that American "low-church" Christians (Baptists, evangelicals, "non-denominational Christians", etc.) consider Luther a hero. If they actually read Luther's theological works, they would find them far too close to Catholicism; and for his part, Luther would be horrified by many of their beliefs.
But in light of your comment, I think that their reverence makes sense. Luther's the guy who "freed" the Bible from the Church, and as such, today's "Bible Churches" are his heirs -- even when they hold views on baptism, sacraments, and salvation totally different from his.
Post a Comment
<< Home