@ GammaGammaliel: My gut feel is that we can't disaggregate the Reformation from other factors and influences that helped shape and develop it. The invention of the printing press, for instance. Catholics used that technology of course, just as much as Protestants.
I agree with you here..printing, literacy, accessibility of scripture in the vernacular, resentment of Rome’s economic demands, corruption such as the selling of indulgences …Tetzel apparently had a rhyme like: “When the coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.”
Reliance on scripture, justification by faith and repudiation of rule from Rome were the principles in a nutshell held by Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Knox. But for ordinaries, one tyranny replaced another. You couldn’t deny that Calvin’s Geneva was a tyranny and Luther also became quite tyrannical and intolerant.
I think though, the Reformation, while it began with one man’s agony about the lack of assurance of personal salvation, was a step towards separation of church and state in its final effect. Trying to establish theocracies has always been a train wreck from Calvin to Salem to Jim Jones. After the St Bartholemew’s day massacre of Huguenots in Paris in 1572 that triggered a genocide leaving 10,000 dead across France, and Bloody Mary, I think a lesson began to be understood that toleration was better going forward. But looking at current life, you can see that is still not a lesson easily imbibed is it?
In the end, @GammaGammaliel, What I think I have from it all is an opportunity for understanding what the issues were, having been brought up in the Roman tradition…and FREEDOM!
In the end, @GammaGammaliel, What I think I have from it all is an opportunity for understanding what the issues were, having been brought up in the Roman tradition…and FREEDOM!
I’m confused here – what are you saying at the end here?
Due to heresies forming around very intellectual topics, and persecution from without, the early Church sought to define every jot and tittle of the internal workings of the Godhead.
I don't think the Church has ever sought to define anything that wasn't previously defined by a heresy - at which point it's not enough just to say we can't understand, you've got to say what's wrong. (But 'God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made' is not something I'd cite as a thoroughgoing rigorous definition.)
...
Meanwhile, I can see what @pablito1954 is getting at and have sympathy for what he's saying, but I'm struggling to convey is that I don't believe that Trinitarian formularies and even debates about them are abstract and academic in the 'wrong' sense.
They developed, as Dafyd says, in response to or debate with heresies - and more than that I really do think that they guide or 'govern' (in a light touch kind of way) how we relate to the Godhead.
The premise suggested here (ie "responding" to heresy) strikes me as being the wrong way round. For the most part, heresies seem to be identified in the course of power struggles and the assertion of authority. The idea that the heresy came first seems something of a convenient peg on which to hang disagreements about which authority should have primacy. And as with a lot of history, I note that it was often the winner who got to describe what the loser's beliefs or practices were.
Sure, and I would certainly add some caveats to the comments of mine that you have quoted, to the effect that it ain't as clear cut. I no more want to present a sanitised view of the early Church Councils than I would of the Reformation.
Both were far more complex and involved power politics than my thumb-nail presentation and @MPaul's rather Hollywood style presentation of the Reformation suggest.
'One man's agony about the lack of assurance of personal salvation' ...
It sounds like the trailer for a Hollywood B-Movie.
Luther believed in baptismal regeneration, for a kick-off. He wasn't a 20th century evangelical.
Besides, what he did was to tap into an unease with the Papacy which predated him by a long way. Yes, Tetzel's snake-oil salesman touting of Indulgences was the last straw, but it was a very long straw which went back a very long way.
All this 'one man's personal struggle' business exemplifies and illustrates the overly individualistic view that later came into Protestantism. Yes, Luther had a kind of 'crisis of faith', but I don't think he'd have seen it in quite so individualistic terms as later Protestant evangelicals.
He wasn't a 19th or 20th century evangelical projected back into the early 16th century.
Yes, he helped create conditions that would lead to later forms of evangelicalism, but he certainly wasn't an evangelical in the sense that we would understand and recognise today.
There are myths, back-projection and anachronisms surrounding all these things .... the Ecumenical Councils, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the great 18th and 19th century Awakenings ... and each and every religious movement we might care to name.
That does not 'invalidate' them, but I agree with @Pease that power struggles and the assertion of authority have to be recognised and factored into the equations.
I should have factored them in myself to my earlier comments rather than sounding all Cecil Be De Mille about the whole thing - as @MPaul does in his posts.
This makes sense to me, as the context in which to consider the ideological consequences and effects of the reformation.
In itself, the ongoing struggle for power doesn't obviously describe a path that leads to individualism and secularism - power had been changing hands between rulers for years without the nature of legitimate authority itself being called into question, and there appears to have been widespread acceptance of this being how authority worked (which is itself an understanding that those in power clearly had and still have a vested interest in perpetuating). Or, if not "widespread acceptance", then whatever doubts and opposition existed didn't appear to result in significant ideological change.
So the issue that remains for me is what it was about the reformation that stuck, and that alongside all the factors that have been mentioned (on this thread), that ordinary people were invited to take into their own hands the question of their own (eternal) destiny.
Always be careful about the passive voice in questions like that. "Invited" by whom?
As I noted earlier, the same factors that contributed to the rise of Protestantism (moveable type printing, wider literacy, etc.) also contributed to increased centralization and state capacity by various European polities. One of the ways this increased state capacity was used was raising and supporting larger and more destructive armies. Another was a greater drive towards uniformity within each state and in forcing neighboring states to abide by your own standards. You can see where this is going.
Internally this meant a much more aggressive Inquisition and the start of witch trials. Externally this meant the various Wars of Religion, and especially the Thirty Years' War. One of the things that eventually became obvious during the Thirty Years' War was that despite having vastly increased bureaucratic capabilities and vastly more destructive armies, no one had the ability to enforce religious uniformity across a single state, much less across all Europe. Or maybe it was because of those factors rather than despite them. After all, everyone else also had vastly increased bureaucratic capabilities and vastly more destructive armies.
It's not often noted that classical liberalism is an intensely pragmatic philosophy. Despite a lot of high flown language about the rights of man (and later the rights of people), it's mostly about solving problems. The problem being solved by freedom of religious conscience is "How do we not have a(nother) Thirty Years' War?" Essentially the idea of freedom of conscience (taking questions of religious belief out of the hands of the state and placing it within a sphere of individual liberty) was developed because of the spectacular failures of sectarianism in the early modern era. What gets me is people like the aforementioned Brad Gregory, who seem to regard the decline of aggressively sectarian governments as an inherently bad thing.
I've been thinking today about the framing of moral questions and the extent to which there is a unquestioned religious dimension to ethics.
For example, I think questions about death are hard to answer as an atheist because the options that the religions offer don't really make a lot of sense.
Here's a trigger warning, but nothing graphic
For example with death, euthanasia is wrong because somehow you are taking something that isn't yours to take, whereas self-sacrifice is noble and good.
It's hard for the atheist to answer questions framed in a way that makes sense to the religious person. And as these debates tend to be directed by those people with the largest pulpit (figurative and often actually), it tends to have that kind of religious framing.
I've been thinking today about the framing of moral questions and the extent to which there is a unquestioned religious dimension to ethics.
For example, I think questions about death are hard to answer as an atheist because the options that the religions offer don't really make a lot of sense.
Here's a trigger warning, but nothing graphic
For example with death, euthanasia is wrong because somehow you are taking something that isn't yours to take, whereas self-sacrifice is noble and good.
It's hard for the atheist to answer questions framed in a way that makes sense to the religious person. And as these debates tend to be directed by those people with the largest pulpit (figurative and often actually), it tends to have that kind of religious framing.
Are you conflating atheism with naturalism? Atheists can believe in life after death; they're atheists as long as they don't believe in a god.
I've been thinking today about the framing of moral questions and the extent to which there is a unquestioned religious dimension to ethics.
For example, I think questions about death are hard to answer as an atheist because the options that the religions offer don't really make a lot of sense.
Here's a trigger warning, but nothing graphic
For example with death, euthanasia is wrong because somehow you are taking something that isn't yours to take, whereas self-sacrifice is noble and good.
It's hard for the atheist to answer questions framed in a way that makes sense to the religious person. And as these debates tend to be directed by those people with the largest pulpit (figurative and often actually), it tends to have that kind of religious framing.
Are you conflating atheism with naturalism? Atheists can believe in life after death; they're atheists as long as they don't believe in a god.
In the end, @GammaGammaliel, What I think I have from it all is an opportunity for understanding what the issues were, having been brought up in the Roman tradition…and FREEDOM!
I’m confused here – what are you saying at the end here?
I took that as the reason Mousethief was asking whether it should be moved.
To facilitate more 'own voice' contributions rather than people telling other posters what they do or don't believe.
Whatever the case, I like the sound of my own voice ... 😉
Seriously, though (and yes, I do at times I'm afraid), I think there can certainly be a tendency for theists to tell atheists what they assume their position comprises. It can work the other way round too, of course.
...
It's not often noted that classical liberalism is an intensely pragmatic philosophy. Despite a lot of high flown language about the rights of man (and later the rights of people), it's mostly about solving problems. The problem being solved by freedom of religious conscience is "How do we not have a(nother) Thirty Years' War?" Essentially the idea of freedom of conscience (taking questions of religious belief out of the hands of the state and placing it within a sphere of individual liberty) was developed because of the spectacular failures of sectarianism in the early modern era.
Is this an instance of the passive voice of which we should be careful?
I think there's a case for Luther being the among the first to successfully communicate to a wide audience the idea of taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty.
What gets me is people like the aforementioned Brad Gregory, who seem to regard the decline of aggressively sectarian governments as an inherently bad thing.
Whether historians make good contemporary problem solvers is always questionable.
I think there's a case for Luther being the among the first to successfully communicate to a wide audience the idea of taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty.
I think, rather, that a case can be made for a growing emphasis on personal or 'individual' piety within Western Christianity from the time of the Black Death onwards - and arguably even earlier with movements like the Franciscans.
Hence the growth in the use of Books of Hours, for those who could afford them of course.
There was a corresponding rise in chantry chapels, Masses for the dead etc.
So Luther came from a background where there was already a sense of 'taking responsibility' for one's religious practices. To that extent then yes, I think there was a growing emphasis on individual as well as corporate faith - but not in a mutually exclusive way.
As far as political liberties or freedom of conscience goes, though, no, I don't see much evidence of that. He was a man of his time.
That's why I came down so heavily on @MPaul's anachronistic thing about 'one man's spiritual struggle' and FREEDOM in dirty great big capital letters.
I think there's a case for Luther being the among the first to successfully communicate to a wide audience the idea of taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty.
Like many Christians before and since, Luther plumbed the depths of antisemitism. Does God judge Gentile Christianity for our treatment of His chosen people? How much of this does Jesus know when he's talking to the Syrophoenician woman? Does the Holy Spirit grieve?
As far as political liberties or freedom of conscience goes, though, no, I don't see much evidence of that. He was a man of his time.
I'd be surprised if Luther had any idea that he was inadvertently addressing these issues, or of the consequences for Europe of his doctrine and polemic.
I think there's a case for Luther being the among the first to successfully communicate to a wide audience the idea of taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty.
Like many Christians before and since, Luther plumbed the depths of antisemitism. Does God judge Gentile Christianity for our treatment of His chosen people? How much of this does Jesus know when he's talking to the Syrophoenician woman? Does the Holy Spirit grieve?
That doesn't really answer the question. In what ways do you think that Martin Luther, who advocated exterminating competing religious beliefs, advocate "taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty"? Using state-sponsored force to suppress disfavored religions seems antithetical to the idea of individual religious liberty.
On a technical note, I'd classify Luther's beliefs in this area as anti-Judaism (hatred of Jews for their religious beliefs) rather than narrowly defined anti-Semitism (hatred of Jews as an ethnic group).
How much of this does Jesus know when he's talking to the Syrophoenician woman?
How much of what did Jesus know at the time? You mean the antisemitism of the future? I don’t know how much He knew about most future matters after the Incarnation but before His death and resurrection.
I've been thinking today about the framing of moral questions and the extent to which there is a unquestioned religious dimension to ethics.
For example, I think questions about death are hard to answer as an atheist because the options that the religions offer don't really make a lot of sense.
Here's a trigger warning, but nothing graphic
For example with death, euthanasia is wrong because somehow you are taking something that isn't yours to take, whereas self-sacrifice is noble and good.
It's hard for the atheist to answer questions framed in a way that makes sense to the religious person. And as these debates tend to be directed by those people with the largest pulpit (figurative and often actually), it tends to have that kind of religious framing.
Are you conflating atheism with naturalism? Atheists can believe in life after death; they're atheists as long as they don't believe in a god.
I wasn't talking about life after death.
I can't imagine religious persons, especially Christians, talking about death without at least mentioning it. But perhaps you can explain this bit, which makes little sense to me. Why should atheists have a hard time discussing something just because religious people have shitty options?
For example, I think questions about death are hard to answer as an atheist because the options that the religions offer don't really make a lot of sense.
I think there's a case for Luther being the among the first to successfully communicate to a wide audience the idea of taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty.
Like many Christians before and since, Luther plumbed the depths of antisemitism. Does God judge Gentile Christianity for our treatment of His chosen people? How much of this does Jesus know when he's talking to the Syrophoenician woman? Does the Holy Spirit grieve?
That doesn't really answer the question. In what ways do you think that Martin Luther, who advocated exterminating competing religious beliefs, advocate "taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty"? Using state-sponsored force to suppress disfavored religions seems antithetical to the idea of individual religious liberty.
Wanting to take the option to be Jewish away doesn't necessarily have any implications at all to what he wants Christians to be able to do. The questions seem totally unrelated.
I've been thinking today about the framing of moral questions and the extent to which there is a unquestioned religious dimension to ethics.
For example, I think questions about death are hard to answer as an atheist because the options that the religions offer don't really make a lot of sense.
Here's a trigger warning, but nothing graphic
For example with death, euthanasia is wrong because somehow you are taking something that isn't yours to take, whereas self-sacrifice is noble and good.
It's hard for the atheist to answer questions framed in a way that makes sense to the religious person. And as these debates tend to be directed by those people with the largest pulpit (figurative and often actually), it tends to have that kind of religious framing.
Are you conflating atheism with naturalism? Atheists can believe in life after death; they're atheists as long as they don't believe in a god.
I wasn't talking about life after death.
I can't imagine religious persons, especially Christians, talking about death without at least mentioning it. But perhaps you can explain this bit, which makes little sense to me. Why should atheists have a hard time discussing something just because religious people have shitty options?
For example, I think questions about death are hard to answer as an atheist because the options that the religions offer don't really make a lot of sense.
As I said, it's about framing. If someone starts a discussion with a religious framing (for example about the process of dying) then it is hard for an atheist to answer in terms.
Most religious people would agree that human life was sacred, yet some religions glorify martyrdom. So the conversation about death is always going to be difficult if it is framed in that kind of way. Because if a religious person invokes a deity to justify positions a) b) and c) but doesn't accept that there is the same justification for positions d) and e) then there's not much else to say.
For example someone might make an argument about the divine value of life to oppose abortion whilst simultaneously rejecting the need to take action on childhood disease. They've apparently, in that example, argued that life is precious because of something about God but then said it isn't.
I think there's a case for Luther being the among the first to successfully communicate to a wide audience the idea of taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty.
Like many Christians before and since, Luther plumbed the depths of antisemitism. Does God judge Gentile Christianity for our treatment of His chosen people? How much of this does Jesus know when he's talking to the Syrophoenician woman? Does the Holy Spirit grieve?
That doesn't really answer the question. In what ways do you think that Martin Luther, who advocated exterminating competing religious beliefs, advocate "taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty"? Using state-sponsored force to suppress disfavored religions seems antithetical to the idea of individual religious liberty.
Wanting to take the option to be Jewish away doesn't necessarily have any implications at all to what he wants Christians to be able to do. The questions seem totally unrelated.
I'm not sure that there was a belief in that era in central Europe that one could become Jewish. So I'm not sure one could say that there was the "option" to be Jewish which could be taken away.
As far as I understand, the Jewish community in most of Europe existed for a very long time and was consistently othered by the majority Christian population. Any reasoning to reject Judaism seems like an attack on Jews rather than some kind of barrier to Christians converting to Judaism.
Sure, I suspect Luther's objection to Judaism wasn't based on the possibility that people might want to become Jews as an alternative to Christianity, although there were certainly instances where that did happen.
On the martyrdom thing, it could be argued that those Christian traditions which 'glorify' martyrdom, and most do to some extent or other even it's not a full-on thing with shrines and special commemorations, then it follows from a sense that life is sacred.
The Fathers stressed that we shouldn't 'court' martyrdom or treat it like some kind of death-wish.
I've been thinking today about the framing of moral questions and the extent to which there is a unquestioned religious dimension to ethics.
For example, I think questions about death are hard to answer as an atheist because the options that the religions offer don't really make a lot of sense.
Here's a trigger warning, but nothing graphic
For example with death, euthanasia is wrong because somehow you are taking something that isn't yours to take, whereas self-sacrifice is noble and good.
It's hard for the atheist to answer questions framed in a way that makes sense to the religious person. And as these debates tend to be directed by those people with the largest pulpit (figurative and often actually), it tends to have that kind of religious framing.
Are you conflating atheism with naturalism? Atheists can believe in life after death; they're atheists as long as they don't believe in a god.
I wasn't talking about life after death.
I can't imagine religious persons, especially Christians, talking about death without at least mentioning it.
I can. I’ve had lots of discussions about death that didn’t get into any idea of an afterlife. I’ve known religious people who think that sometimes it’s important to talk about death without getting into any idea of life after death.
And that’s leaving aside that there is a very wide variety of beliefs about life after death among religious people, as well as among nonreligious people.
I think there's a case for Luther being the among the first to successfully communicate to a wide audience the idea of taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty.
Like many Christians before and since, Luther plumbed the depths of antisemitism. Does God judge Gentile Christianity for our treatment of His chosen people? How much of this does Jesus know when he's talking to the Syrophoenician woman? Does the Holy Spirit grieve?
That doesn't really answer the question. In what ways do you think that Martin Luther, who advocated exterminating competing religious beliefs, advocate "taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty"? Using state-sponsored force to suppress disfavored religions seems antithetical to the idea of individual religious liberty.
Wanting to take the option to be Jewish away doesn't necessarily have any implications at all to what he wants Christians to be able to do. The questions seem totally unrelated.
I'm not sure that there was a belief in that era in central Europe that one could become Jewish. So I'm not sure one could say that there was the "option" to be Jewish which could be taken away.
There was certainly an understanding that there was an option to be not-Jewish by converting to Christianity.
But yes, Martin Luther’s condemnable writings about Jews don’t necessarily refute a claim that he took “at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty.” As “at least some” and “out of the hands of the church” suggest, it can mean that Luther only approved of placing some questions of Christian belief within a sphere of religious liberty.
I think there's a case for Luther being the among the first to successfully communicate to a wide audience the idea of taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty.
Like many Christians before and since, Luther plumbed the depths of antisemitism. Does God judge Gentile Christianity for our treatment of His chosen people? How much of this does Jesus know when he's talking to the Syrophoenician woman? Does the Holy Spirit grieve?
That doesn't really answer the question. In what ways do you think that Martin Luther, who advocated exterminating competing religious beliefs, advocate "taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty"? Using state-sponsored force to suppress disfavored religions seems antithetical to the idea of individual religious liberty.
Wanting to take the option to be Jewish away doesn't necessarily have any implications at all to what he wants Christians to be able to do. The questions seem totally unrelated.
I don't think wanting to restrict individual religious belief is unrelated to the question of whether someone had a concept of individual religious liberty. "Liberty" to adhere to strict Lutheranism and state punishment for anyone who doesn't adhere isn't "liberty" in any meaningful sense of the term. Which was more or less my point.
I think there's a case for Luther being the among the first to successfully communicate to a wide audience the idea of taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty.
Like many Christians before and since, Luther plumbed the depths of antisemitism. Does God judge Gentile Christianity for our treatment of His chosen people? How much of this does Jesus know when he's talking to the Syrophoenician woman? Does the Holy Spirit grieve?
That doesn't really answer the question. In what ways do you think that Martin Luther, who advocated exterminating competing religious beliefs, advocate "taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty"? Using state-sponsored force to suppress disfavored religions seems antithetical to the idea of individual religious liberty.
Wanting to take the option to be Jewish away doesn't necessarily have any implications at all to what he wants Christians to be able to do. The questions seem totally unrelated.
I'm not sure that there was a belief in that era in central Europe that one could become Jewish. So I'm not sure one could say that there was the "option" to be Jewish which could be taken away.
As far as I understand, the Jewish community in most of Europe existed for a very long time and was consistently othered by the majority Christian population. Any reasoning to reject Judaism seems like an attack on Jews rather than some kind of barrier to Christians converting to Judaism.
Either I'm not making myself understood, or you're not. I give up.
I think that trying to turn Luther's collected doctrines and diatribes into a coherent ideology is asking quite a lot from someone whose approach to dialogue would, on these forums, likely lead to warnings and a quick eviction (in contrast to certain social media platforms, and in contrast to someone like Erasmus).
I've been looking for what Lutherans think about Luther's mooted contributions to the modern world. Here are a couple of articles from academics who are (or were) also members of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
In Luther and Liberalism: A Tale of Two Tales (PDF from Concordia Theological Quarterly) Korey D. Maas sets out what he sees as the four options, in effect viewing Luther as an instigator of change:
* Luther was a proto-liberal and that’s a good thing.
* Luther was a proto-liberal and that’s a bad thing.
* Luther was not a proto-liberal and that’s a bad thing.
* Luther was not a proto-liberal and that’s a good thing.
Regarding the first, his overview of the arguments include the following (which seem relevant to questions asked earlier on this thread):
As early as the eighteenth century, Luther was being hailed as “a veritable guardian angel for the rights of reason, humanity, and Christian liberty of conscience.”
...
just as Locke is widely regarded as the “father of liberalism,” it is regularly asserted that “Locke’s political philosophy is grounded in Martin Luther’s.”
...
[Luther] would proclaim—more than once—that before his own writing “no one knew anything about temporal government, whence it came, what its office and work were,” and that “not since the time of the apostles have the temporal sword and temporal government been so clearly described or so highly praised as by me.”
Moreover, when [Luther] does “clearly describe” temporal government, he regularly does so in what can sound astonishingly like Lockean terms. To note only some of the most obvious examples: As Locke will do in his Second Treatise of Government, Luther would insist that “temporal government has laws which extend no further than to life and property and external affairs.” Therefore, as Locke would do in his published A Letter concerning Toleration, Luther counseled that temporal authorities should “let men believe this or that as they are able and willing,” in part because, just as Locke would argue, it is “impossible to command or compel anyone by force to believe.” Finally, and despite his early and firm rejection of any right of resistance, Luther, like Locke, would eventually acknowledge and advocate a right to resist even duly elected authorities. In this light, it is perhaps not surprising that contemporary scholars regularly conclude that it is “largely right to argue for a connection between Protestant theology and the emergence of political liberalism.”
In a response, Luther and Liberalism, James R. Rogers suggests that Luther was more of a catalyst than a causal agent.
Locke's views on the origins of temporal government are I believe grounded in Richard Hooker, who was if anything a late scholastic basing his arguments in natural law. That doesn't rule out influence from Luther on either Locke or Hooker - I'm sure they'd both read bits of him.
Part of the problem here is that most of us live in liberal (in the classic sense) societies, so when we hear that someone advocated limiting the power of secular authorities we assume that, by default, this means increasing individual liberties. Historically, however, this mostly means re-assigning the powers forbidden to secular authorities to some other power base than the central government. For example, the Catholic Church was advocating limiting the power of secular authorities four centuries prior to Luther, but they weren't doing so because they believed in an individual freedom of conscience.
If someone says "the secular authorities shouldn't be punishing heresy", it matters very much whether what follows is " . . . because each man's conscience is his own" or " . . . because that's our job!"
Part of the problem here is that most of us live in liberal (in the classic sense) societies, so when we hear that someone advocated limiting the power of secular authorities we assume that, by default, this means increasing individual liberties. Historically, however, this mostly means re-assigning the powers forbidden to secular authorities to some other power base than the central government. For example, the Catholic Church was advocating limiting the power of secular authorities four centuries prior to Luther, but they weren't doing so because they believed in an individual freedom of conscience.
If someone says "the secular authorities shouldn't be punishing heresy", it matters very much whether what follows is " . . . because each man's consCuriouslycience is his own" or " . . . because that's our job!"
Intriguingly, in the article from which I previously quoted, Korey D. Maas introduces his discussion of Luther by summarizing "a debate taking place among some Roman Catholics":
Perhaps the most useful entrée to this debate is a much-discussed essay written two years ago by Notre Dame political theorist Patrick Deneen, titled “A Catholic Showdown Worth Watching.” The showdown in question is not the frequently covered contest between so-called liberal and conservative Catholics, but between two factions of what most would colloquially call conservatives. The one is united, according to Deneen, by a shared belief that there is “no fundamental contradiction between liberal democracy and Catholicism,” that they are not only compatible but in fact mutually beneficial.
...
Perhaps more surprising and more interesting, though, are those narratives which have attempted to portray religious liberty and freedom of conscience as having always and everywhere been constitutive of Catholicism. Writing in First Things, for example, George Weigel characterized the 1648 Peace of Westphalia—which brought to an end the Reformation-era “wars of religion,” and is often identified as having birthed the modern idea of the nation state—as having reversed a policy of religious toleration stretching back nearly two millennia to Constantine’s Edict of Milan. As such, he offers, it was, “in fact, the West’s first modern experiment in the totalitarian coercion of consciences.” More officially, by way of inaugurating the now annual “Fortnight for Freedom,” the US Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement on “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty,” lauding Catholics for having been pioneer defenders of religious liberty and freedom of conscience (without, of course, highlighting a history of inquisitions, heresy trials, European Crusades, or Catholic confessional states).
atheists (a term that allows theism to set the parameters of the debate)
Is there some other term? I mean, theist/atheist is the general pair of terms people use, and I don’t think anyone gets confused by the meaning of either.
As an atheist watching this debate, I'd say that many people often do.
Perhaps the most common that atheists can't answer is,
"Why are all these people trying to to second guess what I think?"
Partly, I think, because some see you as a threat.
'This person doesn't think like me. That presents the possibility that I might be wrong.'
That certainly appears to be part of the problem, especially regarding morals. For someone who only does the right/good things out of fear of hell, a person who doesn’t believe in hell may be an existential threat, because then they would have no reason to behave well. And others may be threatened by atheists with strong morals, if they see morality as coming only from the teachings of their own religion.
So we end up with attempts to redefine various strains of atheism as “really theism, even if it doesn’t look like it” (sorry, I don’t have a link handy to that post). Although there is a lot of variation, I certainly wouldn’t consider Buddhists or Taoists as theists. But it really comes down to how one defines “God”, and “belief in God”. Many atheists wouldn’t bother wasting time on such a useless task that they have no interest in. So, yes, the result is that “atheist” is primarily defined by theists, but they rarely define the required terms explicitly, which contributes to the confusion
I was listening to talk by a Buddhist Priest describing the various dakinis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakini) and other god/goddess-like beings of the Vajrayana Buddhism of the Newar people of Nepal. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana) These are embodied with various colors, numbers of appendages, and carry different weapons or implements to accomplish their various duties. At some point he made a comment, almost an aside, “But of course, these are all in your own mind.” They were, essentially archetypes of energies that people could summon from within themselves to clear blockages on the path to enlightenment. (And there are sacred dances to help to embody the energy of each.)
[My apologies for making such a hash of a very complex belief system.]
From a cursory outsider’s perspective, these may seem like goddesses that people were praying to for assistance, but the underlying belief structure is far removed from how many theists might imagine it.
Of course, everything is in your own mind. See the famous flag story - monks are arguing over a flag flying in the wind. What is it that moves, the flag or the wind? The abbott has been observing and says, it's your mind.
Of course, everything is in your own mind. See the famous flag story - monks are arguing over a flag flying in the wind. What is it that moves, the flag or the wind? The abbott has been observing and says, it's your mind.
Hence my new-found love of nature alone. In the moving of ideas from two thousand years ago in Nazareth.
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
I think the idea is that Protestantism started the decoupling civil authority from religious authority. Reading Luther's On Secular Authority, and whatever Calvin's similar treatise was, one can see that their views were quite different from what western societies hold now, but were also vastly different from the tight union between church and government that existed before.
Protestantism started with the decoupling of religious belief from community.
Almost the exact opposite. It started with communities deciding they could decide religion. Early Protestant centre were all cities. You can name the cities: Calvin of Geneva, Zwingli of Zurich, Luther of Wittenberg and so on. The only real exception is Knox of Scotland though St Andrew's claims him, and he worked on developing what was a city bound model to a nation. Calvin was invited back to Geneva not by the religious authorities but by the town Burgesses. There are even a project to build links today in the cities of the Reformation.
It is, of course, wrong to think of cities as today's large metropolis' holding millions of people. Thing rather of places with 10s of thousands as St Andrew's is to this day. Urbanisation was taking place but on a small level. In conurbations of this size you still know your neighbours, interact with them and so on. It is small enough to have a single unitary authority albeit one with more beaureacracy than in a village where everything could be settled or not at the local pub. The seeds of modern hyper-urbanisation of today is some two hundred years away from the Reformation. Remember Columbus was only trying to circumnavigate the globe around the time of the Reformation. It is the hyper-urbanisation that I think is at the root of the breakdown between Religion and Community.
By "community" I was not referring to cities and earthly kingdoms, but the community of the Church. All protestantism devolves to "every man a pope."
No that is the enlightenment for you. Yes it comes from the academic circles where the thought of the individual is plied against the tradition of thought. So scientific method actually leads to individualism
Of course, everything is in your own mind. See the famous flag story - monks are arguing over a flag flying in the wind. What is it that moves, the flag or the wind? The abbott has been observing and says, it's your mind.
Hence my new-found love of nature alone. In the moving of ideas from two thousand years ago in Nazareth.
Although many Buddhists would ask, what is this mind, and that can take you on an amazing journey.
Tou can see this thought of the individual opposed to that of community and tradition in Galileo and yet Galileo is no Protestant.
Both Calvin and Luther had communities with which they were interlocuters. The relationships were different. Luther was asking for debate within the community. Calvin was trying to steer a community that had asked him to lead. Yep, sorry folks that is actually the case. Calvin would of his own preference stayed away from Geneva once exiled. Calvin's institutes do not simply discuss theology, they outline whole structures for the community (it's the part I studied most)
There is a popular saying that Science (atheistic science) can explain how but not why. Do we believe this to be true? Philosophy goes some way to answering this but not wholly.
What the hell is "atheistic science"? Science is science, whether you're a believer or an atheist.
I think the idea is that Protestantism started the decoupling civil authority from religious authority. Reading Luther's On Secular Authority, and whatever Calvin's similar treatise was, one can see that their views were quite different from what western societies hold now, but were also vastly different from the tight union between church and government that existed before.
Protestantism started with the decoupling of religious belief from community.
Almost the exact opposite. It started with communities deciding they could decide religion. Early Protestant centre were all cities. You can name the cities: Calvin of Geneva, Zwingli of Zurich, Luther of Wittenberg and so on. The only real exception is Knox of Scotland though St Andrew's claims him, and he worked on developing what was a city bound model to a nation. Calvin was invited back to Geneva not by the religious authorities but by the town Burgesses. There are even a project to build links today in the cities of the Reformation.
It is, of course, wrong to think of cities as today's large metropolis' holding millions of people. Thing rather of places with 10s of thousands as St Andrew's is to this day. Urbanisation was taking place but on a small level. In conurbations of this size you still know your neighbours, interact with them and so on. It is small enough to have a single unitary authority albeit one with more beaureacracy than in a village where everything could be settled or not at the local pub. The seeds of modern hyper-urbanisation of today is some two hundred years away from the Reformation. Remember Columbus was only trying to circumnavigate the globe around the time of the Reformation. It is the hyper-urbanisation that I think is at the root of the breakdown between Religion and Community.
By "community" I was not referring to cities and earthly kingdoms, but the community of the Church. All protestantism devolves to "every man a pope."
No that is the enlightenment for you. Yes it comes from the academic circles where the thought of the individual is plied against the tradition of thought. So scientific method actually leads to individualism
Protestantism leads to individualism. Is borne of individualism.
Comments
I agree with you here..printing, literacy, accessibility of scripture in the vernacular, resentment of Rome’s economic demands, corruption such as the selling of indulgences …Tetzel apparently had a rhyme like: “When the coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.”
Reliance on scripture, justification by faith and repudiation of rule from Rome were the principles in a nutshell held by Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Knox. But for ordinaries, one tyranny replaced another. You couldn’t deny that Calvin’s Geneva was a tyranny and Luther also became quite tyrannical and intolerant.
I think though, the Reformation, while it began with one man’s agony about the lack of assurance of personal salvation, was a step towards separation of church and state in its final effect. Trying to establish theocracies has always been a train wreck from Calvin to Salem to Jim Jones. After the St Bartholemew’s day massacre of Huguenots in Paris in 1572 that triggered a genocide leaving 10,000 dead across France, and Bloody Mary, I think a lesson began to be understood that toleration was better going forward. But looking at current life, you can see that is still not a lesson easily imbibed is it?
In the end, @GammaGammaliel, What I think I have from it all is an opportunity for understanding what the issues were, having been brought up in the Roman tradition…and FREEDOM!
I’m confused here – what are you saying at the end here?
The premise suggested here (ie "responding" to heresy) strikes me as being the wrong way round. For the most part, heresies seem to be identified in the course of power struggles and the assertion of authority. The idea that the heresy came first seems something of a convenient peg on which to hang disagreements about which authority should have primacy. And as with a lot of history, I note that it was often the winner who got to describe what the loser's beliefs or practices were.
Both were far more complex and involved power politics than my thumb-nail presentation and @MPaul's rather Hollywood style presentation of the Reformation suggest.
'One man's agony about the lack of assurance of personal salvation' ...
It sounds like the trailer for a Hollywood B-Movie.
Luther believed in baptismal regeneration, for a kick-off. He wasn't a 20th century evangelical.
Besides, what he did was to tap into an unease with the Papacy which predated him by a long way. Yes, Tetzel's snake-oil salesman touting of Indulgences was the last straw, but it was a very long straw which went back a very long way.
All this 'one man's personal struggle' business exemplifies and illustrates the overly individualistic view that later came into Protestantism. Yes, Luther had a kind of 'crisis of faith', but I don't think he'd have seen it in quite so individualistic terms as later Protestant evangelicals.
He wasn't a 19th or 20th century evangelical projected back into the early 16th century.
Yes, he helped create conditions that would lead to later forms of evangelicalism, but he certainly wasn't an evangelical in the sense that we would understand and recognise today.
There are myths, back-projection and anachronisms surrounding all these things .... the Ecumenical Councils, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the great 18th and 19th century Awakenings ... and each and every religious movement we might care to name.
That does not 'invalidate' them, but I agree with @Pease that power struggles and the assertion of authority have to be recognised and factored into the equations.
I should have factored them in myself to my earlier comments rather than sounding all Cecil Be De Mille about the whole thing - as @MPaul does in his posts.
Always be careful about the passive voice in questions like that. "Invited" by whom?
As I noted earlier, the same factors that contributed to the rise of Protestantism (moveable type printing, wider literacy, etc.) also contributed to increased centralization and state capacity by various European polities. One of the ways this increased state capacity was used was raising and supporting larger and more destructive armies. Another was a greater drive towards uniformity within each state and in forcing neighboring states to abide by your own standards. You can see where this is going.
Internally this meant a much more aggressive Inquisition and the start of witch trials. Externally this meant the various Wars of Religion, and especially the Thirty Years' War. One of the things that eventually became obvious during the Thirty Years' War was that despite having vastly increased bureaucratic capabilities and vastly more destructive armies, no one had the ability to enforce religious uniformity across a single state, much less across all Europe. Or maybe it was because of those factors rather than despite them. After all, everyone else also had vastly increased bureaucratic capabilities and vastly more destructive armies.
It's not often noted that classical liberalism is an intensely pragmatic philosophy. Despite a lot of high flown language about the rights of man (and later the rights of people), it's mostly about solving problems. The problem being solved by freedom of religious conscience is "How do we not have a(nother) Thirty Years' War?" Essentially the idea of freedom of conscience (taking questions of religious belief out of the hands of the state and placing it within a sphere of individual liberty) was developed because of the spectacular failures of sectarianism in the early modern era. What gets me is people like the aforementioned Brad Gregory, who seem to regard the decline of aggressively sectarian governments as an inherently bad thing.
The trailer begins "In a world . . . " (or possibly "In a time . . . ").
For example, I think questions about death are hard to answer as an atheist because the options that the religions offer don't really make a lot of sense.
Here's a trigger warning, but nothing graphic
It's hard for the atheist to answer questions framed in a way that makes sense to the religious person. And as these debates tend to be directed by those people with the largest pulpit (figurative and often actually), it tends to have that kind of religious framing.
Ha ha ha ...
Sorry @MPaul, I think you must have got your ideas about the Reformation from your local video hire store ... hey, they don't have those any more.
Or from 'Horrible Histories' or 'Anachronistic History. Vol IX'.
Are you conflating atheism with naturalism? Atheists can believe in life after death; they're atheists as long as they don't believe in a god.
I wasn't talking about life after death.
It's not in Epiphanies.
Yes. And it was answered in the same paragraph
Which implied that the writer thought it was already there.
Still genuinely wondering.
@Gamma Gamaliel said,
I’m not sure how much I agree with @MPaul either, but maybe being rude to each other in Purgatory isn’t very helpful?
To facilitate more 'own voice' contributions rather than people telling other posters what they do or don't believe.
Whatever the case, I like the sound of my own voice ... 😉
Seriously, though (and yes, I do at times I'm afraid), I think there can certainly be a tendency for theists to tell atheists what they assume their position comprises. It can work the other way round too, of course.
But there are more (and more fundamental) questions I can't answer as a theist, than questions I can't answer as an atheist.
I think there's a case for Luther being the among the first to successfully communicate to a wide audience the idea of taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty.
Whether historians make good contemporary problem solvers is always questionable.
I'm not sure I can agree that the man who published a detailed seven part plan for exterminating Judaism from Europe had any concept of a sphere of liberty for religious belief. Can you expand on what you think such a case would look like?
Hence the growth in the use of Books of Hours, for those who could afford them of course.
There was a corresponding rise in chantry chapels, Masses for the dead etc.
So Luther came from a background where there was already a sense of 'taking responsibility' for one's religious practices. To that extent then yes, I think there was a growing emphasis on individual as well as corporate faith - but not in a mutually exclusive way.
As far as political liberties or freedom of conscience goes, though, no, I don't see much evidence of that. He was a man of his time.
That's why I came down so heavily on @MPaul's anachronistic thing about 'one man's spiritual struggle' and FREEDOM in dirty great big capital letters.
I'd be surprised if Luther had any idea that he was inadvertently addressing these issues, or of the consequences for Europe of his doctrine and polemic.
That doesn't really answer the question. In what ways do you think that Martin Luther, who advocated exterminating competing religious beliefs, advocate "taking at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty"? Using state-sponsored force to suppress disfavored religions seems antithetical to the idea of individual religious liberty.
On a technical note, I'd classify Luther's beliefs in this area as anti-Judaism (hatred of Jews for their religious beliefs) rather than narrowly defined anti-Semitism (hatred of Jews as an ethnic group).
How much of what did Jesus know at the time? You mean the antisemitism of the future? I don’t know how much He knew about most future matters after the Incarnation but before His death and resurrection.
Hard to im agine how it could imply that when there was a question immediately above it asking if it ought to be there.
I can't imagine religious persons, especially Christians, talking about death without at least mentioning it. But perhaps you can explain this bit, which makes little sense to me. Why should atheists have a hard time discussing something just because religious people have shitty options?
Wanting to take the option to be Jewish away doesn't necessarily have any implications at all to what he wants Christians to be able to do. The questions seem totally unrelated.
As I said, it's about framing. If someone starts a discussion with a religious framing (for example about the process of dying) then it is hard for an atheist to answer in terms.
Most religious people would agree that human life was sacred, yet some religions glorify martyrdom. So the conversation about death is always going to be difficult if it is framed in that kind of way. Because if a religious person invokes a deity to justify positions a) b) and c) but doesn't accept that there is the same justification for positions d) and e) then there's not much else to say.
For example someone might make an argument about the divine value of life to oppose abortion whilst simultaneously rejecting the need to take action on childhood disease. They've apparently, in that example, argued that life is precious because of something about God but then said it isn't.
I'm not sure that there was a belief in that era in central Europe that one could become Jewish. So I'm not sure one could say that there was the "option" to be Jewish which could be taken away.
As far as I understand, the Jewish community in most of Europe existed for a very long time and was consistently othered by the majority Christian population. Any reasoning to reject Judaism seems like an attack on Jews rather than some kind of barrier to Christians converting to Judaism.
On the martyrdom thing, it could be argued that those Christian traditions which 'glorify' martyrdom, and most do to some extent or other even it's not a full-on thing with shrines and special commemorations, then it follows from a sense that life is sacred.
The Fathers stressed that we shouldn't 'court' martyrdom or treat it like some kind of death-wish.
And that’s leaving aside that there is a very wide variety of beliefs about life after death among religious people, as well as among nonreligious people.
There was certainly an understanding that there was an option to be not-Jewish by converting to Christianity.
But yes, Martin Luther’s condemnable writings about Jews don’t necessarily refute a claim that he took “at least some of the questions of religious belief out of the hands of the church and placing them within a sphere of individual liberty.” As “at least some” and “out of the hands of the church” suggest, it can mean that Luther only approved of placing some questions of Christian belief within a sphere of religious liberty.
Luther wasn't martyred.
I don't think wanting to restrict individual religious belief is unrelated to the question of whether someone had a concept of individual religious liberty. "Liberty" to adhere to strict Lutheranism and state punishment for anyone who doesn't adhere isn't "liberty" in any meaningful sense of the term. Which was more or less my point.
Either I'm not making myself understood, or you're not. I give up.
I've been looking for what Lutherans think about Luther's mooted contributions to the modern world. Here are a couple of articles from academics who are (or were) also members of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
In Luther and Liberalism: A Tale of Two Tales (PDF from Concordia Theological Quarterly) Korey D. Maas sets out what he sees as the four options, in effect viewing Luther as an instigator of change:
* Luther was a proto-liberal and that’s a good thing.
* Luther was a proto-liberal and that’s a bad thing.
* Luther was not a proto-liberal and that’s a bad thing.
* Luther was not a proto-liberal and that’s a good thing.
Regarding the first, his overview of the arguments include the following (which seem relevant to questions asked earlier on this thread):
In a response, Luther and Liberalism, James R. Rogers suggests that Luther was more of a catalyst than a causal agent.
If someone says "the secular authorities shouldn't be punishing heresy", it matters very much whether what follows is " . . . because each man's conscience is his own" or " . . . because that's our job!"
I'm off to Heaven to take that further ...
That certainly appears to be part of the problem, especially regarding morals. For someone who only does the right/good things out of fear of hell, a person who doesn’t believe in hell may be an existential threat, because then they would have no reason to behave well. And others may be threatened by atheists with strong morals, if they see morality as coming only from the teachings of their own religion.
So we end up with attempts to redefine various strains of atheism as “really theism, even if it doesn’t look like it” (sorry, I don’t have a link handy to that post). Although there is a lot of variation, I certainly wouldn’t consider Buddhists or Taoists as theists. But it really comes down to how one defines “God”, and “belief in God”. Many atheists wouldn’t bother wasting time on such a useless task that they have no interest in. So, yes, the result is that “atheist” is primarily defined by theists, but they rarely define the required terms explicitly, which contributes to the confusion
I was listening to talk by a Buddhist Priest describing the various dakinis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakini) and other god/goddess-like beings of the Vajrayana Buddhism of the Newar people of Nepal. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana) These are embodied with various colors, numbers of appendages, and carry different weapons or implements to accomplish their various duties. At some point he made a comment, almost an aside, “But of course, these are all in your own mind.” They were, essentially archetypes of energies that people could summon from within themselves to clear blockages on the path to enlightenment. (And there are sacred dances to help to embody the energy of each.)
[My apologies for making such a hash of a very complex belief system.]
From a cursory outsider’s perspective, these may seem like goddesses that people were praying to for assistance, but the underlying belief structure is far removed from how many theists might imagine it.
Hence my new-found love of nature alone. In the moving of ideas from two thousand years ago in Nazareth.
Perhaps there is no "why?"
No that is the enlightenment for you. Yes it comes from the academic circles where the thought of the individual is plied against the tradition of thought. So scientific method actually leads to individualism
Although many Buddhists would ask, what is this mind, and that can take you on an amazing journey.
Both Calvin and Luther had communities with which they were interlocuters. The relationships were different. Luther was asking for debate within the community. Calvin was trying to steer a community that had asked him to lead. Yep, sorry folks that is actually the case. Calvin would of his own preference stayed away from Geneva once exiled. Calvin's institutes do not simply discuss theology, they outline whole structures for the community (it's the part I studied most)
What the hell is "atheistic science"? Science is science, whether you're a believer or an atheist.
Protestantism leads to individualism. Is borne of individualism.