The Reformation
The “redefinition” of my faith continues. Pelikan’s book makes it hard to remain satisfied with the Sola Scriptura method of definition. I thought that I should revisit the Reformation. I have idolized the reformers as brave men, men of great unshakable faith, men who would not compromise the truths of Scripture for the “traditions of men”. Well, I’ve already had to discard the “traditions” argument because of the ECF’s. Those “traditions” have a pretty long history! I’ve had to discard the “truths of Scripture” argument because that one really boils down to whose interpretation of Scripture do I choose to agree with. Scripture is NOT self evident. If it were then there would be no divisions among us. Every protestant denomination (and those who claim they are not part of the reformation, but have existed since the beginning - albeit with no corroberating evidence, only their word) claims they have the best interpretation and others are missing something, misunderstanding something. And here I must admit that I was proud in my own superior understanding.
So what were the Reformers about? I went back to the text for a class I took on the Reformation. After wading through the warring philosophies of the day (essentially scholasticism vs humanism), the political climate of Germany (the Holy Roman Empire), and biographies of the major reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) I came to a very uncomfortable conclusion. The Reformation was as much about political power as it was about “true” religion.
And it also had much to do with philosophy - mainly humanism. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin (along with other minor reformers) were humanists. Some of their followers (I can’t guess at a percentage, according to my source it would seem a large one, but that would only be conjecture) were nominal Catholics who thought these guys were starting a social revolution - the overthrow of feudal Lords by the common man.
And Luther - I was most dissapointed in him - he changed his mind more often than his underwear! Many of his published sentiments were not all charitable. He wanted to round up and kill all the Jews because they wouldn’t listen to him and convert. He wanted to kill all the peasants because they wouldn’t listen to him and not revolt against their masters. And what did he accuse those peasants of? Why, breaking their vows! They broke their vows of obedience to their masters when they revolted. Funny how Luther didn’t have any problem breaking his own vow of obedience to the Church, or his vow of celibacy. But those peasants… they deserved death for breaking their vows.
And Calvin? He said it was wrong for the Church to be involved in politics, but what did he do? He created a state church! And what happened if you followed the Anabaptists? Well, if you believed in “adult, believer baptism” instead of infant baptism you got the death penalty in Calvin’s Geneva. But if you committed adultery you got 9 days in jail.
And Zwingli? Did you know that he had a mistress? I realize that so did many of the other Catholic priests - that was one of the areas that needed big time reform - but the reformers weren’t any better.
Do you know what their argument was for clerical marriage? That it wasn’t natural or possible for a man under 60 (some argued for 80) to remain celibate! That “they were going to do it anyway, so you might as well make it legal!” (That sounds eerily familiar to todays argument for condom distribution and drug legalization, and ironically now protestants are against this type of reasoning.) The reformers said that a man couldn’t think about God unless he was able to satisfy his lust. Now personally, I’m still a little shaky on the celibate priesthood (I’m glad it’s not Catholic dogma!), but this reasoning sickens me!
This also made me mad - when Catholic priests turned protestant quite a few of them kept their church building and their salary from Rome, even after they agreed to return it. So they are preaching against Rome, but the house the live in, the pulpit they preach in, and the food they eat is all paid for by that same Rome.
Needless to say, I didn’t come away impressed - and this information was all from a protestant author who agreed with the reformation!
So, my original question ,”what were they protesting?” They were involved with many of the abuses that they criticized the Church for. Sola Scriptura? Sola Fide?
If Sola Scriptura was true then why did the Reformers come to such differing conclusions about what Scripture said? Why did they kill each other over these differing interpretations? If reading Scripture for yourself was so important then why did they make it against the law to interpret it differently (from whichever church had political power where you lived, ie - if you were Calvinist you HAD to agree that communion was symbolic and you HAD to agree with infant baptism, if not then you were breaking the law and were punished)? It’s not like Lutherans tolerated Calvinists - they couldn’t even join together to fight Rome! And both groups hunted down and killed the Anabaptists. So it seems to me that they didn’t really believe in Sola Fide either. If faith in Christ is what makes you a Christian (faith and only faith) then why does it matter how or when you are baptized (or how many times)? Why did it matter how you viewed the Lord’s Supper? Wouldn’t, by their own theology, they all be Christians? If the Anabaptists had faith in Christ, who cares that they baptized adults instead of babies. Yet the Calvinists thought this so important that they killed anyone who believed it. It’s not like the Anabaptists didn’t have Scripture to back them up. They too believed in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.
It seems to me that the reformers believed these things in theory, but not in practice.
So what do I do with this information? Where does it lead me? It leaves me with no home, no church. Everything my faith was founded on is gone. When you take away Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide from the reformation, you are left with a bunch of arrogant guys who didn’t want to listen to authority, they wanted to be authority. (side note here - I’m not in a position to judge these men’s hearts or their standing before God. I assume that they were sincere in their beliefs and were trying to obey their consciences before God. But I now find them unconvincing as authorities.) What was so wrong with the Church they railed against? It was full of sinners, it was full of abuses, it was full of men vying for political power, but was this it’s heart? Is this ALL that it was? I’m forced to look harder at the Catholic Church. I’m forced to listen to the ECF’s (who don’t listen to Luther or Calvin). I’m forced to the conclusion that I don’t want to be protestant. But do I want to be Catholic?
