In the Christian Reformation Era several theological debates arise, ranging from sacramental theology and justification to ecclesiology and biblical authority. One prominent proponent of these debates that comes to the forefront is the extensive debate of authority, most specifically the spiritual authority as compared to the secular sanction. Though this debate is influential during the Reformation Era, it is still prevalent in our society today, with the increased emphasis placed on the separation of church and state in recent years, which was prominently underscored in the school districts across the United States. The evolving typologies of Reformation views on authority maintain distinct differentiating characteristics among the early …show more content…
Christians. These views, though distinct, possess a sense of fluidity through which the ideas and concepts are shaped over a period of time. On some level of thought, they might be considered to be more of a process, as opposed to a distinct set of standards rigidly employed at a specific point in time. I will assess the confessional position on spiritual versus spiritual authority of the Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed traditions. I aim to demonstrate how their views on authority differ, the varied impact of financial acumen and influence, as well as the cross-intersectionality of spirituality with government and politics. During the Reformation Era, the Catholic view on spiritual authority aligns in such a way that the pope employs both the temporal and spiritual authority. Catholic views on spiritual authority are best illustrated in summary and evidenced as “two swords” . In Janz “The Papacy,” by Boniface VIII in the Unam Sanctam, states: And we learn from the words of the gospel that in this church and in her power are two swords, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the apostles said, ‘Behold here’ (that is, in the church, since it was the apostles who spoke) ‘are two swords’ – the Lord did not reply, ‘It is too much,’ but ‘It is enough.’ Truly he who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter, misunderstands the words of the Lord, ‘Put up thy sword into the sheath.’ Both are in the power of the church, the spiritual sword and the material. But the latter is to be used for the church, the former by her; the former by the priest, the latter by kings and captains but at the will and by the permission of the priest. The one sword, then, should be under the other, and temporal authority subject to spiritual. For when the apostle says, ‘There is no power but of God and the powers that be ordained of God,’ they would not be so ordained were not one sword made subject to the other…. Thus, it is quite evident that the Catholics believe in the spiritual authority as represented by two swords, in which the sole authority resides in the office of the popery. According to Boniface VIII, although the pope holds both spiritual and secular authority they are not equivalent. The text substantiates that “one sword should be under the other,” therefore, demonstrating a clear hierarchy within the power bestowed upon the pope to hold one sword above the other. The Lutheran sect engages a viewpoint on authority that contradicts the views of the Catholics. They view secular authority through the lens of two kingdoms, in which there is God’s spiritual kingdom and rule as well as God’s civil kingdom and rule. In addition, there is a civil, or temporal, ruler that reigns over certain parts of the spiritual authority. Essentially, Luther believes in a paradigm by which there are two kingdoms that intricately intersect. Nonetheless, the spiritual realm does not reign over the secular sphere. Luther expresses his position on papal authority in The Ninety-Five Theses. According to Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses, an overarching theme exhibited, the Pope holds the appropriate authority as allocated to him. Luther articulates, “For it is clear that the pope’s power is of itself sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved to him.” In addition, Luther indicates, “That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many [indulgence] preachers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.” This evidences the authority of the popery to rule over the spiritual kingdom, yet accentuates the separation of kingdom authority. The Reformed position on authority in the Reformation Era will be examined through the combined purview of Calvin and Zwingli. Although Calvin and Zwingli are both regarded as Reformists, they present ideologies that parallel, however they are not direct reflections of one another. Calvin believes in two rules, where, “…spiritual freedom can perfectly well exist along with civil bondage.” Calvin asserts, “But as we have just now pointed out that this kind of government is distinct from that spiritual and inward kingdom of Christ, so we must know that they are not at variance.” Moreover, Calvin maintains that there are two distinct rules. He places emphasis on the need to present the church independently. Calvin affirms, I now commit to civil government the duty of rightly establishing religion… I approve of a civil administration that aims to prevent the true religion which is contained in God’s law from being openly and with public sacrilege violated and defiled with impunity, I do not here, any more than before, allow men to make laws according to their own decision concerning religion and the worship of God. Calvin exists in a unique paradigm, as on the one hand he asserts that there are two rules, while at the same time, he affirms that he “approves of a civil administration that aims to prevent the true religion.” Essentially, Calvin’s arguments are ambiguous, however if his claim of two rules stands true, his ideals differ greatly from those identified for Catholic authority. On the contrary, Zwingli insists that the government can help oversee the church, as intercessors.
He also believes that the government should be in the will of God, and a government that does not align with Godly ideals should be overthrown, impeached. In Janz, Zwingli’s Sixty-Seven Theses, XXXVI states, “All the rights and protection that the so-called spiritual authority claims belong to secular governments provided they are Christian.” Additionally, in XXXIX, Zwingli contends, “Therefore, all their laws should be in harmony with the divine will, so that they protect the oppressed, even if these do not complain.” Ultimately, according to Zwingli’s theological stance, a government assembly should be a Christian assembly. These two should be synonymous according to Zwingli’s Erastian assertions, as supported by Stephens’ position which indicates, “It is notable, however, that Zwingli saw the assembly as a ‘Christian assembly,’ not a civil …show more content…
gathering.” The label for the early Christians revered within the Catholic sector is appropriate and fitting, as they maintain a clearly stated position on the theology of spiritual authority. In addition, the ways in which they engage financial wisdom as well as how the government is reflected within their architype all contribute strongly to this position. According to Lindberg’s quotation of R.W. Southern, from the Catholic vantage, the church reigned supreme and held the ultimate authority, such that “the church was not only a state it was the state; it was not only a society, it was the society - the human societas perfecta.” However, “John Wyclif, English philosopher and theologian whose concern for reform of the church led to his condemnation by synods of the English church and finally by the council of Constance in 1415, ‘argued that papal claims to temporal power had no biblical warrant, and he appealed to the English government to reform the whole church in England,” which evidences the conceptual ideology that the government maintains authority over the church and its practices, within the Catholic categorical distinction. In as much as the Catholic Church viewed the popery as holding the superlative power, this papal authority also allowed for the creation of a financially beneficial opportunity. Wherein Lindberg quotes, Le Goff and Prien who state, The church could not change its long history of condemning usury, but the church did learn how to profit from what it condemned. By developing a third option between heaven and hell, purgatory, and by facilitating the abbreviation of the tortures of purgatory through the purchase of indulgences, the church provided hope for the early capitalist condemned by canon law as well as skimmed that capitalist’s profits. Both church and capitalist could have their cake and eat it too. In The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology, Erika Rummel provides a robust overview of Erasmus’ theological stance comparative to the thoughts of Luther, which aids in substantiating the use of the historiographical labels defined as a part of the Reformation Era.
In Speaking of Erasmus and Luther, Rummel asserts, It is true that both men took aim at corrupt practices – the commercialization of religion; the preoccupation with external rites; the ignorance and worldliness of the clergy; the neglect of the biblical text – but Erasmus was aiming at the correction of abuses rather than at a doctrinal innovation or institutional change. Unlike Luther, he {Erasmus} accepted papal primacy and the teaching authority of the church and did not discount human tradition. The reforms proposed by Erasmus were in the social rather than the doctrinal realm. His principal aim was to foster piety and to deepen spirituality. Erasmus stresses his stance on the spiritual versus temporal debate. “In the Pauline vein, Erasmus exposes the dualism between the material and spiritual world and encourages readers to cultivate their soul.” From a spiritual perspective, he encourages clergy to be firm in their responsibility to share Christ with the people with whom they encounter. “Erasmus uses the metaphor of three concentric circles, with Christ at the centre [sic] surrounded by the clergy, thee nobility, and the common people. It is the responsibility of clergy and princes to transmit heavenly
philosophy to the people.” In his Disputations, Martin Luther is extremely descript and explicit in his theological positions. Luther expresses his ideological context in a manner that beseeches an atmosphere for debate. According to historical documents, Luther made a statement by purportedly nailing The Ninety Five Theses to the door of the church, as if to challenge anyone who dared to deliberate the matter with him. Therefore, it is no surprise that Luther and Erasmus hold varying views of theology. This further validates, however, the need to differentiate between the categorical frameworks applied to these groups with varying theological beliefs and practices. The Anabaptists hold a perception of a visible kingdom on authority, in which there is only one kingdom for Christians. “…the Anabaptist were viewed as politically as well as religiously exclusivistic, and thus a civic liability. In refusing to accept the normal obligation of citizenship – oaths, taxes (the tithe), military service – the Anabaptists were seen to be forming a state within a state.” In addition, “the refusal to render an oath was tantamount to political separatism” for the Anabaptists. The Anabaptists tend to push the envelope. They could possibly be viewed as extremists in some instances. They did however have commonality with the Catholics relative to their refusal to pay tithes, in that, “…to some…this rejection of tithes and taxes appeared very similar to the Catholic Church’s unpopular insistence upon exemption
...ding himself, then someone else is. Those who hold a higher rank to him and have more power in the world can easily manipulate an unguided man. If Erasmus had not saved the Europeans from the corruption of the Church, there would be no telling how today’s Europe would be characterized as. He defined what it meant to be a true follower of God.
Within mainstream society it seems as if there is not a great deal of emphasis on the contributions made by theologians in society, as well as contributions by theologians to religious thought. Particularly in Christendom, ecclesiastical assemblies are so consumed with vain ideas of worship, and content on hearing biblical messages that capitulate to their personal desires, that theological studies are often neglected. Yet the contributions theologians have made in society, and the impact these contributions have had on religious assemblies have been pivotal in guiding religious discourse on subjects such as ethics, morality, and social transformation. It is for this reason, that in this essay an attempt will be made to analyze three essays from three world-renowned theologians of the 20th century. The theologians are Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Walter Wink, all of which have produced the essays used for this analysis, and have written works that have completely challenged status quo religion, and changed the landscape of Christendom forever.
Chapter twelve, about Erasmus and Luther, exemplified the interesting, clear, and informative way in which Wolf created his work. Although there are many other examples in Wolf's book as to how these aspects ring true to his purpose, I chose chapter two as only one reason. The question stated: To what extent is it possible to reform an institution from within? What intellectual and personal qualities cause some people to be more radical than others, and what are the implications of such differences in history (p.113).? After reading the essay, one might say that a person could go as far as possible to make something like reforms happen; but people may stand in his/her way. However, if that person is willing to lose or gain anything, such as excommunication from his/her Church or an increase of enemies, then he/she will extend to the distance needed. The essay answer also informed the reader of more general information, not solely facts on Erasmus and Luther. Readers learned that intellect and intelligence are not all that bring historical greatness. Personal qualities such as dominance, determination, perseverance, morality and empathy all play a role in making a difference in history. Some of these qualities can make the situation more radical than expected. Although Erasmus and Luther landed on the...
As we look to the different points of view between Luther and Erasmus, we will begin looking at Discourse on Free Will. As Luther states, “You make the power of free will small and utterly ineffective apart from the grace of God. Acknowledged? Now then, I ask you: If God’s of power, what can it do for itself? You say it is ineffective and can do nothing good. Therefore it will not do what God or His grace wills” (Bloomsbury, Luther 116). Luther makes such a point to say everything very meticulously in a specific way to convey his true question or intent of that specific statement. Luther’s opinion on free will is simply that we have none. He specifically believes that since we do not have free will, we must rely simply on God’s grace to lead us down the right path for we do not have the opportunity to make our own path.
Folly states, “But just as Socrates taught in Plato’s dialogue that we should make two Venuses by cutting the one apart. … It behooves dialecticians to distinguish one madness form another” (Erasmus 38). This disillusioned madness is what Erasmus has been targeting through Folly through the entire text. The Roman Catholic Church leaders are the “most illustrious disciples of Folly” (Erasmus 87). Erasmus makes a point to point out the “first founders of the religion were great admirers of simplicity” (Erasmus 83). What does this have to do with Silenus? Simple. The point Erasmus is trying to make is that the Roman Catholic Church is much like a Silenus where it can look ugly and grotesque on the outside but inside you may find a rare inner truth that can lead to something
Pettegree argues that during the period there was a “great expansion of lay literacy” and although he does not believe Humanism explicitly caused church reform, the ideas it introduced laid its foundation. Some of these ideas he lists include the idea of people ruling over their own lives, the criticisms of the church by Humanist scholars such as Erasmus and the study of biblical literature in its original languages. He also mentions the fact Humanism had a big influence on Luther himself. If Humanism cannot be separated from the Reformation, and the two are linked, it would seem only logical to argue that the Reformation was not a single, specific attempt at the reformation of religion; instead it was a branch of a wider intellectual reform that was trying to permeate all areas of life. Wiesner-Hanks mentions that contemporaries would say “’Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched’”, although he is also keen to emphasise that Erasmus chose to distance himself from Luther’s ideas. Despite this Luther still sees the Humanist ideas of Erasmus as essential to his reformist ideas, he even says
The Reformation that took place in the sixteenth century saw the fragmentation of Catholic Europe under new religious ideas and practices. One factor causing debate is the role Martin Luther played in the spread of the Reformation. A Reformation, seen in the context of Sixteenth Century life, can be identified as ‘a return right back to the beginning’. In this sense, Luther’s intention can be seen as an attempt to return the church back to where it should be. It has been argued by modern contemporary historians that Luther’s contribution was limited due to the presence of existing reformers and rivals and the idea that Luther was unable to unite a coherent force meaning his role in the Reformation has been exaggerated. However, when
Erasmus took on the question in a rather arrogant manner. He states that the truth shall become more visible as he tells of his opinion and mocks Luther while he’s at it by calling him a prodigy and an elephant while Erasmus is nothing but a puny fly. He takes a classic humanist approach to the subject. An attempt is made at being historical and biblical on the matter.
Over the course of his life, Erasmus established himself as one of the most impactful Christian humanists of his time. His writings challenged many of the traditions and beliefs established by the medieval church. In his work, The Handbook for the Militant Christian, one of the topics Erasmus discusses is the importance of Classical texts. According to him, “a sensible reading of the pagan poets and philosophers is a good preparation for the Christian life” (Erasmus, 36). He believed that the Classical authors taught the reader how to think well and speak well, which in turn helped them to behave well.
Desiderius Erasmus wrote his seminal masterpiece of christian humanism “Praise of Folly” in 1511, yet the effects and influence of this small piece of cathartic, witty banter would permeate social consciousness in the european renaissance mind and play a significant role in the revolutionary state of church politics in the days before and after Martin Luther’s reformation. In his mere 40,000 words, Erasmus succeeded in highlighting most of contemporary critical theory about the Catholic church and the state of spiritualism as a whole through the ingenious conceit of the lady, Folly. Folly is the prism through which Erasmus can pass his views unaltered, despite the fact he continued to receive excessive criticism following the publication and was forced to defend himself ceaselessly after it’s incredible popularity, as explained in the successive editions of Listrus’ commentary on Folly that usually accompanied the book. Erasmus’ criticism come from a place however, not of scorn or disdain, but of hope. He remains an ardent catholic despite his criticisms and feels that the majority of issues within his piece stem from those who are actively attempting to subvert christian teaching as opposed to expressing the inherent flaws of the system as a whole. Indeed, even though his colleague, Martin Luther shared many of the same criticisms of the contemporary church, Erasmus could never make the leap of faith into leaving Catholicism for some other purpose. The criticisms were always representative of a higher desire for correction within the church, as though Catholicism and spirituality had strayed from the path, particularly in reference to the misappropriation of praise to Mary and the saints rather than Christ or in the devious natur...
The renaissance and the reformation were two of the most significant changes in history that has shaped our world today. Both of these great time periods are strikingly similar in some ways and totally different in others. This is because the renaissance was a change from religion to humanism whether it is in art or literature; it is where the individual began to matter. However, the reformation was,” in a nutshell,” a way to reform the church and even more so to form the way our society is today. The first half of this paper will view the drop in faith, the economic powers, and the artistic and literary changes during the renaissance, while the second half will view the progresses and changes the church makes during the reformation.
Though there was no driving force like Luther, Zwingli or Calvin during the English Reformation, it succeeded because certain people strived for political power and not exactly for religious freedom. People like Queen Elizabeth I and Henry VIII brought the Reformation in England much success, however their reasons were based on self-gain and desire for political power.
Erasmus had helped the Reformation by endowing it a kick start. He did not want to destroy the unity of the church, more over he doubtlessly wanted change. For example, Erasmus ignited the first few parts of the reformation, “ Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched… .” Desiderius Erasmus did lay the egg for the reformation, but the second half of ideas were altered. Consequently, Erasmus did not imply the examples Martin Luther was setting. He did not want to cause any friction with the church, as Luther hankered for. Erasmus simply wanted to keep, and maintain loyalty to his principles. In addition, to simply change the bad ways of the church. Going back to one of his writings, the translation of the New testament was also a prior prelude done in his part adding onto the reformation. Nonetheless, it was considered one the most significant contributions to the reformation, “The most significant contribution of Erasmus to the Protestant Reformation was undoubtedly his publication of his 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament.” This augmentation Desiderius Erasmus made contrived for the possibility of everyone being able to access an understanding of the New testament. It was the beginning to a whole new way of thinking. Consequently, it also brought a lot of hate towards Erasmus from the church.The church even accused him of heresy. Finally, Erasmus’ ideas prior to reformation made a huge impact in the
Religion played a very crucial part in education both in the conduct of the institutions and in the curriculum. Bible reading and prayer remained a major part of school well into the national period, when control of education was drifting away from sectarian authorities. A debate was brought to local school boards by modern American delegate authorities, so the government allowed private individuals and residues groups to establish schools of their own. This happened because the government failed to support schools with tax revenues. Because of the governments failure numerous religious sects demanded the freedom to educate their children in their own way.
...d define the relationship and nature of the God-head. The creeds contain biblical citations, and were clearly not written for personal political power gains. To bolster his argument, Williams names bishops who bravely countered the wills of the emperors. Martin Luther and John Calvin, widely known Protestant reformers, held these creeds, and early fathers, especially Augustine, in high esteem. In conclusion, Williams argues, “How one should think and believe in accordance with Scripture and the historical hermeneutic of interpreting the faith (that is, Tradition) is based upon a notion of evangelical catholicity” which embraces a historical faith, “regardless of the competing claims of Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, or Eastern Orthodoxy.” He calls Protestants to regain what has “been thrown out in the name of Reformation” to nourish theological impoverishment.