A few months back I posted a two-part review of The Real Luther by Franz Posset (Part one, Part two). Posset is a Roman Catholic Luther scholar. It is Posset's conclusion that "the historical Luther's doctrine of justification is identical with the one of Saint Bernard" (p.127). His argumentation spans many pages. Here's a brief overview. If you're interested, I suggest buying the book. This may be one of the most interesting Luther books I've read in years.
Posset argues that in the Augustinian friary Luther became acquainted the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux, particularly how Bernard interpreted Paul (p. 93). Posset begins with Melanchthon's memoirs of Luther:
And [Luther] told that he was often encouraged by the conversations of a certain old man in the Augustinian College at Erphord, to whom when he set forth his worries. He heard the old man discuss much about faith, and he said that he was lead to the Creed, in which it is said, "I believe in the forgiveness of sinners." That old man had interpreted this Article so that it should be believed not only in general, i.e. forgiven by some persons or others, as they believe Demons are forgiven by David or Peter, but that is was a commandment of God that we believe that the sins of individual men are forgiven by us. And he said that this interpretation was confirmed by a saying of Bernard, and then he pointed to a place in his sermon on the Annunciation, where there are these words, But in addition that you might believe also this, that sins are given TO YOU individually, this is the testimony, which the Holy Spirit bestows in your heart, saying, Your sins are forgiven by you. For the Apostle thinks thus, that man is gratuitously justified through faith. [source]
The capitalization of "TO YOU" of the Bernard citation was actually placed there by Melanchthon. Posset notes,
Melanchthon reported that Luther told him that this quotation was Pauline teaching as it is incorporated within Saint Bernard's sermon: "For thus the apostle concludes that 'a person is justified gratis by faith." This is a contraction of Rom. 3:24 and 28. Thus it was the young Luther at Erfurt who was told that this is Saint Bernard's teaching. And, as such this teaching would become Luther's center piece of his "reception of Paul" as it is the central locus of the Apostle's entire Letter to the Romans and as Luther would say later it is the central theological point of all of Scripture. (p. 98)
Posset identifies the Bernard writings in question as Bernard's Sermons on the Annunciation, with an emphasis on Sermo in annunitiatione domine "Saint Bernard's First Sermon on the Annunciation" (Ann 1). He states, "Ann 1 is the one text from Bernard's biblical theology that led Luther to what we customarily call his Reformational insight of salvation by grace alone through faith alone" (p. 104). Luther went on to either quote or hint at Bernard more than 500 times (p.94). Posset states:
It remains amazing that contemporary Luther biographies are still being written without ever mentioning the name and significance of Bernard of Clairvaux, or with just a hint at him in passing as if it were a chose negligeable. From now on, Luther biographies, if they want to present the authentic, historical Luther, can be convincing only if the Bernard factor is properly figured in, because the center piece of the historical Luther's doctrine of justification is identical with the one of Saint Bernard. (p. 127).
Posset also notes Melanchthon included a conflated Bernard quote in his Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
Therefore let pious consciences know that God commands them to believe that they are forgiven freely on account of Christ and not on account of our works. Let them sustain themselves with this command of God against despair and against the terrors of sin and death. Let them know that this position has been extant among the saints in the church since the beginning of the world. For Peter clearly cites the consensus of the prophets, and the writings of the apostles bear witness that they hold the same position. Nor do we lack testimonies from the Fathers. For Bernard says the same thing in words that are not at all obscure: "For it is necessary first to believe that you cannot have forgiveness of sins except through God's indulgence; second, that you cannot claim any good work whatever unless He himself grants it to you; finally, that you cannot merit eternal life by any works of yours, unless it too is given to you gratis [Ann 1.1]; but add to this that you also believe that through him [Christ] your sins are forgiven you [tibi]. This is the testimony that the Holy Spirit gives in your heart [Rom 8:16], saying, `your sins are forgiven you' [Mt 9:5]. For in this way the Apostle concludes that `a person is gratis justified through faith' [Rom 3:24, 281" [Ann 1.3]. Bernard's words wonderfully shed light on our position, because he not only requires that we believe in a general way that sins are remitted through mercy, but he urges that we add personal faith by which we believe that our own sins have been forgiven. Moreover, he teaches us how we may be certain about the forgiveness of sins, namely, when by faith our hearts are uplifted and find rest through the Holy Spirit. What more do our opponents need? Do they still dare to deny that we receive the forgiveness of sins by faith or that faith is a part of repentance? (p. 136-137)
Posset includes a relevant section of Ann 1 in his book, Two-Fold Knowledge: Readings on the Knowledge of Self and the Knowledge of God-Selected & Translated From The Works Of Saint Bernard Of Clairvaux (pp. 118-120):
Excellent passage from Bernard. Thank you, James, for a very edifying post.
ReplyDeleteThanks Louis. There are a handful of very interesting Bernard quotes on faith & grace. As I read through them, it's no wonder Luther gravitated towards his writings.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Luther's own words (in his "tower experience"), nobody before him had discovered or understood the true meaning of "Righteousness of God," which he saw as the heart of the Gospel, not even the mighty St Augustine. So this isn't just a Catholic argument, it's Luther's own.
ReplyDeleteWhat is also noteworthy is that there is no actual quote given by St Bernard that says anything close to Sola Fide. Everything quoted of him is perfectly in harmony with Catholicism, including and especially phrases like "all merits are the gift of God," which comes from Augustine.
It seems that Luther scholar, while right to point out that early Lutheranism was far more concerned with historical continuity than modern Protestantism, has incorrectly projected Luther's heresy back onto a great Saint of Scholasticism.
One should remember that "Sola Fide" is not the ONLY fundamental doctrine of the Reformation - "Sola Scriptura" was almost as important.
ReplyDeleteAnd Sola Scriptura was clearly practised by proto-Protestants before Luther, like by the Czech Taborite Hussites for example.
I would argue that once Sola Scriptura is consistently adopted, Sola Fide will follow sooner or later. Once all the man-made chaff of self-justification (like the cult of the saints, which was intimately connected to self-righteous asceticism of the monastic system) has been cleared away, the reliance on God alone for salvation must come forward, and Sola Fide with it.
Roman Catholic scholar: "the center piece of the historical Luther's doctrine of justification is identical with the one of Saint Bernard."
ReplyDeleteRandom dude on the internet, named Nick: "there is no actual quote given by St Bernard that says anything close to Sola Fide."
Louis,
ReplyDeletePlease, that's the fallacy of an appeal to authority, as if credentials guarantee truth every time.
I pointed out two FACTS that I don't see reconcilable with the quote by the scholar. (1) Luther admitted nobody prior to him properly understood the "Righteousness of God," and (2) the quote given by St Bernard says nothing uniquely in favor of Sola Fide and in fact strongly suggests Catholic sentiments.
Perhaps James can show you a thing or two about what various "scholars" have said about Luther that "some random dude on the internet named" James Swan has had to show was inaccurate or even fraudulent and malicious.
According to Luther's own words (in his "tower experience"), nobody before him had discovered or understood the true meaning of "Righteousness of God," which he saw as the heart of the Gospel, not even the mighty St Augustine. So this isn't just a Catholic argument, it's Luther's own.
ReplyDeleteActually, Posset addresses this (Remember, he's one of your guys, a Roman Catholic scholar). Posset notes it was actually Melanchthon's words that caused this confusion:
Luther said he was not only strengthened by this statement, but even forcibly reminded of the whole passage of Paul, who sooften hammers home this saying, that we are justified by Faith. About which, since he had read the explications of many, that then he regarded the falsity of current interpretations from the conversations of that man and the calming of his own
mind. Little by little, as he read and compared the sayings and lessons recorded in the Prophets and Apostles, and as he kindled his faith in daily prayer, he approached more illumination. [source]
Posset points out the young Luther couldn't possibly have have studied the entire exegetical tradition of Romans (p. 99). Posset notes the context is not in regard to the entire exegetical tradition that preceded Luther, but rather refers to popular concepts of the "justice of God." Posset refers to it as "contemporary popular misguided piety" (p.101). He notes even Luther's statements from 1545 ("all the teachers") probably refer to "the majority of contemporary preachers and theologians who fostered the mistaken popular piety of works righteousness" (p. 101). Posset then blames Denifle for not being careful enough with Luther's writings, particularly with Melanchthon's memoirs as well, since Melanchthon mentioned the importance of Bernard in regard to this issue.
What is also noteworthy is that there is no actual quote given by St Bernard that says anything close to Sola Fide. Everything quoted of him is perfectly in harmony with Catholicism, including and especially phrases like "all merits are the gift of God," which comes from Augustine.
I assumed someone would say this. There are other statements as well from Bernard worthy of a look: "Quamobrem quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit et sitit justitiam, credat in te qui justificas impium, et solam justificatus per fidem, pacem habebit ad Deum" Sermones in Cantica, Sermo XXII, §8, PL 183:881D. This is more though than simply looking around for the phrase "faith alone." Posset builds a fairly strong case, pointing out that Luther and Bernard were espousing an existential "trust" and justifying faith (p. 96). True indeed, there were a number of differences between Luther and Bernard, but on the nature of faith, Posset argues they were united. Posset rightfully looks at Luther in the theological climate of his day, which was replete with misunderstanding the righteousness of God. Thus, it's not good enough to look down from 2011 and declare Bernard is "perfectly in harmony with Catholicism."
It seems that Luther scholar, while right to point out that early Lutheranism was far more concerned with historical continuity than modern Protestantism, has incorrectly projected Luther's heresy back onto a great Saint of Scholasticism.
Well, I suggest you actually read the book before you set it on fire.
Please, that's the fallacy of an appeal to authority, as if credentials guarantee truth every time.
ReplyDeleteYou'll notice I was very cautious in this entry. I stated, "Perhaps he's motivated by ecumenical concerns, or perhaps he's actually on to something." I put this entry together, because I find it fascinating how Roman Catholics aren't at all unified on Luther. Some of you still want to burn him, while Roman Catholic scholars tend to treat him far differently. I think the thing to do Nick, is get the book and read it. Then you will be in a position to comment on it.
I pointed out two FACTS that I don't see reconcilable with the quote by the scholar. (1) Luther admitted nobody prior to him properly understood the "Righteousness of God,"
Addressed above. Buy the book, check my facts.
and (2) the quote given by St Bernard says nothing uniquely in favor of Sola Fide and in fact strongly suggests Catholic sentiments.
Also addressed above- but that would be your personal, private, opinion. Thanks for sharing!
Perhaps James can show you a thing or two about what various "scholars" have said about Luther that "some random dude on the internet named" James Swan has had to show was inaccurate or even fraudulent and malicious.
Hmm, I must say this is quite a sentence. Let's take it apart slowly:
Perhaps James can show you a thing or two about what various "scholars" have said about Luther
Yes, I can do that, and so can anyone with an internet connection or a good library. That is, none of you need a middle man.
that "some random dude on the internet named" James Swan has had to show was inaccurate or even fraudulent and malicious.
The first part "some random dude" is sarcasm, but then again, Nick for many years referred to himself as "Catholic Dude" if I'm not mistaken. He eventually began using "Nick." Well, as far as I can tell, "Catholic Dude" or "Nick" is a "random dude." He may be a Roman Catholic scholar, but he'd have to let us know. I agree with Nick that "random dude's" can make good points without being a known scholar. I typically will respect someone who can argue his position from a context. If Nick would like to get Posset's book and refute him exegetically, I'll gladly deal with that, time allowing.
As to me being "some random dude" as well, I guess that's true. I don't claim to be any sort of pro or scholar. I enjoy this blog as a hobby. As to showing "inaccurate or even fraudulent and malicious" things about Luther, yes, I do that, and I try to back up what I say with contexts and facts.
Nick,
ReplyDeleteFirst, neither of those things are "facts."
Second, I committed no fallacy, as I made no argument at all, let alone a logical one.
Third, Bernard's quote sounds just like Calvin and the Reformers to me, although I don't pretend to be an expert in his theology. (I doubt that you are either). In any event, I give a hearty amen to it, and I can see how Luther valued it.
I'm sure a lot of you know how to do this, but if you go over on amazon, you can use the "look inside" feature for Posset's book. Here's the link.
ReplyDeleteNow, I can't make this any easier for you Nick.You probably have most of the book for free. Enjoy your reading.
Third, Bernard's quote sounds just like Calvin and the Reformers to me, although I don't pretend to be an expert in his theology. (I doubt that you are either). In any event, I give a hearty amen to it, and I can see how Luther valued it.
ReplyDeleteMy criticism of Posset would be that he's an ecumenical Romanist. I pointed this out in my earlier review:
Dr. Posset appears to be strongly motivated by underlying ecumenical concerns. He points out early in the book that the 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification promoted Christian unity between Lutherans and Catholics who together confess salvation is "By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part" (p. xiv). In an older blog entry, Reverend McCain echoes many of the same concerns I have for this document, noting that the precise formula is rather "justification by grace alone through faith alone" and this "is the only way to avoid obscuring the glory and merit of Christ" that the Joint Declaration betrayed.
All that said, I think Posset is on to something with the Bernard and Luther connection, particularly given what was going on in the 16th Century.
ReplyDelete...and one last thing Nick, before i depart for a while:
ReplyDelete(2) the quote given by St Bernard says nothing uniquely in favor of Sola Fide and in fact strongly suggests Catholic sentiments.
I would be curious as to which part of the sermon from Bernard I quoted Luther would find objectionable.
You certainly have some homework now.
Take Care, James
There are really two issues being discussed here:
ReplyDelete(1) The idea that a non-scholar cannot question or critique a scholar. James and I agree this is bogus. James and I have both validly pointed out on our blogs and elsewhere times when scholars have botched the truth or made otherwise dubious statements. I appreciate James' statement that perhaps the author was motivated by false ecumenism. So when the "comparison" was made by Louis, the issue was solely about authority, not about the substance of the claims. That's a textbook case of a logically fallacy.
(2) In regards to my claims about your (James') post, I'm saying you've not provided a sufficient case, and that I see evidence that I believe goes against it.
If I'm reading your response to my tower experience correctly, you're saying Luther was only objecting to mistaken contemporary/local thought, but not objecting to an established scholastic view that did properly understand sola fide all along. IF SO, I don't buy that, nor is that how Luther spoke in the tower experience.
On the subject of St Bernard himself, I said I didn't see any reasonable evidence he espoused Sola Fide, and I still stand by that. You responded by saying "I assumed someone would say this," but still didn't see you make a case from the quote you originally provided. You said "there are other statements as well," but all you did was quote something in Latin, which seems to say "solely justified by faith," but were right to point out this is more than doing a word search for "faith alone."
The bottom line is this: if Bernard didn't view the "Righteousness of God" in a similar or equivalent way to "faith receives Christ's Righteousness," then a different understanding of justification is being espoused, regardless of if similar terminology is used.
As for the book being available online, as far as I could tell, only a very limited preview was allowed.
------------------------
Lastly, I was asked to show what in St Bernard's quote would be objectionable to Luther/Protestantism.
The most important thing to consider is that most of what the quote is saying is agreeable to Protestantism and Catholicism, so having such a long quote by no means shows Sola Fide was merely a continuation of well grounded scholastic tradition.
That said, as I noted at the start, the most Catholic sounding language was this:
“you cannot claim any good work whatsoever except if He himself granted it to you; finally, that you cannot earn eternal life by any works unless that too is given to you freely.”
“all merits are the gifts of God”
This is in conformity with the idea man cooperates with grace to be saved, and makes no sense if there is an alien righteousness involved.
Nick, I can appreciate your interest in this topic, but if we're going to have any sort of meaningful discussion, you'll have to read the book. Here we are, discussing Posset's view, and you haven't read his book. This seems ridiculous. I'd rather not spoon-feed Posset to you so you can then "pass judgment." No, you read the book, carefully, and then we'll discuss his view. This is the same situation we had a while back on Luther and Purgatory. I'm supposed to provide all the information, and then you simply comment on it. I find this a lot with those on your side of the Tiber.... not sure why.
ReplyDeletePosset isn't the first person to have noticed this. Bernard was right on when it comes to law and gospel, works and faith.
ReplyDeleteRomanist assertion: "What is also noteworthy is that there is no actual quote given by St Bernard that says anything close to Sola Fide."
ReplyDeleteJust as your paraded your ignorance at TurretinFan's blog, so here you are doing the same thing again. But we don't mind educating Romanist ignorance. :)
Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153): The fragrance of your wisdom comes to us in what we hear, for if anyone needs wisdom let him ask of you and you will give it to him. It is well known that you give to all freely and ungrudgingly. As for your justice, so great is the fragrance it diffuses that you are called not only just but even justice itself, the justice that makes men just. Your power to make men just is measured by your generosity in forgiving. Therefore the man who through sorrow for sin hungers and thirsts for justice, let him trust in the One who changes the sinner into a just man, and, judged righteous in terms of faith alone, he will have peace with God. See Kilian Walsh, O.C.S.O., Bernard of Clairvaux On the Song of Songs II (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, Inc.,1983), Sermon 22.8, p. 20.
Latin text: Porro sapientiae tuae odorem ex eo percipimus quod audivimus quia si quis indiget sapientia, postulet eam a te, et dabis ei. Aiunt siquidem quod des omnibus affluenter, et non improperes. At vero justitiae tuae tanta ubique fragrantia spargitur, ut non solum justus, sed etiam ipsa dicaris justitia, et justitia justificans. Tam validus denique es ad justificandum, quam multus ad ignoscendum. Quamobrem quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit et sitit justitiam, credat in te qui justificas impium, et solam justificatus per fidem, pacem habebit ad Deum. Sermones in Cantica, Sermo XXII, §8, PL 183:881D.
This is the type of stuff that bothers me about guys like Nick:
ReplyDeleteIf I'm reading your response to my tower experience correctly, you're saying Luther was only objecting to mistaken contemporary/local thought, but not objecting to an established scholastic view that did properly understand sola fide all along. IF SO, I don't buy that, nor is that how Luther spoke in the tower experience.
I was summarizing Posset's view, so your argument is with him. If this were reversed and I was in Nick shoes, this is what I would do:
1. Order the book in question.
2. Get the book in question.
3. Read the argumentation.
4. Comment meaningfully on the topic in question.
let him trust in the One who changes the sinner into a just man, and, judged righteous in terms of faith alone, he will have peace with God
ReplyDeleteI think Posset indeed is on to something in regard to Luther's high view of Bernard, and Luther's reading Bernanrd in the context of 16th century works righteousness.
What I find ironic is that Romanism will often take the most sparse ambiguous comment from an ECF and say it teaches Romanism. If any non-Romanist looks for threads of similarity from church history, that's taking things out of context.
James,
ReplyDeleteI'm not asking you to do my work for me or "spoon feed" me - all I'm saying is that whoever is making an argument should also be sufficiently supporting that argument. Otherwise, it's not an argument but an ipse dixit.
Thus, if I make a post on my blog saying "Luther believed X," and you ask for proof, it's not an argument on my end to respond by saying, "Go buy this book that says X and read it." Rather, the burden (not just of proof, but decency) would be on me to present adequate proof, not just an ambiguous reference or quote.
If I'm saying the proof you're presenting for your argument is insufficient, it's not a failure on my end of not reading the book. If the proof you're presenting is sufficient, then I would be in error for not accepting it, whether I read the book or not.
The following mock dialogue is a good example of what I'm getting at:
Protestant: "Paul says man is justified by faith in Romans 3:28, thus Luther was simply quoting Paul when it came to Sola Fide."
Catholic: "Paul doesn't say anything objectionable to Catholic soteriology in Romans 3:28, so there is nothing uniquely Sola Fide about it."
Protestant: "Well, you just haven't read enough of Paul, read all of Romans."
Do you see the fallacy in that approach? I know Jamin Hubner would.
To carry this over into the quote Mr King provided, let's examine the part of the quote he highlighted:
"let him trust in the One who changes the sinner into a just man, and, judged righteous in terms of faith alone"
What does Bernard mean by "changes the sinner into a just man"? That's the catch. It can very easily be taken in the sense of "infused grace," which would make it a heterodox understanding of justification for Protestants, even if he uses the term "faith alone". Lacking any explanation that Bernard has in mind Christ's Active/Passive] Obedience makes the appeal to this quote dubious. Further, it's not sufficiently clear what he means by "faith alone" - for example, was he excluding Baptism?
See how all I'm doing is analyzing the evidence presented FOR the thesis. If that evidence is inconclusive, then the thesis is unsupported.