Olyott v Luther, Part Two
Luther wrote:
I opposed indulgences and all papists, but never by force. I simply taught, preached, wrote God’s Word: otherwise I did nothing. And then, while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my Philip of Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that never a prince or emperor did such damage to it. I did nothing: the Word did it all. Had I wanted to start trouble… I could have started such a little game at Worms that even the emperor wouldn’t have been safe. But what would it have been? A mug’s game. I did nothing: I left it to the Word.
Olyott says he should have written:
I opposed indulgences and all papists, but never by force. I simply taught, preached, wrote God’s Word: otherwise I did nothing. And then, while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my Philip of Amsdorf, God, working with his Word so greatly weakened the papacy that never a prince or emperor did such damage to it. I did nothing: God did it all. Had I wanted to start trouble… I could have started such a little game at Worms that even the emperor wouldn’t have been safe. But what would it have been? A mug’s game. I did nothing: I left it to the Lord, having pleaded with him to accompany his Word.
(Banner of Truth magazine, December 2009)
13 comments:
Mr Olyott says "I did nothing: the Word did it all," should actually be "I did nothing: God did it all."
I believe that he is quite right.
Mr Olyott says that Luther should have written "God, working with his Word so greatly weakened the papacy...."
Hmmm. I would have said "God, working through his Word ...."
Is there a difference?
Or am I a heretic? :-)
Or is Mr Olyott wrong? :-0
On a related matter, I have often been concerned to hear Christians speak about "prayer achieving great things" and "the power of prayer" - whereas I believe that it is God that achieves things, and that when our prayers receive amazing answers, it is not because of the power of prayer, but because of the power of God.
Jo,
You should provide the sources because the NATURAL MEANING of the quote Olyott gives is as Olyott interprets it. If your knowledge of Luther suggests that he means something else, and really uses language very badly indeed, it's up to you to prove it.
Your gratuitous insult of Olyott's theological knowledge is offensive. Be as arrogant as you like on your own blog, but on my blog, leave the arrogance to me - OK?
Third, are you really confusing the flesh-Word with the written word? The Word became flesh; the second person of the Trinity did not become Scripture, and Scripture did not become Man.
Jon:
1. Of course there's a natural reading of the text. When your employer gives you a contract promising you 50K, and pays you 30K, you'll discover that.
2. I haven't suggested anywhere that Olyott is right just because he's Olyott, and I defy you to find such a place.
3. I'm well aware of your third point and don't deny that anywhere either.
4. Nor have I ever insulted Luther's theological knowledge. I believe him to be wrong in some places, but not because he lacks theology. Lots of folks don't lack theological knowledge but are still wrong. Everybody is wrong somewhere.
5. Arrogance isn't the only charge I could bring against you; it's merely the one I brought against you.
6.I've deleted your entries; by all means come back when you're prepared to speak with respect of those who differ and whose service to God over many years should give you pause for thought - not uncritical acceptance, but just a little humility.
Here's another post for you to delete:
http://www.orlutheran.com/html/mlsejo1.html
This is a sermon Martin Luther preaches on John 1 - the section of most interest is the section on Jesus Titles and Attributes in which he declares: Jesus is the Word
I'll try and respond to it tomorrow, Jon; it can stay there until then. Provided it behaves itself!
Jon - a long time replying, for which I apologise. Thanks for the link to Luther - always interesting. But I'm afraid you're missing the point (you, not him).
I don't doubt that Luther believed 'Jesus is the Word.' He's in good company - so did the apostle John. (And of course Luther knew that, since it's John he's preaching on in the link you give.)
The issues is: (i) does 'the Word' always refer to Jesus? More precisely, (ii) does Luther always mean Jesus when he says 'the Word'? And more precisely still: (iii) does Luther mean Jesus in the quote 'the Word did it all'?
I take it that we're (probably) agreed that the answer to (i) would be 'no' - even if we restrict ourselves to 'in biblical/theological writings'? If we're not agreed on that, I can defend it.
As for (ii) - well, you're the Luther scholar, not I. But I suspect the answer is still 'no' - but if I'm wrong, just show me.
The real issues is what does Luther mean in (iii)?
A couple of preliminaires:
A. I've read that quote often in a variety of places, but never in Luther, so I'm not aware of the context. Are you?
B. Though I've read the quote often, I don't think I've ever seen anybody reference it. For all I know then, the quote may be bogus, and any criticism of Luther's position based on it inevitably bogus.
That said, let's assume for the moment it's genuine. I've read the quote often (did I mention that?) and everyone who quotes it thinks Luther is talking about the Bible when he says 'the word' in this particular instance. Not everywhere he uses the phrase, but certainly here. And, within the quotation itself, taking no note of the wider context (because I don't have it) that does seem to be the most natural reading of the text. It isn't,you know, a dreadful sin to think Luther got something wrong, and say so.
Finally, for now, please note that you've focussed on the minor point of Olyott's article. He isn't saying 'Look here! I've found an error in Luther! Look! Aren't I clever? Isn't Luther thick?' Olyott's primary point is that within British evangelicalism today an error is growing that he (Olyott) sees encapsulated in that famous quote of Luther, and in the Lutheran doctrine of mediate regeneration.
And that - I say it with respect - is yet another difference between the philosopher and the preacher. The philosopher loves to argue about words and concepts. The preacher - like Luther himself - knows that words, concepts, doctrines have consequences. They can damn souls, as well as save them. So we need to get them right, as far as it lies within us.
Happy Christmas!
...and yes, I've noticed that I used 'issues' twice when it should have been 'issue'. I'm sure there's a way of editing my comment, but I haven't a clue what it is. There you go,then.
"The issues is: (i) does 'the Word' always refer to Jesus? More precisely, (ii) does Luther always mean Jesus when he says 'the Word'? And more precisely still: (iii) does Luther mean Jesus in the quote 'the Word did it all'?"
Gary - thanks for your thoughts on this.
Again, along with you, my answer to the first two points would be an emphatic "No!"
Where the nexus of the issue is, is in the precise meaning of the phrase - "The Word did it all" - To be completely clear, this is how I think Martin Luther might define the Word of God:
"The Word of God is a theological and biblical shorthand used to denote God's purposes and desires for creation and, more specifically, humanity."
Thus, God's Word to the human race would be read as God's Word to humanity - God's purposes and (importantly) revelation to the human race. This Word takes on different forms (i.e. "The Word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai..." "The Scriptures - although, incidentally, much less frequently" and, of course, "The Word made flesh - Jesus Christ".
Thus, when Luther says something like "The Word did it all" I would suggest that he is meaning something along the lines of 'all that has happened here on earth in this situation was accomplished by God - you should know this because God has purposes and desires for his people and this is what is important, not I Martin Luther."
Again, this will seem tendentious to an Evangelical (cap E) audience simply because they read "the Word" as the Scriptures and therefore differentiate between God's Word (God's purposes for humanity enfleshed in the person of Jesus Christ - what a claim!) and Scriptures - for Luther, this distinction doesn't make sense because both the Scripture and Jesus Christ are tied up within the 'Word of God' - both are linked back to the purposes and desires of God the Father.
I hope that is clear - again, I could be wrong but this seems to make sense to me on my reading of Luther (and the biblical text primarily) and also the way that the idea of the Word of God is used in subsequent theology AFTER Luther.
I apologise if I have seemed precocious in my criticism of Olyott - I reiterate, he is someone who has influenced me immensely. However, as I said before, I raised my concerns because suggesting that the Word is in some sense differentiated from the Trinity, is unbiblical and problematic. I don't think Luther intends to be read that way and I know Olyott doesn't. Therefore, by defending Luther, I am attempting to defend Olyott too.
I hope that this is clear - I don't try to be philosophical - sometimes, however, semantic clarity is, unfortunately, required.
All best
That's fine, Jon - I have very little problem with anything you say here. And certainly if you're right what Luther meant, then Luther was right.
The semantic range of 'word' and 'word of God' is fascinating in its own right, isn't it? 'By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth' seems to have a PRIMARY reference to the repeated 'And God said let there be...' in Genesis 1. But who, with the NT in their hand, can fail to see in it a reference to Christ the Word and God the Holy Spirit ('breath')? And, believing in the inspiration of Scripture, then undoubtedly the double meaning is deliberate.
And when we come into Acts, I doubt very much if Luke's use of 'word' in - say - chapters 6 and 8 (for example, 'so the word of God spread' 6:7) has a primary reference either to the Bible or to the Lord Jesus; I think there it just means 'the gospel message'.
And so a simpler defence of Luther would be 'when he says 'the word did it all' he means 'the gospel did it all'.' Then Olyott's criticism would still be right-in-theory (since the gospel does nothing without the Spirit) but it would also be nit-picking (since we don't have to say everything every time we say something). Incidentally, DO you know where the quote is from? Or have all of Luther on a searchable cd-rom? It would be good to see the quote in context.
Happy Christmas to you and yours; tell your Mum and Dad our card's on its way - but probably in the New Year. Not that we're behind or anything, but we've still got some of last year's cards waiting to be sent...
Post a Comment