On the Reformation Debate between Jacopo Sadoleto and John Calvin

In 1539, Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto, bishop of Carpentras and a Jesuit priest, wrote a letter to the Genevese to urge them to return to the Catholic faith. At that time, John Calvin had been exiled from Geneva, and was then a minister at Strasbourg. The city council of Geneva consulted Calvin regarding Sadoleto’s letter, and Calvin agreed to give a reply. Calvin’s reply strongly defended the viewpoint of the Reformed movement. Both Sadoleto and Calvin were highly educated, and their letters are very valuable for understanding the theological debate at the times of Reformation. This debate was very academic, and apparently did not arouse a public discussion. However, it is undoubtedly an invaluable one because the discussion touched the very essence of the Reformation movement. It touched on various doctrines, but ultimately, the key difference is about the ultimate authority, whether it is the Word of God, or the rich ecclesiastical tradition of the Church.

Sadoleto was a very learned man. In his letter, he first pointed out the doctrines that both the Catholics and the Protestants agreed before discussing the differences. Examples including truth shining in darkness, its perspicuity both to the learned and the unlearned, doctrines’ foundation on humility and obedience towards God,[1] Christ’s work on Earth and His example being our role model,[2] His resurrection, His divine nature, His great work of redemption, salvation through Christ,[3] the significance of piety toward God, and the work of the Holy Spirit.[4] Sadoleto said he also agreed on “justification through faith alone,”[5] but it is definitely one of the biggest discrepancies between Catholic and Reformed teachings. Reformers did not initially sought for schism from the Church but to purify the Church in terms of doctrines, spiritual atmosphere, sacraments, and church polity. However, the differences between the Catholics and the Protestants were, and are, so big that the “unity” which Sadoleto begged for was not a true unity. As Calvin stated in his reply, true unity is not the tranquility inside the church without resolving great disputes and controversies.[6] Sadoleto did not use strong words in his letter. However, Calvin accused Sadoleto in his reply Sadoleto’s craft,[7] twisting of words, defaming the Reformers,[8] maintaining the wrong doctrines while knowing they were wrong,[9] and many other faults. Calvin pointed out the essential differences, and defended the Reformed teachings.

Sadoleto first accused the Protestants of “boasting” of some “hidden interpretation of the Scriptures,”[10] and indulging in certain “dialectics and vain philosophies.”[11] Although he rightly pointed out that it was imperative to approach the Scriptures with humility,[12] he later stressed on the role of Church in instructing the Christians “what to think, what to believe, wherein to place our hope,” and how to live a pious life that leads them to heaven.[13] The Church was also guided by the Spirit of Christ,[14] and hence all Christians should maintain her laws and precepts.[15] This is basically affirming the authority of the Catholic Church to interpret the Scriptures, the Word of God. Not surprisingly, Calvin strongly opposed to this teaching. He inveighed against the corruption of the Church, and the greed and avarice of the ecclesiastical staff.[16] He pointed out other problems of the Church, which I will list later. On the other hand, he asserted the ultimate authority of the Word in various places. While it was important that the Church should have been guided by the Holy Spirit, but the Word should be used to examine the guidance.[17] The Church should have built her foundations on the prophets and the apostles,[18] (Eph. 2:20) not on Peter,[19] who also taught that “people are regenerated by that incorruptible seed,”[20] (1 Pet. 1:23) which is clearly the Word of God according to the context in the quoted verses. He also quoted Apostle Paul that the only sword he possessed was the Word of the Lord.[21] (Eph. 6:17) He asserted that whenever the prophets foretold the renewal of the church, they referred to the Word of God, by citing Isa. 2:3.[22] He pointed out the danger of extravagantly boasting the work of the Holy Spirit by “burying” the Word of God, as it made room for the falsehood of the Church.[23] Calvin also asserted through the person in front of the Eternal Judge that “all controversies should be decided by Thy Word.”[24] In various places, Calvin hailed the ultimate authority of the Word of God, rebuking Sadoleto’s attempt to resort the controversies to the laws and precepts of the Church. He even teased Sadoleto that it was the Catholic Church who preyed upon the pious souls with “vain philosophies,” (Col. 2:8) not the Reformers, when discussing about the preaching sermons.[25]

Sadoleto accused the Reformers of their “pride”,[26] of teaching the “heretical doctrines” out of evil intention that they did it for wealth and ambition,[27] and of justifying themselves the liberty from ecclesiastical laws and their own lusts.[28] However, Calvin defended the Reformers strongly. He used himself as an example: “had I wished to consult my own interest, I would never have left your party.”[29] He said, if the Reformers did it for their own ambition, they would stay in the Catholic Church to rise to a prominent position.[30] As a matter of fact, the Reformers maintained that the pastors should keep the wealth that suffice their own need, and the rest should be dispensed, according to the practice of the early churches. If the Reformers did it for making money, as Calvin pointed out, it would be inexpedient for them to teach this.[31] Instead, Calvin also pointed out that many Reformers were in danger because they did not align themselves with the Catholic Church.[32] He wrote that the pastors were restricted to their own duty, not to govern the Church “with a licentious and lawless authority.”[33]

Sadoleto maintained that in order to “find a place with mercy and pardon with God,” Christians should not go beyond the “opinion and authority of the Church,” set by our ancestors, and guided by the Holy Spirit.[34] In other words, in Sadoleto’s viewpoint, the Church enjoyed the ultimate authority regarding the teachings of the Word and everyone’s salvation because of the Holy Spirit in work. The tradition of the Church was so important that it was where people found salvation. However, by upholding the Word of God, Calvin rejected the ultimate authority of the Church, even though Sadoleto claimed his teachings had been approved for 1,500 years or more.[35] Calvin asserted what he said was in more agreement with ancient church than Sadoleto.[36] Calvin affirmed the honor and rank of ancient Fathers and Councils, given the Word of God was their tool of judgement.[37]

Upholding the ultimate authority of the Word of God and playing down the authority of the church, Calvin attacked a number of Catholic practices and doctrines, and stated the corresponding Protestant positions. There are three things that the safety of the Church is founded, namely, doctrine, discipline, and the sacraments. And the Catholic Church added “ceremonies” to the list.[38] Ceremonies were used to exercise the people to piety, but Calvin complained the Catholic Church used it for her glory, and the ceremonies were vitiated by many forms of superstition,[39] defeating the purpose of piety, like Judaism.[40] What the Reformers tried to do with the sacraments was to restore their native purity, which had been abolished by the ceremonies which were superstitious in nature.[41] Catholic doctrines, as Calvin said, were so “twisted, involved, tortuous, and puzzling” that the scholastic theology itself is a “secret magic” as well.[42] He attacked the emptiness of the sermons preached all around the Western Europe that the first half was usually about the “misty questions” of the schools that scared away the rude populace, and the second half contained some “sweet stories” to keep the hearers alert.[43] He pointed out the Catholic preachers hurt the pious believers with “vain philosophies.” (Col. 2:8)

Calvin defended the Protestant position of “justification by faith alone.” Sadoleto maintained that “justification by faith,” which was “the common faith of the Church.” Sins were washed away by “expiations, penances, and satisfaction.”[44] To him, faith did “not only [include] … credulity and confidence.”[45] Calvin’s and the Reformers’ position is radically different: justification was not through works or merits, but through faith in Christ alone. If a man is convinced about his iniquities, he will humble before God and “[cast] away his self-confidence”[46] He pointed out succinctly that “the only haven of safety is in the mercy of God, as manifested in Christ, in whom every part of our salvation is complete.”[47] He summarized the hopelessness of all humankind as lost sinners and Christ being their only righteousness: “by His obedience, He has wiped off our transgressions; by His sacrifice, appeased the divine anger; by His blood, washed away our sins; by His cross, borne our curse; and by His death, made satisfaction for us.”[48] Men are reconciled with God not by merits or works, but by “gratuitous mercy.”[49] Calvin quoted Rom. 4:7 and 2 Cor. 5:19 to further defend the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

In response to the Protestants’ doctrine of justification by faith alone, Catholic theologians accused the Protestants of “[taking] away the desire of well-doing from the Christian life by recommending gratuitous righteousness.”[50] Facing this, Calvin further argued for the doctrine by stating the inseparability of faith and work. Quoting 1 Cor. 1:30, he argued that Christ has been given to us for justification and for sanctification, and wherever there is Christ, there is the Holy Spirit, who regenerates the soul to newness of life.[51] In other words, “Christ regenerates to a blessed life those whom He justifies, and after rescuing them from the dominion of sin, hands them over to the dominion of righteousness, transforms them into the image of God, and so trains them by His Spirit into obedience to His will.”[52] Therefore, responding to Catholics and Sadoleto’s complaints, by this doctrine of justification, “lust is left with loosened reins.”[53] He cited Eph. 1:4 that Christians are elected in Christ before the creation to be holy. In 1 Thess. 4:7, Christians have not been called to impurity but to holiness.[54] These verses are more enough to prove the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which involves regeneration, sanctification, and adoption. The ignorance of this doctrine would lead to the washings of sins by penances and satisfactions, nullifying the utility of the blood of Christ regarding the redemption of man’s sins.[55] Nevertheless, Calvin agreed with Sadoleto that “love is the first and chief cause of our salvation.”[56]

Calvin also defended Reformers’ position of the Eucharist. The Catholics attacked the Protestants for “attempting to confine the Lord of the universe… within the corners of a corporeal nature with its circumscribed boundaries.”[57] Calvin pointed out that Reformers’ position was that the divine power of Christ and His essence is “diffused over all, and defined by no limits.”[58] He insightfully responded that there is a great difference between removing local presence of Christ’s body and restricting His spiritual power within bodily limits. Calvin taught that in the Lord’s Supper, flesh is truly meat and blood is truly drink, but the presence of Christ are not excluded from the Supper. He asserted that there is no transubstantiation, and the bread is not to be worshipped as Christ.[59] He condemned Catholic transubstantiation position of the Eucharist that led to superstition. He referred Sadoleto to Augustine’s Epistle to Dardanus for further elaboration.

Calvin also condemned the Catholic teaching about auricular confession: the law of Innocent, which enjoins every man to pass all his sins in review before his priest annually.[60] He argued that such law has no scriptural proof. While there is an apparent humility, he cited the Apostle Paul’s teaching that “humility only is genuine which is framed in conformity to the Word of God.”[61] (Col. 2:18)

Regarding the intercession of the saints, Calvin urged Sadoleto and other Catholics to neglect this teaching, because superstition had risen from this doctrine that “the intercession of Christ was utterly erased from men’s thoughts, saints were invoked as gods…”[62] leading to the sins of idolatry.[63]

Regarding the teaching of purgatory, Calvin pointed out although ancient churches did mention the dead in their prayers, it was obvious that nothing more is about the passion of the living people felt towards the dead. It is the problem of the Catholic Church that enlarged this to a money-making business that wealth was accumulated by church’s prayer for the dead people.[64]

After disputing all Sadoleto’s accusation and defending the Reformers’ position, Calvin developed his Reformed position to the next step by further denying the ultimate authority of the Church. He accused Sadoleto and the Catholic Church of “overthrowing the ministry.”[65] The Catholic Church was well known to be corrupted in the way that the ecclesiastical staff were “active only in robbing and devouring.”[66] The Lord’s Supper lost its meaning in the mass; the worship of images as a sin of idolatry was prevalent; the sacraments were ruined by weird notions and doctrines; the abusive use of indulgences dishonored the cross of Christ; Christian liberty was crushed by man-made ecclesiastical traditions. With all these listed transgressions, Calvin asserted that the ancient Church was clearly on the Reformers’ side.[67] The Reformers did not initially sought for a revolution, but a reform within the Church. However, the adverse situation within the Catholic Church made them believe that a schism was indeed a necessity. He called the Roman Pontiff “ravening wolves.”[68] Even worse, he semi-directly called the pope the Antichrist, by citing 2 Thess. 2:4 that “the Antichrist would have his seat in no other place than in the midst of God’s sanctuary.”[69] Speaking of the pride and sins of the Catholic Church, he quoted Matt. 14:6: “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.”

According to the Reformers, Calvin yielded respect and honor to the Church, in subordination to Christ the Church’s head, not the pope in Rome.[70] He proclaimed that the Reformed Christians submit to the authority of the Word of God, not the traditions of the Catholic Church.[71] The Church served at the pleasure of the establishment, but a good Christian should “deliver the oracles which they have received at the mouth of the Lord.”[72] In his reply to Sadoleto’s letter to the Genevans, Calvin tore down and condemned the ultimate authority of the Church.

Finally, Calvin discussed about the pastoral office. He agreed with Sadoleto that the pastors should be heard like Christ himself,[73] but he had to perform his own duties as instructed by the Scriptures, according to 1 Thess. 5:21 and 1 John 4:1.[74] They were not to abusively execute their power to govern for their own pleasures.[75] And the pastor holding the office of the teacher should be judged by the congregation, (1 Cor. 14:29) not to let the congregations blindly submit to them.[76] Ultimately, it is not the Church to instruct the believers, but “God alone who enlighten our minds to perceive His truth, who by His Spirit seals it on our hearts, and by His sure attestation to it confirms our conscience.”[77]

At the end of Sadoleto’s letter, he hypothesized two men in front of the dread tribunal of the sovereign Judge, stating whether they believed in Christ (which both would say yes), and what they believed.[78] The man in the Catholic faith said he obeyed the laws and precepts taught by his ancestors.[79] On the other hand, the man in the Protestant faith asserted the Church is “everywhere corrupt,” and he believed he was justified by faith alone, contrary to what the Church proclaimed, because he understood the Scriptures more than the ancient people did.[80] In Calvin’s reply, he “rewrote” the words said by the Protestant man, defending himself against the charges of the Catholics, and upholding the authority of the Word alone, echoing the slogan sola scriptura.[81]

The two letters of Sadoleto and Calvin highlighted the main controversies regarding the doctrines of the Reformation debate. Conclusively speaking, the Catholics maintained the ultimate authority of ecclesiastical tradition that stemmed from antiquity, and the unity of the Church was of utmost importance; the Reformers upheld the ultimate authority of the Word of God, i.e., the Scriptures, and denied the ultimate authority of the ecclesiastical tradition, even though they maintained that the pastors should still be heard like Christ himself, but they were judged by the congregations, with the Word of God as the golden rule. Although the Reformers did not initially intend for the division of the Church, but the corruption of the Church was so severe that they thought a schism was a necessity. Indeed, as they saw it, it was the only way to restore the native purity of the Early Churches.

[1] John C. Olin ed., A Reformation Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1966), 32.

[2] Ibid., 33.

[3] Ibid., 34.

[4] Ibid., 35.

[5] Ibid., 36.

[6] Ibid., 93.

[7] Ibid., 50.

[8] Ibid., 51.

[9] Ibid., 64.

[10] Ibid., 31.

[11] Ibid., 41.

[12] Ibid., 32.

[13] Ibid., 37.

[14] Ibid., 37, 41.

[15] Ibid., 37.

[16] Ibid., 56.

[17] Ibid., 60.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid., 77.

[20] Ibid., 60.

[21] Ibid., 78.

[22] Ibid., 60-61.

[23] Ibid., 61.

[24] Ibid., 86.

[25] Ibid., 65.

[26] Ibid., 38.

[27] Ibid., 54.

[28] Ibid., 41-42.

[29] Ibid., 54.

[30] Ibid., 56.

[31] Ibid., 56.

[32] Ibid., 80.

[33] Ibid., 76.

[34] Ibid., 37.

[35] Ibid., 62.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid., 92.

[38] Ibid., 63.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid., 64.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid., 64-65.

[43] Ibid., 65.

[44] Ibid., 37.

[45] Ibid., 36.

[46] Ibid., 66.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid., 66-67.

[49] Ibid., 67.

[50] Ibid., 68.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Ibid., 68-69.

[54] Ibid., 69.

[55] Ibid., 69-70.

[56] Ibid., 69.

[57] Ibid., 70.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Ibid., 71.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Ibid., 72.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Ibid., 73.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Ibid., 74.

[66] Ibid.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid., 75.

[69] Ibid., 76.

[70] Ibid., 75.

[71] Ibid.

[72] Ibid., 77.

[73] Ibid., 77.

[74] Ibid., 76.

[75] Ibid., 77.

[76] Ibid.

[77] Ibid., 79.

[78] Ibid., 42.

[79] Ibid., 43.

[80] Ibid., 44-45.

[81] Ibid., 82-90.

Continue reading “On the Reformation Debate between Jacopo Sadoleto and John Calvin”

Excerpts of John Calvin’s “Responsio ad Saboletum”

In 1539, Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto, a Jesuit monk and the Bishop of Carpentras, France, wrote a letter to the Genevese, urging them to return to the Catholic faith. The city council of Geneva asked John Calvin, who had been exiled from Geneva and was then a minister at Strasbourg, to write a reply, known as Responsio ad Saboletum. This highly academic and polished reply contains a lot of treasures. Here is just some essential excerpts.

On the gospel according to Calvin,

“… a man… when sufficiently convinced of his iniquity, to reflect on the strictness of the sentence pronounced upon all sinners. Thus confounded and amazed by his misery, he is prostrated and humbled before God; and, casting away all self-confidence, groans as if given up to perdition… the only haven of safety is in the mercy of God, as manifested in Christ, in whom every part of our salvation is complete. As all mankind are, in the sight of God, lost sinners, we hold that Christ is their only righteousness, since, by His obedience, He has wiped off our transgressions; by His sacrifice, appeased the divine anger; by His blood, washed away our sins; by His cross, borne our curse; and by His death, made satisfaction for us… in this way man is reconciled in Christ to God the Father, by no merit of his own, by no value of works, but by gratuitous mercy. When we embrace Christ by faith, and come, as it were, into communion with Him, this we term… the righteousness of faith.” (pages 66-67)

Continue reading “Excerpts of John Calvin’s “Responsio ad Saboletum””

Reviewing Martin Luther’s “On Christian Liberty”

In October 31, 1517, Martin Luther pinned his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg, Germany, sparking widespread public reaction in Germany, which eventually led to the permanent schism in the church. However, a split from church was not really what Luther wanted. What he intended was a theological correction of the church. In 1520, suggested by his colleagues, Luther wrote a conciliatory letter to Pope Leo X, which clearly stated that Luther had not been attacking the pope in person,[1] but making an effort to bring the church back to the gospel. Accompanied by this letter Luther included this book, titled On Christian Liberty, arguing for justification by faith alone, not by works or merits. The ideas conveyed in this book are the fundamental doctrines throughout the Reformations, agreed by most of the mainline evangelical Protestant denominations nowadays.

The central idea of On Christian Liberty can be summarized by the following statements: “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a dutiful servant of all, subject to all.”[2] The first sentence is about the liberty of Christians, while the second is about the service of Christians. These two theses seemingly contradict with each other, but Luther excellently argued for them with biblical verses throughout the whole book. As the arguments go, Luther showed that the first sentence is about that the justification of a Christian is irrelevant to his merits and works, but solely dependent on his faith. A Christian is free, i.e., “lord[ing] over sin, death, and hell.”[3] However, out of this liberty, a Christian “serves, ministers to, and benefits all men,”[4] as a perfect servant of all people, including Christians and non-Christians.[5]

Luther recognized the two-fold nature of man, namely, a spiritual one and a bodily (fleshly) one.[6] Together with interactions among men, Luther divided the book into three parts: the first concerns the spiritual, or the inner, part of man; the second the bodily, or the outer, part of man; and the third, loving neighbors.

First, Luther discussed about the spiritual nature of man, which is the new, and inner part of man. He argued that “no external thing has any influence in producing Christian righteousness or freedom, or in producing unrighteousness or servitude.”[7] What a body eats, drinks, and does have nothing to do with his soul. It is not uncommon that some very bad people prosper, and that some very godly men suffer from hunger or even imprisonment. What makes one righteous or free is very different from merits or works, in spite of what the Catholic Church had been preaching.[8] How did Luther come up with this idea? He referred to the Scriptures, the Word of God. Before arguing for this idea, he established his arguments by proving the supreme authority of the Word of God. He cited Matt. 4:4, where Christ quoted the Old Testament, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” And in John 11:25, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live…” Luther recognized the power of the Word of God, that incarnates to dwell among the peoples. He identified it as the one and the only one thing necessary for Christian life, righteousness, and freedom.[9] This is sola scriptura, one of the five sola’s in this Reformation movement. This is the logical foundation for the doctrine of justification through faith alone.

Then Luther asserted that “faith alone is the saving and efficacious use of the Word of God.”[10] He cited Apostle Paul in Rom. 10:9, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” and Rom 1:17, “He who through faith is righteousness shall live.” (taken from the English translation of the book) And he quoted Rom. 10:4 as well. By these verses, Luther confidently affirmed that through faith alone one is saved. And the work done by man cannot save him, as in Rom. 3:23, Apostle Paul said, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” and in Rom. 3:10, “none is righteous; no, not one.” All things in man are damnable, and man cannot be saved through all these outer things. Citing Rom. 10:10, Luther elaborated his point that “since faith alone justifies, it is clear that the inner man cannot be justified, freed, or saved by any outer work or action at all, and that all these works, whatever their character, have nothing to do with this inner man.”[11] Therefore, the first concern of all Christians should be to “lay aside all confidence in works,” and “strengthen their faith alone,” and “through faith to grow in knowledge”[12] of Jesus Christ, who suffered and rose for Christians. Luther did not forget to add that Christ also preached faith,[13] as in Mark 16:16, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Luther also quoted many other verses to argue for the sole dependence and relevance of faith to the salvation of man. It is evident that the teaching of faith is so often reiterated and emphasized in the Scriptures that there should be no doubt about it.

Luther understood people’s possible criticisms that Luther condemned works in spite of the fact that the Scriptures contain many laws that demand people to do something. Luther pointed out that the Scriptures consist of two parts: commandments and promises.[14] He wrote, “the commandments show us what we ought to do but do not give us the power to do it,” but “through them he may recognize his inability to do good and may despair of his own inability.”[15] However, the promises given in the Scriptures provide hopes for those who have faith. As in Rom. 11:32, Apostle Paul wrote, “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” Luther elaborated, “the promises of God give what the commandments of God demand and fulfill what the law prescribes… He alone commands; he alone fulfills.”[16] In a nutshell, through faith alone the soul are justified by the Word of God, and the soul are sanctified and filled with blessings, as in John 1:12, “but to all who… believed in his name, he gave power to become the children of God.”[17] Therefore, while faith does not induce idleness or wickedness, it makes law and works unnecessary for one’s righteousness and salvation.[18]

There are many benefits of faith. First, it honors God.[19] Second, God “does us great honor of considering us truthful and righteous for the sake of our faith.”[20] Third, “it unites the soul with Christ, as a bride is united with her bridegroom,”[21] as Apostle Paul taught in Eph. 5:31-32. This marriage has great power, that Christ’s possessions are also the faithful man, for example, His righteousness.[22] Moreover, “by the wedding ring of faith he shares in the sins, death, and pains of health which are the bride’s… He makes them his own and acts as if… he himself had sinned; he suffered, died, and descended into the hell that he might overcome them all.”[23] In this process, He washed away the sins of the bride. The bride, through Christ, lord over death, as Luther quoted Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 15:57, “thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”[24] We also shared the birthright with Christ.[25] This birthright involves a twofold honor: priesthood and kingship.[26] Apostle Peter wrote in 1 Pet. 2:9, “you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Our priesthood enables us to be “worthy to appear before God to pray for others and to teach one another divine things.”[27] This resonates what Heb. 10:18 and 22 teaches. Our kingship makes us to be a “steward of God’s mysteries,”[28] as 1 Cor. 4:1 teaches. Based on these biblical teachings, Luther criticized the teachings of the Catholic Church that only certain “ecclesiastics” could act as priests, contradicting biblical teachings.[29] On the other hand, the stewardship had evolved to be a great “tyranny” in Luther’s times[30] because the Catholic Church gripped the interpreting authority of the Scriptures.

After discussing the spiritual part of man and faith, Luther moved on to the bodily part of man and the sheer irrelevance of works to salvation. Luther pointed out the reality that as long as we live in the flesh, we are far from being perfect, and we have to keep perfecting ourselves for future life.[31] One must control and discipline his own body. Although by faith man is saved, one “cannot be idle, for the need of his body drives him,”[32] and he must do good works to reduce the drive. However, all these good works does not justify him before God, but he does it out of his love towards God. In other words, these good works are done because of man’s sinful nature, and are not done out of obligation but a free choice because he loves God.

These works are meaningless if a man is not a Christian and a believer. Luther explained with an analogy that a bishop performs his duties because he is a bishop, not that he was made a bishop because he performed these duties.[33] “Good works do not make a good man, but a good man does good work; evil works do not make a wicked man, but a wicked man does evil works.”[34] A Christian does not need works to be justified because he is saved through faith alone. He is free from works and laws, but he does works and obeys laws “out of pure liberty.”[35]

To many people, a person looks good or evil by what he has done, as Christ said in Matt.7:20, “you will recognize them by its fruits.” But the outward appearance can be “deceiving.”[36] Luther suggested we look beyond works about how one is justified, and reminded that we are justified by the Word of God.[37] Luther was not afraid to be annoying to repeatedly reiterate the teaching of justification by faith alone, calling the justification by works a blasphemy, rendering Christ’s works to be pointless.[38]

In spite of the irrelevance of works to the justification, Luther did not reject good works, but suggested they should be taught as much as possible.[39] But because man tends to seek justification through works because of our sinful nature, or Luther said, “[the] perverse notion of works is unconquerable,”[40] both works and God’s grace must be preached at the same time. For example, John the Baptist yelled at the same time “repent!” and “the Kingdom of God is at hand.” He preached not only works, but also His mercy and grace. Luther wrote, “we are to bring forth out of our new treasure things new and old, the voice of law as well as the word of grace.”[41] (Matt. 13:52) Therefore, while preaching works as much as possible, “we must also preach the word of grace and the promise of forgiveness by which faith is taught and aroused.”[42] Repentance is from the law of God, but grace and forgiveness come from the promises in His Word.

The third part of the book concerns loving the neighbors. After extensively discussing about faith and works, Luther moved on to the teaching that a Christian does not live for himself in his mortal body, but for others.[43] Even the Apostle Paul wrote this after discussing this central part of Christian teachings in the first part of his Epistles to the Romans, “For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.” (Rom. 14:7-8) A Christian lives for others freely, with liberty. In everything he does, he should be guided by the thought that he serves and benefits others, i.e., for the welfare and advantages of others instead of his own self-interests.[44] Unlike the “ecclesiastics” who received wages from church, Luther quoted Apostle Paul’s epistles that everyone should work on their own so that they have enough to fund the needy.[45] “… let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.” (Eph. 4:28) A Christian does all these to his neighbors because of his love towards them. The stronger serves the weaker, bearing each other’s burdens, fulfilling the law of Christ. (Gal. 6:2) Apostle Paul wrote, “faith working through love.” (Gal. 5:6)

This is following Christ’s example of humility. As Apostle Paul wrote in Phil. 2:5-8, Christ has the form of God, He does not need works and sufferings to make himself righteous and saved,[46] but He takes the form of a servant to serve the needy and the neighbors.[47] Luther also noted that these neighbors include both Christians and non-Christians: “He does not distinguish friends and enemies or anticipate thankfulness or unthankfulness…”[48] and he also quoted Matt. 5:45: “He makes His sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rains on the just and on the unjust.” If we recognize the great and the precious things which are given us, our hearts will be filled with the Holy Spirit.[49] An ignorance of these gifts makes Christ be born in vain. By this token, all Christians ought to serve the others not out of the needs for salvation, but out of liberty and love.

In this book, Luther went over the fundamental teaching about the riches and glory of the Christian life. “It can do all things and has all things and lacks nothing. It is lord over sin, death, and hell, and yet at the same time it serves, ministers to, and benefit all men.”[50] This statement resonates with the central theme introduced by Luther at the beginning of this book, i.e., we lord over all things, but we are also subject to all things. By faith alone we are justified, and we are free to make decisions, not bound by the traditions. Luther raised the example of Timothy and Titus. Timothy was circumcised by the Apostle Paul for the sake of the gospels, but Titus was not circumcised because of the possible messages conveyed to those who were weak in faith. In this example, Christians have the liberty to decide whether to carry out circumcision.[51] Another example is about tax money, that Christ said not to give offense to the authority, and to give the tribute.[52] Apostle Paul gave a similar teaching in Rom. 13:1-7. Even the works encouraged by the church a Christian is free to do, but Luther advised the readers “to be careful not to do it in order to obtain some benefit, whether temporal or eternal, for you would do injury for your faith…”[53]

Luther then concluded this part and also the whole book that “[a Christian] lives in Christ through faith, in his neighbor through love. By faith he is caught up beyond himself into God. By love he descends himself into his neighbors.”[54]

However, Luther was not done. He disputed some possible misunderstandings or criticisms stemming out from the teachings in this book. There are two erroneous extremes, one being the abuse of this Christian liberty that all things that satisfy their fleshly desires are allowed, while the other being relying on their salvation solely on their reverent observance of ceremonies.[55] Both extremes are in error, and Luther quoted Apostle Paul who had attacked this kind of erroneous teachings back in the Apostle’s Age in Rom. 14:3, “Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.” However, Luther pointed out that pastors played an important role in guarding the faith of their congregations.[56]

This book written by Luther is so important that it is the cornerstone of Protestantism. In his times, the proclamation of the doctrine of justification by faith alone posed a great challenge to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that justification through merits. His emphasis of God’s mercy and grace makes the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, as it is human inability to achieve salvation is the total point of all Christ’s works. He argued all these based on the sole authority of the Scriptures, while in Catholic Church, ecclesiastical traditions played an important role in interpreting the Scriptures. He hailed the Scriptures as the sole authority of all Christian teachings, where all his teachings of faith, works, and loving neighbors were based on what the Scriptures teach. This book and the Reformations brought back the gospel that had been masked by the complex scholastic doctrines in the Middle Ages. The authority of Scripture and Luther’s doctrine of justification are (or, should be) still upheld by evangelical churches nowadays.

From his letter to Pope Leo X, Luther wanted to avoid a split of the church. Clearly, this was a failed attempt as we know from history, but the mere incompatibility between Luther’s teaching and Catholic teaching made a reconciliation very difficult. Of course, it is beyond Luther’s control as the complex political climate of Holy Roman Empire allowed Lutheran Reformation to survive and thrive, unlike previous attempts like Hussites and Waldensians. Reformations happened because of divine providence.

Luther discussed about faith and works in the context of the prevalence of theological teachings that salvation was based on merits. The teaching of Christian liberty freed the fellow Christians from works and merits, or the financial burdens in purchasing indulgences. As the Western societies have become more individualistic, embracing Christian liberty could be misunderstood as freely pursuing lusts and self-centered desires. A reaction of this is the stringent life styles from erroneous organized religious teachings, either it is from Christian heresies or even another religion. While Luther did dispute these two extremes, theologians ought to communicate Luther’s teaching and biblical teaching in a way that speaks to the peoples of this age.


[1] Martin Luther, On Christian Liberty, trans. W. A. Lambert, rev. Harold J. Grimm (Minneapolis, MI: Fortress Press, 2003), 75-76.

[2] Ibid., 2.

[3] Ibid., 54.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 53.

[6] Ibid., 3.

[7] Ibid., 4.

[8] Ibid., 5.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid., 7.

[11] Ibid., 9.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., 10.

[14] Ibid., 11.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., 13.

[17] Ibid., 14. English translation in the book.

[18] Ibid., 15.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid., 17.

[21] Ibid., 18.

[22] Ibid., 19.

[23] Ibid., 20.

[24] Ibid., 21.

[25] Ibid., 25.

[26] Ibid., 23.

[27] Ibid., 27.

[28] Ibid., 30.

[29] Ibid., 29.

[30] Ibid., 30.

[31] Ibid., 33.

[32] Ibid., 36.

[33] Ibid., 38-39.

[34] Ibid., 39.

[35] Ibid., 41.

[36] Ibid., 42.

[37] Ibid., 43.

[38] Ibid., 44.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid., 45.

[41] Ibid., 45-46.

[42] Ibid., 46.

[43] Ibid., 47.

[44] Ibid., 48.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid., 51.

[47] Ibid., 52.

[48] Ibid., 53.

[49] Ibid., 54.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Ibid., 56.

[52] Ibid., 57.

[53] Ibid., 61.

[54] Ibid., 62.

[55] Ibid., 61-62.

[56] Ibid., 67-70.

Continue reading “Reviewing Martin Luther’s “On Christian Liberty””

Thomas Aquinas on Original Sin

Thomas Aquinas was an Italian friar, a Catholic priest, and the Doctor of the Church in the 13th century. He was one of the best theologians in Western Europe in the Medieval Ages. His work titled Summa Theologiae highlighted the accomplishment of theology of the period. A lot of his teachings, especially sacraments and grace, are controversial, but on original sin, it is good. His answer to Question 82, Prima Secundæ Partis (First Part of the Second Part), Summa Theologiae, concerning the original sin, is summarized.

Question 1: Is original sin a habit?

According to Aquinas, original sin is a habit.

He explained that habit is two-fold. The first kind of habit is one’s inclination to act, like our framework of knowledge or worldview (“science”) and virtues are habits. Original sin, as a lack of original righteousness, is not a habit in this sense. The second kind is “the disposition of a complex nature.” Original sins, as the lack of original justice, means the souls have been spiritually corrupted, and being impossible not to sin. This impossibility not to sin is the disposition of the corrupted souls, and from this point of view, original sin is a habit. This answered the Objection 1 he listed.

It is true that with the definition of the first kind, evil habits have to be acquired through a wicked act. It contradicts that the original sin is not something we acquire. However, using the definition of the second kind of habit, we are inborn with evil habits because of the original sins. Aquinas thus disputed the Objection 3.

Then Aquinas discussed about the Objection 2 regarding the original sin and the actual sin. While an actual sin is an act beyond a permissible limit, the original sin is basically a disposition, passed on from Adam and Eve, to perform an actual sin. Even if one is asleep, he is regarded as being sinful, unlike what the Objection 2 claims.

Question 2: Are there several original sins in one man? How does Aquinas defend himself?

According to Aquinas, there is only one, instead of many, original sin in one man.

Aquinas cited from John 1:29, where John the Baptist said, “Behold the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” The “sin” here refers to the original sin, and it is clearly singular, not plural. Objection 1 quoted a verse in Psalm: “Behold I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me.” But these sins are actual sins like pride, disobedience etc., instead of the original sin. He thus disputed Objection 1.

Aquinas explained it with the cause and essence of it. The cause of the original sin is the first sin committed by Adam and Eve, and the sinful state was then passed on to us. Therefore, there is only one original sin. For the essence of it, the original sin refers to the disposition of a corrupted human nature. This disposition is numerically one. He illustrated with the sickness analogy: the original sin is like the cause of of the sickness, and various symptoms like the various actual sins. In this way, he disputed Objection 2, because the various sins in one man stem from one original sin; and he also replied to Objection 3, because it is this numerically one original sin infects different parts of the soul, which does not make this original sin to be plural.

Question 3: Is original sin the same thing as concupiscence?

According to Aquinas, the original sin is materially concupiscence, but formally the lack of original justice. Given that the original sin is the lack of original justice, man is no longer submitting to the will of God, but pursue the cause of things other than God, or “mutable good” according to him. This desire for other things other than God is concupiscence, or spiritual lust. This makes the original sin materially concupiscence. From the context, Aquinas’ concupiscence is not limited to inappropriate sexual desires.

Objection 1 argued that concupiscence is natural to man so that it cannot be of the original sin which is contrary to the human nature. But Aquinas stated that the act of concupiscence is beyond the permissible boundary, as in the corrupted human nature, and thus it is of the original sin.

Objection 2 argued that the sins are of a wide diversity besides concupiscence, but Aquinas added that these sins stem all from concupiscence, the pursuit of things other than God. The original sin, as the misplaced passion because of the lack of original justice, is therefore concupiscence.

Aquinas argued in a previous question (Question 77) that man is motivated by a strong passion instead of intellect. The corrupted nature of human being made man pursue inappropriate passion, even though his intellect should not have led him to. Original sin is thus concupiscence, although it comprises of ignorance. Hence, he disputed Objection 3.

Question 4: Is original sin equally in all of us?

According to Aquinas, original sin is equally in all of us.

Aquinas explained that as the original sin is simply the lack of original justice, there is no degree of it, as it is just the entire righteousness was removed. In addition, since all of our original sin is equally related to the sin of Adam and Eve, it is evident that no one’s original sin is greater than the other. This disputed Objection 1, which argued acts of concupiscence can be of various degrees, that this concupiscence is not something of continuous degree, but simply the lack of righteousness (a value of a binary variable). It similarly disputed Objection 2, because as in the sickness analogy, while the severity of the sickness is continuous, the cause of sickness is one.

Objection 3 cited Augustine’s quote: “lust transmits the original sin to the child.” And this lust, believably sexual in nature, is of various degrees, implying that the original sin is not equal in all of us. However, Aquinas disputed this objection that the original sin is transmitted to children even without lust.

Continue reading “Thomas Aquinas on Original Sin”

Five Turning Points of History of the Early Church

The history of Christianity is a continuity. Many historical events in the Early Church shaped the Christian churches today. In this blog entry, I am going to outline the five turning points in the history of Christian churches from the Apostolic Age to the times of Emperor Constantine that, in my opinion, impacted the ecumenical church the most.

I. Pentecost

The first turning point is the Pentecost after Christ’s ascension, when the Holy Spirit descended like as a “mighty rushing wind.” (Acts 2:2) The Holy Spirit started working in the church, the body of Christ, which is an assembly of Jesus’ disciples. Pentecost marked the beginning of the Christian church. While the Gentiles saw the Christian church as a cult or a sect of the Jewish faith, the Holy Spirit made the believers of Jesus Christ a distinct group. Christianity slowly evolved from a branch of Judaism to a totally separate religion. The Pentecost also started the movement of evangelism. The disciples travelled along the roads built by the Romans, converted people, and built churches in cities. Hence, the faith was not confined to the land of Palestine. Unlike Judaism, Christianity is not a racially exclusive religion. In addition to the existing Old Testament, the apostles and some early disciples wrote various books and letters that later became part of the canon of the Bible. These works were circulated among churches, and they were recognized by all or a majority of the churches. The addition of these books during the Apostolic Age also marked the distinction of Christian churches from Jewish synagogues. Some authors beyond the Apostolic Age, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna, wrote works of immense spiritual values. The Pentecost set off great academic Christian scholastics. Apostle Paul wrote great theological epistles. There were also other Christian scholars who wrote works such as dialogues with various faiths and philosophies (e.g., Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho), apologetics (e.g., Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Justin Martyr’s Apology and Second Apology, and Origen’s work against Celsus’ neo-Platonism), early works on the systematics of the Christian faith, commentaries to the Scriptures, and how Christians live. Their work interacted with their contemporary thoughts such as Platonism, Aristotelianism, Epicureaneanism, Stoicism etc., and defended the Christian faith as stated in Scripture.

II. Persecution Under Nero

The development of the church has not been without roughness. With the divine providence, Christians suffered from political persecutions. The second turning point is the persecution under Nero, the Roman Emperor from AD 54 to 68. There had been persecutions from the Jewish peoples and the Gentiles in many places since the Pentecost because of the theological differences from Christianity and pluralism respectively. On the other hand, the public were skeptical of the new religion because of rumors of Christians practicing incest and cannibalism. After the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64, Nero, believed to be responsible, targeted at Christians as the scapegoat. (Chadwick, pp.25-26) In this persecution, a lot of apostles, including Peter and Paul, were executed. This persecution occurred only in the proximity of Rome, but it started the Roman-instituted persecution within the whole Empire for the next two and a half centuries. Subsequent persecutions occurred under a few Emperors, including Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Septimus Severus, Maximinus the Thracian, Decius, Valerian etc. The persecutions were of various geographical extents and manners. Some persecution involved the execution of Christians, with means such as crucifixion and beheading; some the confiscation of church properties; some torture such as burning in oil; some the encouragement of apostasy by luring Christians to be certified by sacrificing to pagan gods. Famous martyrs included Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Blandina of Lyon etc. The persecutions strengthened the church, just as Tertullian said, “the blood [of martyrs] is the seeds of Christians.” A lot of academic works were written to defend the Christian faith from pagan and secular perspectives. For instance, in his Second Apology, Justin Martyr defended the Christians against the accusation of sexual immorality and cannibalism, and argued that it was the persecutors who committed the same thing. The Christian churches as one body grew during this persecution period.

III. The Great Persecution

The persecution against Christians came to a climax at the beginning of the fourth century, which is the third turning point: the Great Persecution, which started in AD 303. (pp. 121-124) At that time, Diocletian was the Emperor in the East, and Galerius was his assistant Caesar; Maximian was the Emperor in the West, and Constantius was his assistant Caesar. The question of loyalty in the army became a concern, and the Roman Emperors resorted it to the persecution against Christians. The cathedral opposite to the imperial palace at Nicomedia was razed on February 23, 303. An edict was posted the next day, declaring that all churches were to be destroyed, all Bibles and liturgical books surrendered, sacred vessels confiscated, and all worships banned. (pp. 121) However, the persecutions did not happen with equal ferocity in the East and West. In the East, when Diocletian retired, Galerius carried on a massive and bloody persecution in an attempt to bring Christians back to the traditional Roman religions. However, in the West, while Constantius did destroy some churches, nobody was executed. As a result, the Great Persecution led to schism. In the East, sacrifice was regarded as apostasy, but not the surrender of sacred books; but in the West, the surrender of sacred books was regarded by some as apostasy. The difference in opinions regarding the persecution and its aftermath aggravated the conflicts between the churches in the Greek East and Latin West, which were already culturally different because of not only the difference of lingua franca but also the intentional political division within one Empire. Moreover, there were more schisms at Rome and in North Africa, where a group called Donatists were formed. They broke apart from the catholic church, while they still proclaimed the same creeds. (pp. 124) The unity of church was undermined. The Great Persecution laid the foundation of further disunity within the Christian church. In AD 1054, the Great Schism permanently split the church into the Roman Catholics and the Greek Orthodox. However, it did lead to positive consequences. Galerius issued an edict in AD 311 to put the Great Persecution to an end, announcing that it failed to restore the traditional religions among the Christians. Even the non-Christians in the Empire were unsympathetic towards the persecution. This paved the way of legalizing Christianity as one of the religions in the Roman Empire not long after the Galerius’ death in AD 311.

IV. The Edict of Milan

The persecution against Christians within the Roman Empire ended after the bloodiest one. The fourth turning point is the issue of the Edict of Milan in AD 313. Constantine, the son of Constantius, was the Emperor in the West. After a fierce civil war with the Emperor in the East, he recognized that it was the monotheistic god who made him win this war that was impossible to win, although he was probably unaware of the differences between the monotheistic sun-god and the Christian God. In AD 313, Constantine and Licinius, who controlled the Balkans, agreed to treat Christians benevolently within the Roman Empire. The agreement is called the Edict of Milan, which should probably be called “Letter of Nicomedia” because it is a letter, not an edict, issued in Nicomedia, not in Milan. The edict ensured religious toleration. The edict ended the persecution against Christians within the Roman Empire. Christianity was then regarded as one of the legal religions. From that time onwards, Christians were allowed to evangelize freely. Christian academics and institutions were protected, guaranteeing the continuity of Christian scholastics. With the momentum of evangelism built before the edict, Christianity became even more influential within the Roman Empire. There were certain Christian-influenced governmental measures such as the protection of the slaves, the weak, and the prisoners. Although there were efforts (like with Julian the Apostate) to reverse the trend, the Christianization of the Empire was unstoppable: Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire in AD 380, ordered by the Edict of Thessalonica. It became the foundation of the cultures in Europe, North Africa, and West Asia. Europe was once under the umbrella of Christendom. Even though contemporary Europe is post-Christian, the impact of Christianity is still beyond doubt. However, as Christianity became legalized, the Roman Emperor felt he needed to intervene the affairs in the church. This brought imperial politics into the body of Christ. It enhanced Christian influence on public life, but it also attracted ingenuine conversions in an attempt to advance to high places in politics. And the unity of catholic church was also influenced by politics, with the opinions between the churches in the Greek East and Latin West could be roughly understood through the political division between the East and West parts of the Roman Empire.

V. The Council of Nicaea

The legalization of Christianity facilitated the settling of controversies through official world councils. The first council happened a decade after the Edict of Milan, which is the fifth turning point: the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. The schism within the catholic church caught the attention of Constantine, who felt the need to intervene to unite the newly recognized religion of the Empire. At that time, there were the Donatist controversy in the West, and the Arian controversy in the East. This Council was soon reckoned to be ecumenical. It settled on a creed, confirming the anti-Arian position of the church, which affirmed that the Son is “of one substance with the Father.” (pp. 130) This Council issued the first ecumenical creed in the history of Christianity, called the Nicene Creed. While there were similar ecclesiastical tradition that functioned as creeds before the Nicene Creed, with Tertullian’s “Rule of Faith” as one of the examples, the Nicene Creed started the good tradition to settle all controversies in creeds and confessions as official documents. It aids proclaiming truths with brevity and clarity, so that Christians could stand firm with clear conscience on the truths and the church traditions, as Apostle Paul said, “… stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15) Since the Nicene Creed, there has been more creeds and confessions that settled various doctrinal and ecclesiastical controversies through the history, including the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, and even later the Westminster Confession.

VI. Summary

In summary, the five turning points that significantly shaped the church are:

  1. the Pentecost, that the Holy Spirit has been preserving the church as the body of Christ, distinct from the Jewish synagogues, and initiated the campaign of evangelism;
  2. the persecution under Nero from AD 64 to 68, that started the imperial persecution against the Christians within the Roman Empire;
  3. the Great Persecution under Diocletian and Galerius from AD 303 to 311, that caused schisms within the church, and was a precursor to the end of all persecutions;
  4. the Edict of Milan in AD 313, that ordered the religious toleration of Christianity, which later became the state religion of the Empire; and
  5. the Council of Nicene in AD 325, which set off the tradition of settling the ecumenical controversies with creeds and confessions with words, for the church to proclaim the truth with brevity and clarity against contemporary heresies.

Continue reading “Five Turning Points of History of the Early Church”