Book Review: Getting the Reformation Wrong

Subtitle: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, by James R. Payton, Jr. (purchased by the reviewer)

I am not among the targeted, intended audience for this book, for Professor Payton is writing to clear up misunderstandings among Protestants of their own history. Anglo-Catholics are also exempted, because he does not discuss the English Reformation except for a brief mention of Bucer in England during Edward VI's reign. Surprisingly, he does not include the Reformation in Scotland either, with John Knox and the Presbyterian Kirk.

1. The Medieval Call for Reform
2. The Renaissance: Friend or Foe?
3. Carried Along by Misunderstandings
4. Conflict Among the Reformers
5. What the Reformers meant by Sola Fide
6. What the Reformers meant by Sola Scriptura
7. How the Anabaptists Fit In
8. Reformation in Rome
9. Changing Direction: From the Reformation to Protestant Scholasticism
10. Was the Reformation a Success?
11. Is the Reformation a Norm?
12. The Reformation as Triumph and Tragedy

As I read Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings by James R. Payton Jr. I kept thinking of Blessed John Henry Newman’s quotation from the Introduction to his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” It is important to note that Blessed Newman does not say “To be deep in history is to become a Catholic.” Nevertheless, he presents an historical argument in the rest of the text of that volume that led him to become a Catholic. I don’t know how an Evangelical Protestant would or will respond to Payton’s argument, since I am a Catholic, but he certainly goes deep enough in history to perhaps unsettle some certainties he or she might hold. As I read his examination of some aspects of Reformation history, I began to think he did not go deep enough.

Payton’s argument boils down to: most Protestants today don’t know their history*; they might celebrate Reformation Sunday but they are repeating axiomatic myths and legends when they look back at the sixteenth century. Sometimes they don’t understand the Reformation founders’ teaching on the most basic elements of Lutheran or Reformed doctrine, like Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura. They have certainly forgotten about the divisions and arguments that from the sixteenth century on have led to 26,000 different Protestant communities all teaching the same Gospel. They might be getting the Reformation wrong also because they don’t understand the historical context or the effects of the Renaissance. He wants these readers to understand the complexity of Reformation history and yet remain secure in their Protestant, Lutheran or Reformed, beliefs.

Those readers might be disappointed, for example, to read how the Catholic Reformation and Counter-Reformation regained much of the territory gained by the Reformation. The Jesuits and other reform movements in the Catholic Church provided an apologetic and evangelistic method and unity that the Protestants could not match, as Payton admits. When Payton tallies the successes and failures of the reformers in the sixteenth century, the Jesuits are the only group that is successful. Although he accounts Martin Luther’s efforts to spread his doctrine of Sola Fide a success, all the other Reformers failed, according to their own standards. Payton recounts Desiderius Erasmus’ response to Martin Bucer who asked him why he had not left the Catholic Church since the Reformation movement’s method aligned so well with his humanist studies; Erasmus replied that he saw no greater holiness among the new Protestants than he saw among the Catholics—there was certainly no reason for him to leave the church of his youth. Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, and Bucer all failed to achieve the reform goals they set, while Zwingli and Oecolampadius died before they could achieve their goals—only the Catholics succeeded. The Jesuits won back many territories, especially in Eastern Europe, and the Popes successfully reformed morality in Rome. Payton goes pretty deep here and what he uncovers could be pretty upsetting to those who haven’t studied Church history.

Those readers would also be surprised to find out that the Reformers of the sixteenth century all revered and referenced the Fathers of the Church, the early successors of the Apostles. As Payton laments, Protestant scholars have neglected that heritage of the early Church—the Fathers, the Councils and the Creeds. Payton demonstrates that Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bucer, and Calvin all cited the Fathers, Councils and Creeds—without ever citing, except in the case of the early Church Councils and Creeds defining Trinitarian and Christological doctrines, what the Reformers found so important in the Fathers. Payton also does not address those doctrines and disciplines of the early Church that the Reformers rejected and Protestants reject today that the Fathers teach: the Sacraments, the Sacramental Priesthood, the Episcopate, intercession of the saints in heaven, Salvation, grace and merit, the Blessed Virgin Mary’s role—Payton does not go deep enough.

The other book I thought of as I read Getting the Reformation Wrong was Louis Bouyer’s classic The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism (1956). One thing that Payton never sufficiently addresses is Luther’s scholastic background and his authority, which is based on his academic achievement as a scholastic. Payton starts by setting up a dichotomy between late Medieval Catholic scholasticism (never really identifying the issue as nominalist scholasticism), which he identifies as decadent and ridiculous, and the Northern Renaissance Humanism that many other Reformers adopted, led by Erasmus, which he identifies as scriptural and based on Christian antiquity. Luther does not fit neatly into this scheme, however: Luther was a scholastic and a university professor. Payton does not address deeply enough the philosophical method behind Luther’s theology—nominalism. Payton does not seem to recognize the difference between scholastic realism and scholastic nominalism—between Aquinas and Ockham. The denial of universals, Bouyer notes, leads to subjectivity, for it is up to the individual mind to make the associations between individual ideas and truth. While Payton is a little uncomfortable with some of Luther’s methods—for instance, his way of attacking opponents, he does not reveal the scatological tone of these attacks in this discussion. Yet Payton seems to accept Luther’s claim to authority when accused of subjectivity: 'I am the smartest person here; I am the University Professor and I am right!'

Payton accomplishes much to address common misunderstandings of the Reformation many Protestants today may have about their own history. He does not address the English Reformation, nor the Reformation in Scotland nor the French Wars of Religion between Catholics and Huguenots. The latter may be understandable but leaving out Thomas Cranmer and the other theologians of the Church of England is an interesting choice. Perhaps the Via Media of Anglicanism is too difficult to include since the progress of the Reformation in England is so completely bound up with the supreme will of the monarch. (Here of course I thought of my own little book, Supremacy and Survival: How Catholics Endured the English Reformation.) On the other hand, why not include John Knox and the Presbyterian Kirk? Surely Presbyterian history is very important to many Protestants today? Didn’t Knox successfully transplant the Reformed tradition to the British Isles?

“You’re right, back in those days, the catholic church never imprisoned, tortured, or had any heretics burned.”

Well, feel free to quote where I wrote this.

You said, “Christ never murderered, ergo any Church who has killed people in their name cannot be his Church”.

But this is not what Christ taught. Christ taught that we are all sinners, and that simply ‘not murdering people’ isn’t good enough.

So I ask again. If we are all sinners how can we be His Church?

modern christianity, whether catholic, protestant or orthodox is doing pretty well in my estimation, all are legitimate paths to god. but please don’t try to pretend that the catholic church back then was a proper representative of christ,,

and most important ways the same is true for protestants of that era. There weren’t any catholics in salem running the show.

Ok,, so you believe that a church can be legitimate if it kills, deliberately, thoughtfully, because,,,, we are all sinners. ok,,, got it. Sorry, with that argument, a protestant is just fine. If they accept christ as their savior, and his sacrifice, they’ll be fine. Rejecting the catholic church of that era isn’t exactly a sin.

And sure..it was Aachen,,, and EVERYBODY ignored rome back then, and totally felt safe to diss the pope. Dream on, lol

I believe that the legitimacy of Christ’s church is based on Christ being the head.

“Rejecting the catholic church of that era isn’t exactly a sin.”

Rejecting Christ on the other hand.

“EVERYBODY ignored rome back then, and totally felt safe to diss the pope”

If the Pope were the supreme temporal authority, why did he crown Charlemagne as Emperor?

I’d love to hear what you teach your students about St Ignatius, his relationship to St John and his writing about the Gnostics not taking the Eucharist because they did not believe it to be the Body of Christ? I wonder if if your church tradition trumps an honest teaching of history?

The Jesuits won back many territories, especially in Eastern Europe, ...

I hope the author includes the Jesuit's tortures, lies and the threats of eternal damnation through excommunication to the superstitious peasants. That did help win back many territories.

If the Pope were the supreme temporal authority, why did he crown Charlemagne as Emperor?

The Pope crown a number of people as Emperor of various countries. The Roman Church viewed all of the various nations subservient to the Holy Roman Empire in which the Pope oversaw them.

I suppose that was the purpose of the Vatican. Since the Pope planned on being around for a while he might as well live it up. This isn’t my idea of “superior ecclesiastical suthority” nor was it Christ’s.

Honestly, in my Church History courses, the students are introduced to St. Ignatius, to his relationship with John the Apostle, and to some of the issues that faced the Church during that era, Unfortunately, as this is a survey of Early & Medieval Church History on an Undergrad level that must be covered in a Semester, the issue you mention isn’t covered to any great extent in the class.

Now, what particular “tradition” of Church History do you suspect that I teach — apparently dishonestly? :-) And, may I inquire as to what Church Tradition you believe — obviously the Truth honestly arrived at and affirmed?

I suspect you teach the early Church did not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Of course, we know St. Ignatius and Justin Martyr wrote clearly on the subject. I am a member of the Catholic Church, which as you know teaches the whole Divine Revelation, received in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
If you don’t mind me asking, what denomination do you belong to?

The protestant reformation was a rejection of the catholic church, which is basically a medieval monarchy designed to rule men.

Not according to Scripture...

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mat 6:18

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15

I don’t “neatly” fit into any tradition exactly, but I consider myself from the Baptistic line of the Church.

Of course, the major difference we would have about the “Divine Revelation” is that I believe it is contained in the Sacred Scripture alone, and not within Church Tradition.

As to your question about Real Presence — I actually believe it was early that the Church began moving toward a concept of “Real Presence” in the Eucharist — perhaps as early as the early 2nd century (though I haven’t read specifically on that in a good while). I am not convinced, however, that “Real Presence” was either the Apostolic Doctrine, nor that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture...

Not that I was to engage in debate. I am just explaining my particular position because you asked. :-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.