What Caused the Reformation?

Many people might answer that question by pointing to Martin Luther and his 95 Theses.

But if you were to ask Luther himself, he would not point to himself or his own writings. Instead, he would give all the credit to God and His Word.

Near the end of his life, Luther declared: “All I have done is put forth, preach and write the Word of God, and apart from this I have done nothing. . . . It is the Word that has done great things. . . . I have done nothing; the Word has done and achieved everything.”

Elsewhere, he exclaimed: “By the Word the earth has been subdued; by the Word the Church has been saved; and by the Word also it shall be reestablished.”

Noting Scripture’s foundational place in his own heart, Luther wrote: “No matter what happens, you should say: There is God’s Word. This is my rock and anchor. On it I rely, and it remains. Where it remains, I, too, remain; where it goes, I, too, go.”

Luther understood what caused the Reformation. He recognized that it was the Word of God empowered by the Spirit of God preached by men of God in a language that the common people of Europe could understand and when their ears were exposed to the truth of God’s Word it pierced their hearts and they were radically changed.

It was that very power that had transformed Luther’s own heart, a power that is summarized in the familiar words of Hebrews 4:12: “The Word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword.”

During the late middle ages, the Roman Catholic Church had imprisoned God’s Word in the Latin language, a language the common people of Europe did not speak. The Reformers unlocked the Scriptures by translating them. And once the people had the Word of God, the Reformation became inevitable.

We see this commitment to the Scriptures even in the centuries prior to Martin Luther, beginning with the Forerunners to the Reformation:

In the 12th century, the Waldensians translated the New Testament from the Latin Vulgate into their regional French dialects. According to tradition, they were so committed to the Scriptures that different Waldensian families would memorize large sections of the Bible. That way, if Roman Catholic authorities found them and confiscated their printed copies of Scripture, they would later be able to reproduce the entire Bible from memory.

In the 14th century, John Wycliffe and his associates at Oxford translated the Bible from Latin into English. Wycliffe’s followers, known as the Lollards, went throughout the countryside preaching and singing passages of Scripture in English.

In the 15th century, Jan Huss preached in the language of the people, and not in Latin, making him the most popular preacher in Prague at the time. Yet, because Huss insisted that Christ alone was the head of the church, not the pope, the Catholic Council of Constance condemned him for heresy and burned him at the stake (in 1415).

In the 16th century, as the study of Greek and Hebrew were recovered, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, with the New Testament being completed in 1522.

In 1526, William Tyndale completed a translation of the Greek New Testament into English. A few years later he also translated the Pentateuch from Hebrew. Shortly thereafter he was arrested and executed as a heretic—being strangled and then burned at the stake. According to Fox’s Book of Martyrs, Tyndale’s last words were “Lord, Open the King of England’s Eyes.” And it was just a couple years after his death that King Henry VIII authorized the Great Bible in England—a Bible that was largely based on Tyndale’s translation work. The Great Bible laid the foundation for the later King James version (which was completed in 1611).

The common thread, from Reformer to Reformer, was an undying commitment to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, such that they were willing to sacrifice everything, including their own lives, to get the Word of God into the hands of the people.

They did this because they understood that the power for spiritual reformation and revival was not in them, but in the gospel (cf. Rom. 1:16–17). And they used the Latin phrase Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”) to emphasize the truth that God’s Word was the true power and ultimate authority behind all they said and did.

It was ignorance of Scripture that made the Reformation necessary. It was the recovery of the Scripture that made the Reformation possible. And it was the power of the Scripture that gave the Reformation its enduring impact, as the Holy Spirit brought the truth of His Word to bear on the hearts and minds of individual sinners, transforming them, regenerating them, and giving them eternal life.

“On the Jews & their lies” is one source. Another source is the Works of Luther, that one can download online.

Look -- I requested what the source was for one particular un-sourced quote, which had nothing to do with Luther's own alleged anti-semitism -- which if one cared to examine records more fully themselves, can be seen to be more than matched from within Roman Catholicism (which is where he likely may have first gotten the ideas in the first place?)

It is up to yourself to better source the one quote concerning "milkmaids".

It could be helpful if one did not need to dig through massive amounts of text (once one searched online to find the full texts) but to instead have indicated what not only what the source actually was, but where within whichever source it would be found.

Peeling off a couple of names for things is better than nothing, but still leaves a lot to be desired.

You might have provided where you yourself had gotten the quote more directly from --- unless you were peeling it off from memory.

Instead of blindly believing everything that you are taught, start researching to find out for yourself.

Uh, I have for years now been among those whom dig, dig, dig into archives and writings, bringing quotations from there, and (usually) providing direct links to what sources I myself utilize.

At times I even offer caveats as towards "testing" type of possible inherent limitations for the very sources and quotes which I rely upon while presenting whatever it is which I am discussing at any one time, here on the religion forum of FR.

It's not my job to chase down the sources from which you derive your own material.

You must be sort-of "new" around these parts?

“Imprisoned God’s Word in the Latin language.” I suppose dishonesty doesn’t really matter when your attacking Rome.

Well, those of the Church of Rome, just prior to the Protestant Reformation, did very much oppose having Scriptures translated directly into common languages (most particularly if not done only by their own prior approval) although for a time there was exception made for Breviaries and Psalters in common language, and near to the onset of the Reformation --- one could possibly possess translation of Scripture (once those came to be more widely available, chiefly due to pressure from outside the RCC itself) provided one had yet again another layer of prior written approval to do so, though that too over the years began to be relaxed.

From there instead, it was fairly commonly stressed that direct reading of the Scripture, if not under the care and guidance of an RCC priest, either as a student hoping to enter the priesthood, or a private individual with the desire, and time enough on their hands to read Scripture for themselves, would do more harm than good, in effect keeping the prisoner (the Scripture) close to the prison walls, even if not entirely caged within them.

That "prisoner" received relatively few Roman Catholic 'lay' visitors, as it were (in comparison to so-called Protestants) for quite some time, unless it was just a quick visit to take a peek at such a dangerous thing as the Word of God.

That has now changed, (most markedly in the last hundred years or so) and private possession of Scripture (in their own language) is more or less encouraged, and "bible societies" are not criticized and even vehemently opposed from within the higher echelons of the RCC, as those had generally been for a few hundred years... from the dawn of the Reformation.

A bit of history as for Rome's opposition towards having Scripture translated into common languages, and also having spoken portions of liturgy presented in anything other than Latin;

Wycliffe's body was dug up and burnt, his ashes being cast into the river Swift. One of Wycliffe's articles of faith was to have the Scriptures translated into common vernacular, and the Liturgy conducted in the same language also, even though he was also opposed by those of the RCC for his stance against the existence of the office of "papacy" itself.

Jan Hus, followed a month or so after by Jerome of Prague, were burnt at the stake...while still alive when the fires were lit. Hus had been influenced by Wycliffe (that was the major charge against Hus). A central feature of Hus's own stance was that liturgy be conducted in native language, as a matter of principle.

When we go back even more hundreds of years previous, back as far as Peter Waldo (12th century) it appears as if at first, there was no big fuss made of Waldo and 'the Poor Men of Lyons' having Scripture in common language. After having wiped out (literally murdered) most of the Albigensian, and Cathars (those two to not be confused or mistaken for one another as for doctrine), followed later by the Lollards --- the reaction from within RCC ranks was to more strenously oppose common persons having access to the Scriptures in their own common vernacular.

No catholic saint, and there were many, preached to the people in their native language?

That is not what anyone said. Notice the difference between "being preached to" and being able to read directly from Scripture, in one's own native language.

Did you not just conflate the two?

That sort of loose-as-a-goose logic is so often the recourse of Rome's defenders, it would fully convert many acres of duck ponds into swampy marsh.

In the fictional Lord of the Rings, within the ring of mountains surrounding the land of the Mordor, were large areas of dead marsh, you know?

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

I see you may be a Lord of the Rings fan. Me too. Written by a Catholic no less. Interesting that Protestants borrow much from Catholics. Anyway, when I think of Luther I can’t help but think of Melkor, sower of disunity.

‘When the Ainur sang the Great Music before Eru, Melkor wove some of these alien thoughts into his music, and straightaway Discord arose around him. Some of those nearby attuned their music to his, until two musical themes were warring before the Throne. To correct the Discord, Eru introduced a Second, and then a Third Theme into the music. But Melkor succeeded in holding back the Second theme, of which Manwë was the chief instrument. The Third was the theme of Elves and Men, and while it was not overwhelmed by the Discord as the Second theme was, it too failed to correct it. When Eru brought the Music to an end, he rebuked Melkor, praising his strength but reminding him that, as an aspect of his creator’s thought, anything that Melkor could bring into being ultimately had its source within Eru himself. As such, even the Discord redounded in the end to the glory of Eru’s work. And Melkor was ashamed, and resented it; for he thought his Discord an improvement.’

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.