REFORMATION AND RESTORATION
By BOB E. DUNCAN

On a hot summer day of 1505, a young German law student was enroute to Erfurt to continue his studies following a visit to his home at Mansfeld. A few miles outside of Erfurt near the village of Stotternheim a bolt of lightning threw him to the ground during a heavy thunderstorm. The young Catholic, believing that he might die without the sacrament of extreme unction, cried out to St. Anne that he would enter the monastery if his life should be spared. That lightning bolt of July 2, 1505, was destined to be of cataclysmic proportions, both religiously and historically, for the young man who gave up his law career in order to enter an Augustinian monastery as the result of his terrifying experience was none other than Martin Luther, progenitor of the Protestant Reformation. “The man who thus called upon a saint was later to repudiate the cult of the saints. He who vowed to become a monk was later to renounce monasticism. A loyal son of the Catholic Church, he was later to shatter the structure of medieval Catholicism. A devoted servant of the pope, he was later to identify the popes with Antichrist.”¹

It may be questioned whether Luther’s work is to be considered of such heroic proportions as to consider him an indispensable figure in the inauguration of the Reformation. It must certainly be acknowledged that there were numerous contributing factors of a social, economic, political, as well as religious nature which led to the inception of the Reformation; also it must be admitted that Martin Luther was but one of several important figures in this movement. However, the German scholar seemed to act as the catalyst by which the other factors were fused and found expression.

One of the foremost American scholars of the Reformation has said concerning Luther, “Despite the apparently inexorable nature of the movements pointing toward the Reformation, it is difficult to imagine the German break with the papacy without the deep religious convictions and determined leadership of this man. When he took up the cause of religious reform, which had made little progress during the fifteenth century, the dissident elements in all classes looked upon him as their spokesman and hoped that he would help them solve all their problems, political, economic, and social, as well as religious.”² Not until some years later was it fully realized that Luther’s primary concern was religious, for his work began and continued with the typical medieval. question, How can I be saved?

LUTHER’S EARLY LIFE AND SEARCH FOR SALVATION

Some scholars have attempted to find an explanation for Luther’s later behavior in the events and circumstances of his childhood. It would seem, however, that there was nothing unusual about his boyhood outside of his strong concern for religious matters. He was born on November 10, 1483, at Eisleben as the first son of Sans and Margarethe Luther. In the next year Hans Luther moved his little family to Mansfeld where he felt there would be greater economic opportunities. He became a rather prominent figure in this community and was able to provide quite adequately for his family, contrary to what has been said by some biographers. This is borne out by the fact that he financed Martin in obtaining an excellent education and bought him expensive books. Hans wanted his son to become a lawyer, and in pursuance of this goal Martin matriculated at the University of Erfurt in the year 1501. At the time, this university was the highest ranking one in Germany and was particularly outstanding in the fields of law and the liberal arts. It was while he was studying here that Luther had his fearful experience with the bolt of lightning which was to change the course of his own life and of history itself.

Immediately after Luther made his vow to enter the monastery if spared death he repented of it; however, believing that it was the will of God that he should do so, he turned his back upon the legal career proposed by his father, and two weeks later entered the Augustinian order of Eremites at Erfurt. The particular branch of this order that he joined was known as the Observantines and followed a rigorous course of discipline as the result of a reform which took place in the fifteenth century. The Augustinian monastery of Erfurt was characterized not only by exemplary conduct but also by an emphasis upon learning. Luther was trained for his ordination as a priest in the theological seminary at this place.

The fears of the young Luther concerning his salvation were not stilled by fulfillment of his monastic vow. As he thought about the enormity of his own sins and the righteousness of the holy God, he became less and less satisfied with the traditional monastic and medieval methods of obtaining a clear conscience. He also heeded the advice of Staupitz, his spiritual adviser, and laid aside the theological commentaries for the study of the Bible. Luther’s concern for his spiritual welfare reached a crisis at the time that he was ordained a priest (in 1507) and celebrated his first mass. Two factors contributed to this concern: first, his feeling of utter unworthiness to administer the sacrament; second, the realization that his father was highly displeased that he had failed to become a lawyer.

Following his first celebration of the mass, Luther began to be extremely anxious for his salvation. His concern was not the result of a failure to understand the Catholic doctrine concerning such matters but the inability to believe that such methods would accomplish their purpose. Regardless of his rigorous efforts to discipline his body and mind and no matter how much he studied the current theology, he could not find the certainty of salvation after which his soul yearned. Indicative of the intensity of his experiences in the monastery is the fact that he later called them his “martyrdom.” The crux of Luther’s problem was his conception of the enormity of man’s sin in comparison with the holiness and righteousness of God. Due to the emphasis upon good works that characterized his time, Luther conceived of God’s righteousness not as a gift which is granted to man as the result of his faith in Christ but rather as the standard for judging his own righteousness. Basing his hope of salvation upon the attainment of this impossible goal, he could not have been otherwise than discouraged.

In the year 1508, Luther was sent to the Augustinian monastery at Wittenberg where he continued his theological studies and also taught Aristotle’s Ethics. In the fall of the next year he returned to Erfurt where he lectured on theological themes for about two years. During this period he made his famous visit to Rome; however, his search for salvation did not end in the Eternal City for he was highly disappointed at the secularism and irreligious behavior which he observed while there. Upon his return to Erfurt he was again transferred to Wittenberg where he received the degree of Doctor of Theology, October 18, 1512. He replaced Staupitz on the theological faculty of the University of Wittenberg and began his lectures on Biblical subjects. In 1514, he also began to preach in the City Church and sometimes spoke several times a week. During the period from 1513 to 1519, he lectured on the Psalms, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, and Titus, and again on the Psalms, in that order. It was during his preparations for these lectures that he reached the conclusions which brought satisfaction to his own soul and upheaval to the Catholic Church. According to Luther, he arrived at his doctrine of justification by faith alone while in the tower of the Wittenberg monastery and as the result of his interpretation of Romans 1:17, “the true gates of paradise.” On the basis of this text, Luther came to the realization that God justifies man not on the basis of his own merits but by faith in Jesus Christ, and by faith alone. This highly important interpretation constituted the turning point of Luther’s career. No longer did he measure the hope of his salvation by his personal attainment of the perfect righteousness of the eminently holy God. Certainty of salvation was impossible as long as he sought it in his own merits. Now he simply trusted that God would grant to him the gift of righteousness through his Son. It must not be thought, however, that this interpretation of Paul’s writings was used by Luther to encourage laxity in regard to Christian consecration, for he believed that the justified Christian would grow in consecration as the result of his fellowship with God. As the result of his appointment to preach in the City Church of Wittenberg, he was granted the opportunity of mediating his doctrines to the common man as he developed them. He retained this position throughout his life. He also became particularly conscious of the evils of the indulgence system while pursuing his duties of hearing confessions.

Thus Luther developed his doctrine of salvation which led to his denial of the sacramental system of Catholicism as the basis of man’s hope of heaven. This denial was of momentous import, in that the priesthood maintained their authority over the people through the administration of the sacraments. The number of sacraments had been established as seven by the middle of the fifteenth century; they were as follows: baptism, confirmation, penance, the Eucharist (the conclusion of the ceremony of the Mass), extreme unction, marriage, and ordination (entrance into one of the holy orders). The logic went something like this: salvation depended upon the valid administration of the sacraments, only the priest could validly administer the sacraments, therefore, in order to be saved one had to be on good terms with the priestly hierarchy. Needless to say, this doctrine was an effective tool when wielded by the papacy or the clerical hierarchy in general. Even kings had cringed before this mighty weapon. Luther thus put the axe to the very root of the power of the Catholic hierarchy when he concluded that justification is by faith alone.

LUTHER’S BREAK

It was the indulgence controversy that led to Luther’s posting of his famous Ninety-five Theses (bases for discussion or debate) on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg (October 31, 1517). The theory of indulgences and the details of the plan by which funds were to be derived from the sale of indulgences for the re-building of the basilica of St. Peter’s cathedral in Rome is a rather complicated story and will not be related here in its entirety. Suffice it to say that when Johannes Tetzel, one of the men chosen as indulgence preachers, began to proclaim the sale of indulgences in the vicinity of Wittenberg, Luther became solicitous for the spiritual welfare of those entrusted to his care in view of the fact that some of his parishioners apparently had developed the notion that they could go their own sinful ways after purchasing salvation through indulgences. In all fairness it should be noted that the refined theory of indulgences did not involve the purchase of eternal salvation, but the common people apparently believed this to be the case. Luther thus posted his theses, which for the most part evidenced a calm approach and a continued respect for the offices, sacraments, etc. of the Catholic Church.

Without recounting the details of the story, it may be pointed out that Luther’s action on that October day of long ago led to a series of controversies which eventually culminated in his excommunication and separation from the Medieval Church. Due to a combination of political circumstances he was protected from the fate of other “heretics” and was thus spared to become the leader of the Lutheran movement and the precursor of reformatory movements which eventually led to the establishments of the various Protestant religious bodies of our day.

RESTORATION OBSERVATIONS

It is interesting to study the Restoration of the nineteenth century in the light of the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Due to the ambiguity of the term, it perhaps should be pointed out that “Restoration” is employed in this article in reference to the movement of the nineteenth century which gave rise to the religious bodies of our day known as Disciples, Christian churches, and churches of Christ. The term has been used in this fashion because of the effort to “restore” the church of the New Testament that has characterized this movement.

What were the dynamic forces leading to the Reformation and the Restoration? Were they of the same nature or did they differ? It has been pointed out previously that in spite of the kaleidoscopic circumstances which contributed to the rise and success of the Reformation, it nonetheless had its inception in an effort to answer the question, How can I be saved? In the experience of Martin Luther we can observe the very personal nature of the struggle in which he engaged as he sought to find a sense of acceptance with God. His solution to this problem led him to break with the Church of Rome, and his break in turn provided the necessary impetus to set in motion the whole movement known as the Reformation. The Restoration, on the other hand, had its beginnings in a more general dissatisfaction with existing religious conditions. “Two basic truths were in the minds of the men whose work led to the beginnings of the Disciples of Christ. The first was that the church ought to be one, without sectarian divisions. The second was that the reasons for its divisions were the addition of ‘human opinions’ to the simple requirements of Christ and his apostles as tests of fitness for admission to the one church, and the usurpation of rule over the church by clergy and ecclesiastical courts unknown in the days of its primitive unity and purity.”³ Thus Luther sought primarily to find spiritual peace for his agonized soul, while Thomas and Alexander Campbell were endeavoring to bring unity to a fragmentized religious world by the shedding of creeds and human opinions and a return to the simplicity of the New Testament. It should be noted that the Restoration as well as the Reformation was concerned with the question of salvation, but at the same time it can be seen that the approach of Luther differed from that of the Campbell’s.

The problem of conversion confronted both Luther and the Restorers. It is interesting to contrast their respective solutions to this problem. Luther, on the one hand, found his answer in Romans 1:17, that man is not justified by his own merits but by simple faith in Jesus Christ, and by faith only. Walter Scott, on the other hand, solved the problem for the Restorationists by a simple series of three steps, faith, repentance, and baptism, which when taken would lead in turn to remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life. The element of uncertainty involved in the question of whether one had had a real conversion experience was thus removed by making it possible for the seeker after salvation to take these three steps through exercise of his will.

There were dangers implicit in both of the above-mentioned approaches and these dangers have found expression in the abuse of Luther’s and Scott’s solutions. The doctrine of justification by faith alone, for example, naturally lends itself to the interpretation that since salvation is by faith only it really doesn’t matter how one lives. It is highly unfair, however, to attribute this position to those who hold in reality to the historic doctrine of justification by faith alone as developed by Luther. Luther himself said, “Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works there must be something amiss with faith.”⁴ In other words, the faith that justifies is the faith that works. (Cp. Gal. 5:6). No doubt there have been individuals who have abused this doctrine, but it is unjust to attribute these abuses to the doctrine itself.

The Restoration approach to conversion has also been subjected to abuse. The “three step” or “four step” (including confession) theory of conversion contains the danger of failure to have an actual experience with the living God. If salvation is simply the result of methodically and logically taking three or four steps there is the possibility that the steps will become more important than actual trust in God for salvation. In other words, the steps become a medium of exchange by which we purchase our salvation from God, and the result is that salvation ceases to be of Grace. I hasten to add that this attitude is not necessarily entertained by those who obey the commands of faith, repentance and baptism, but we are here discussing the dangers implicit in this approach. It is a matter of good judgment, of course, to realize that because a thing is subject to abuse does not imply that it is evil within itself, for it would seem that every good thing is subject to abuse in some manner.

There is much of value to be learned from both the Scott and the Luther methods of conversion. In fact, it should be understood that they are not mutually exclusive in every respect. In other words, it is possible for one to hold to the doctrine of justification by faith only and at the same time to realize the importance of repentance and baptism. Luther himself did not reject the latter two elements in man’s relationship to God. Repentance and baptism do not constitute works by which we purchase our salvation; rather they are an outgrowth of our living faith in the living God who saves us through Jesus Christ. And it is by repentance and baptism that we exercise our saving faith and thereby lay hold upon the promises that God affords us in Christ, including forgiveness, the gift of the Holy Spirit, etc. But it is of God’s grace and by our faith in the atoning Christ that it all becomes possible. In this manner the seeker after salvation has an actual experience with the living Christ and is, in the words of Paul, “ . . . justified by faith. . . through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 5:1)

GROUND FOR GOODNESS

This discussion of conversion and its results leads us to the subject of the ground of Luther’s ethic. It has already been pointed out that Luther made it clear that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is not to be construed to mean that one can go his own selfish way after exercising some kind of faith in Christ. The ground of goodness for Luther was the deep-felt gratitude which grows out of the realization that one has been forgiven by a loving and gracious God in spite of the blackness of his sins. Luther pointed out that Christians are both righteous and sinful at the same time, which meant that in spite of our weaknesses and imperfections, the power of God’s Spirit is within us to make something worthwhile out of our lives. Thus, as Luther observed, a man is not good because he does good works, but a good man does good works. In other words, we do not gain status with God because we do good deeds, but when we do good it is God working in us (Cp. Phil. 2:13) Commenting upon the passage in Philippians 2:5ff.’ in which Paul shows how Christ humbled himself for our salvation, Luther says, “All this He did to serve us. When God in his sheer mercy and without any merit of mine has given me such unspeakable riches, shall I not then freely, joyously, wholeheartedly, unprompted do everything that I know will please him? I will give myself as a sore of Christ to my neighbor as Christ gave himself for me.”⁵ Perhaps in this last statement we have an epitome of Luther’s ethic, that every Christian, because of the love of Christ for him, ought to be a Christ to his neighbor.

Because of the emphasis on works and externals that has characterized the Restoration movement, the religious bodies growing out of that movement have sometimes been denoted as “legalistic.” In stressing the importance of obedience to God one is of course on safe ground, but once again the danger exists of feeling that our good deeds constitute legal tender by which we can purchase the blessings of salvation. Luther sought fervently to avoid this attitude because of his belief that salvation is by faith only. However, as has been pointed out above, he believed strongly in the importance of making that faith effective in Christian consecration which results from gratitude. It is at this point that those who follow the Restoration tradition can once again learn from Luther. It is true that in some cases we have lapsed into legalism because of our emphasis upon works and an outward conformity to a pattern. Let no one misunderstand, Christianity is not only an inward religion but also expresses itself in works and certain outward forms such as baptism, the Lord’s Supper, etc. One cannot carry water without a bucket, and the truths of Christianity cannot be divorced from the molds in which those truths are contained, or else the truths are in danger of being lost. But on the other hand, there is a constant danger confronting us in our emphasis upon works and symbols, and that is that we shall place such great stress upon the symbol or the deed that we lose sight of or minimize what is behind such things. Thus we shall come to trust in the symbol or the work rather than Christ.” Baptism is a case in point. There is a very definite possibility that people may be converted to the importance of baptism rather than to Christ Himself. One may submit to baptism in the belief that this is what God wants him to do without ever exercising a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Luther, by his stress upon simple faith in Christ and a Christian goodness which grows out of that faith, has shown us the way to avoid trusting in our works or symbols for salvation. We of the Restoration tradition then must learn to interpret all of our activities in the light of our relation-ship with the living Lord who Himself saves us and not our deeds. This personal and inward relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ is perhaps the greatest need among us-a relationship which is expressed in the marvelous words of Paul, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” (Gal. 2:20, RSV)

ATTITUDE TOWARD SCRIPTURES

We now turn to Luther’s attitude toward the Scriptures. For him the whole Bible was fundamentally a testimony concerning Christ, and he interpreted the New Testament in the light of the doctrine of justification by faith. It was this approach that led him to speak of the book of James as “an epistle of straw” because of its apparent emphasis upon works. On one occasion he said that he would give his doctor’s beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. However, he never rejected James from the canon “ . . . and on occasion earned his own beret by effecting a reconciliation.”⁶ He did this by showing that faith is active and that unless it is productive of works there is something wrong with it. Thus, it may be added, James and Paul speak of two different types of faith. Paul in stressing the doctrine of justification by faith is speaking of a living faith, while James in pointing out that that faith alone will not justify is speaking of a faith which is dead because it is not fruitful.

In the Restoration movement the New Testament has been looked upon as constituting a pattern or blueprint for the work, worship and polity of the church. There also has been an attendant tendency to play down the importance of the Old Testament. In fact, with some people of the Restoration tradition, the Old Testament is neglected so grossly that it is practically a closed book. This obviously is an abuse of the position that we are not under the Jewish Law. Many eternally valid principles as well as Christ Himself are revealed in this portion of the Bible and it must not be discarded or neglected if we are to appreciate the full sweep of God’s plan for man. We would do well if we would imbibe at least a portion of Luther’s spirit in respect to the Old Testament which prompted him to regard it as a witness to Christ. This quite obviously was the attitude of the early church toward the Jewish Bible. One of the prominent aspects of the apostolic kerygma (gospel) was quotations from the Old Testament which witnessed to our Lord’s life and work. The word “Scriptures” in the New Testament is employed almost without exception (for one exception see 2 Peter 3:15, 16) in reference to the Old Testament, and the two sources of authority referred to in such passages as 2 Pet. 3:2 are the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles. Thus, as Luther recognized, God speaks to contemporary man in both the Old and the New Testaments. “The New is enfolded in the Old and the Old is unfolded in the New.”

It is interesting to observe that in the case of Luther and the early Restorationists there was a reluctance to break with the parent religious institution. At the time that Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg he had no intention of making a clean break with the Roman Church. His intention was to reform the abuses that he had observed. It has been said that he never completely surrendered the hope of reforming his “mother church” and maintaining unity.⁷ This hope, however, did not prompt him to waver in his defense of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Neither did the Restoration begin as an effort to establish another religious body. “The pioneer spirits who became its founding fathers had a purpose at once more modest and more audacious. They did not aspire to be the founders of a new denomination; but they dared to believe that they had discovered the principles which, when set to work within the existing denominations, would reform and unite them.”⁸ The Restoration movement as it has developed has gone far afield from the original intention of its progenitors. Sad to relate, in our times it has become a virtue to separate oneself from those with whom one may differ upon matters of interpretation. The early Restorationists differed radically with their contemporaries, but they were not prone to separate themselves at the drop of a hat from others who were sincerely seeking to serve Christ. Barron Stone was particularly liberal in this respect.

DOGMATISM A PATTERN OF DIVISION

In view of the reluctance of Luther to break away from the Catholic Church, it is rather paradoxical that he was so dogmatic and certain of himself in his interpretations that he was often called by his enemies “the Protestant pope.” His dogmatism in this regard is to be partly explained by his belief that the Scriptures contain objective truth which can be understood by every sincere Christian. Thus he spoke of his interpretations as God’s own. A similar type of dogmatism has become one of the characteristic features of certain wings of the Restoration movement. Although the early Restorationists believed in the objective and demonstrable truth of the Bible, they nonetheless were slow to destroy their connections with those who differed with them. A different spirit is all too evident today. Among many modern-day proponents of the cause of restoration there is no hesitation at disfellowshipping those who differ with them. They too, as Luther felt he did, speak for God, and their interpretations of God’s Revelation are identified with the revelation itself. Luther himself argued that in matters of conscience a man should obey God and none other. We too will admit the same truth. Yet is it not possible for a man to sincerely differ with us because of his conscientious interpretation of God’s Word? Thus we must be extremely cautious about separating ourselves from those who are sincerely and conscientiously seeking to serve Christ according to their light.

Both in the case of the Lutheran movement and the Restoration movement fragmentation and division followed the earlier dynamic phase. Theological disputes of various types brought factionalism to Lutheranism in its more mature stages, just as the unity of the Restoration cause was destroyed by disagreements and disfellowship. In the earlier dynamic period of the Restoration, the growth was so rapid that it was believed for a long time that the Disciples would “take the world.” It is doubtful that there are many who today hold to this belief, and one of the reasons for such disillusionment is the fact that we have ceased to be a united effort to bring unity to the Christian world and now espouse the cause of religious division in the name of Biblical truth.

I would not close this article without calling attention to the importance of Christian scholarship with regard to the success of the Reformation and the Restoration. Luther was a profound scholar, and this scholarship he dedicated to his Lord and the cause of religious truth. The Restoration has also produced its scholars, among them Alexander Campbell and J. W. McGarvey. Observation of certain wings of the Restoration tradition in our time, however, makes one conscious of the lack of real scholarship among us. In fact, with some, it has become a vice for a Christi~n to be studious and to seek to equip himself to serve his Lord at all levels of life in an intelligent fashion. Our Lord commanded, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (Mt. 22:37) Every aspect of the Christian’s being is to be dedicated to the service of the Lord of his life, and this includes the mind. If Christians are to be able to serve God effectively in every situation they must be prepared to do so. Let young Christians then seek the will of God in regard to their educational preparations as well as all other phases of their lives. The church today stands in dire need of consecrated individuals who will dedicate their scholarship to the service of the one who “loved them and gave himself for them.”

____________________

Bob E. Duncan is presently a candidate for the Ph. D. degree in history at Indiana University.

LUTHER’S INFLUENCE

The Reformation was of great service in establishing and ensuring the liberation of philosophical speculation from subservience to religious dogma. Its insistence on the right of the soul to immediate access to and communion with God, without benefit of clergy, forced eventually the recognition of the right of every man to think as he chose, without interference, in matters religious and philosophical.

Its equal insistence on the depravity and sinfulness of the natural man and of his complete dependence upon divine grace for salvation was instrumental in provoking the great reaction of the eighteenth century in favor of the essential goodness of the human soul.—B. A. G. Fuller, A History of Philosophy, Vol. 2, p. 22.