Was Martin Luther a Nominalist?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2018
- This video is a clip from a Q&A podcast in which I addressed the question, "Was Martin Luther a nominalist?" I talked about different philosophical schools of thought and their influence upon the reformer.
Any recommendations for further reading of Luther's that communicate his platonic leanings?
Thanks much for this video.
"The German reformer spoke of the English Schoolman as “without doubt the leader and most ingenious of the Schoolmen” - scholasticorum doctorum sine dubio princeps et ingeniosissimus. He called him his “dear teacher,” and declared himself to be of Ockam’s party - sum Occamicae factionis."
From: Philip Schaff (P), History of the Christian Church, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910, Vol. 6, Chapter Three: “Leaders of Catholic Thought.”
Powerful beard.
How could Luther not be a nominalist?? He explicitly considered himself an Ockhamist, and Ockham is considered the founder or chief proponent of nominalism, yes? You do the math.
ua-cam.com/video/hVZDuIgRPcc/v-deo.html
Hey, next time you try and say what someone explicitly said, how about you quote them as opposed to linking a secondary source.
@@kidflersh7807 How's this for you?
"The German reformer spoke of the English Schoolman as “without doubt the leader and most ingenious of the Schoolmen” - scholasticorum doctorum sine dubio princeps et ingeniosissimus. He called him his “dear teacher,” and declared himself to be of Ockam’s party - sum Occamicae factionis."
From: Philip Schaff (P), History of the Christian Church, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910, Vol. 6, Chapter Three: “Leaders of Catholic Thought.”
Got em
Excellent video
You would not be the first to believe Luther was mostly influenced by Neo-Platonism in many of his core ideas.
The reality is that he was not initially a scholastic theologian and was breaking with that tradition, of course. But due to the polemics of the day and the battles with Rome, it was difficult for later Lutherans to rise above scholasticizing tendencies.
Well said.
Lol, he was a fan a Johannes Tauler and Theologica Germanica, what are you talking about?
Lutherism’s rejection of Natural Law and that all non-Christians suffer total depravity does reflect Luther’s strict confining of truth to the scriptures. He definitely used Ocham’s razor in his theology and rejection of most of the sacraments, the latter justified by nominalistic thinking.
A leading Lutheran scholar named Heiko Oberman said Luther was a nominalist and there was no doubt about that. Luther said of himself he was an Occamist, a reference to possibly the earliest western nominalist.
Since nominalism denies universals and objective truths, is it possible Rev Cooper is a nominalist as well?
Could you please try making an update to this video? I’m having a very difficult crisis of faith that’s hinging on this split between Catholic Realist and Lutheran Nominalist that is making me nuts. Only Catholics have understandable videos about this topic. They’re leading me to believe luther was Nominalist and this led to relative truth, materialism, and so on. Please tell me, how can Luther be Nominalist, and expect Lutherans today to be Nominalist, if we believe in immaterial things, absolute truths, etc? Please help.
Have you heard of John W. Nevin, from the Mercersburg school of theology? It's really a German Reformed movement, so not Lutheran, but the controversy between Nevin and Charles Hodge about the Supper has nominalism/realism as one of its key aspects, and I believe Nevin shows the importance of being a realist while being a Protestant. This is one easy and small book on the matter (not directly about it, but touches on it in a lot of places): www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Sacrament-Eucharistic-Controversy-Williamson-ebook/dp/B015GHM7P2
I would also recommend the articles/books/lectures from Hans Boersma (Reformed, but highly liturgical), basically my "go to" guy on Christian Platonism. Here's a medium-sized blog post just so you can "feel" what he has to say: www.hansboersma.org/articles-1/all-one-in-christ-why-christian-platonism-is-key-to-the-great-tradition
Also, don't know how you are now (one month has passed since your comment), but I'll pray for you. May our Lord guide us.
I hope you haven't become a catholic in these last months due to lack of response, lol. I just tell you that they are wrong in this point.
It's because Immaterial Things, Absolute Truths are Real and NOT concepts. If you think Luther thought that God was a Concept, then don't be Lutheran. Find another denomenation. Even I personally don't think that that was the case, tbh. But, According to Luther himself, Faith Alone should save you and not your Trust in a Tradition.
You should convert to Catholicism and not be stuck in the Protestant heresy that did in fact lead to materialism and all this other diabolical stuff we have now like you mentioned.
"find another denomination" Lmfao the retarded notions of protestantism rear its ugly head.@@MusabNaveed
Hi. I had a live debate last Thursday with a Spanish catholic priest about lutheranism VS. Roman catholicism, and his strategy was to attack Luther personally, as they usually do. I lost a lot of time rebuting that, instead of addressing the real issues. But on one occasion he said that all of Luther's mistakes come from defective hermeneutics because he was a nominalist. I was blank. Besides the ridiculousness of the assertion, what on earth could he have meant by that? Do you know?
How about the fact that Martin Luther had a nominalist training and that the divorce of legal status from personal ontological reality that he came up with, depends on a nominalist metaphysic?
This is typical sophistry coming from the Roman side. The leading school theology of Luther’s time was nominalistic. Even if they try to convince everyone today that it was not so.
@@xiphos14 Aquinas was an Aristotelian and advocated for a moderate realist position, about as far from Nominalism as you get.
@@xiphos14 then how is it sophistry if you just admitted nominalism was very prominent in Luther’s day (especially in Germany), ergo it shouldn’t be that big of a surprise that he bases his theology on nominalism.
This is simply explained.
A Roman theologian, who insults Martin Luther as a nominalist, tries to disparage him via this designation. And to create the impression that Luther had not put the Roman doctrine, but only deviant fringe opinions of his time unduly into the spotlight. But he merely tries to cover up that the Roman mainstream of that time was nominalistic.
The concept of imputed righteousness is clearly influenced by nominalism. A person can simply be declared righteous by God, without that righteous declaration grounded in the universal that makes righteousness what it is? Does Scripture support this? Of course not.
“Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.”
- 1 John 3:7
That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness
And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
The Lord is our righteousness.’
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,
For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness
I think to say Luther was a nominalist is to be a modern day Aristophanes and confuse Socrates with the Sophists.
Yes. End of video.
Luther brought his baggage to scripture and saw it through the lens of his baggage then misunderstanding scripture. To bad the Lutherans hadn’t just abandoned their modern ideas during their discussions with the Eastern Orthodox patriarch.
This seems more like an attempt to explain away a philosophical influence than anything else. As a Roman Catholic, I don't think you need to distance yourself from Nominalism in order to defend your tradition. Certain aspects of that philosophy seem valuable.
Luther openly proclaimed the reality of the forms, he admittedly rejected nominslist catholic thinkers that heavily influenced the church in his day. He was indeed influenced (which is why he'll occasionally use nominslist terms and language) but he is very clearly a realist opposed to nominalism.
right.@@JP-rf8rr
Luther was a catholic monk and catholic university professor of theology. He was trained in the leading roman-catholic theological school of his day, which was based on nominalism. Names like Gabriel Biel sound strange today, but have been Roman authorities than. In the Council of Trent Rome tried to correct developments that look from our point of view today extreme but have been in there own days acknowledged Roman teaching. So the accusation, that Luther is a Nominalist is just a kind of bs-bingo, created by Roman theologians to misguide people. I would summarize Luther's attack as follows: how can one get the idea that human measures of goodness etc are divine measures.
The claim that the Catholic theology that dominated in Luther's time was nominalistic is not entirely accurate. While there were some Catholic theologians in the Middle Ages who held nominalistic views, such as Occam, Durandus, and Gabriel Biel, it is important to note that their extreme views on the value of good works in justification were not sanctioned or adopted by the Church or the majority of theologians. Nominalism, as a philosophical doctrine, has been denounced before councils and condemned in the person of Abelard and Roscelin, among others. However, the Catholic Church does not concern itself with nominalism as a philosophy in itself, but rather with its theological implications. It's common Protestant practice to misrepresent Catholic doctrine and history, to a blatant degree.
"The German reformer spoke of the English Schoolman as “without doubt the leader and most ingenious of the Schoolmen” - scholasticorum doctorum sine dubio princeps et ingeniosissimus. He called him his “dear teacher,” and declared himself to be of Ockam’s party - sum Occamicae factionis." From: Philip Schaff (P), History of the Christian Church, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910, Vol. 6, Chapter Three: “Leaders of Catholic Thought.”
You said in an earlier comment: "To be clear - I am not denying, that Luther was a Nominalist.". Here you write: "So the accusation, that Luther is a Nominalist is just a kind of bs-bingo, created by Roman theologians to misguide people. " Try not to contradict yourself. it looks bad
@@LloydDeJongh No. I am not contradicting myself. The accusation of Luther being a nominalist is usual used as slander and nothing else. Why I am coming to this conclusion? Because it’s usually used in front of an audience that has no clue that the leading stream of catholic theology in Luther’s time was nominalistic. It’s used to suggest that Luther’s nominalist background was a kind of fringe zone. People using this slander usually trying to suggest, that Luther didn’t know catholic theology proper. He knew, for sure. He was a monk, had offices in his order and was a university professor.
@@xiphos14 As I said, it is standard Protestant practice to misrepresent Catholic doctrine and history, which you've just done, again.
Is this true? the leading stream of catholic theology in Luther’s time was nominalistic.
The leading stream of Catholic theology in Luther's time was not nominalistic. While there were some Catholic theologians, such as Occam, Durandus, and Gabriel Biel, who held nominalistic views and exaggerated the value of good works in justification, their views were not representative of the majority of Catholic theologians or the official teaching of the Church. Martin Luther's exposure to theology was primarily limited to the works of these nominalistic theologians. He was a sloppy thinker, had no concept of systematic theology and detested scholasticism.
Interesting, and yes, "philosophy" or "theology" are two words you don´t usually associate with Martin Luther! 😉
Luther really a nominalist
Luther wouldn't give a . For American Lutheramerica
He'd be more comfortable in a Roman church than lcms
@@richardsaintjohn8391 but they are very much the same. Luther didn't come out from the Catholic Church enough and held to mysticism. Both have ties to Rosicrucianism. The Catholic Church more overtly Babylonian paganism.
@@soundimpact4633 rosicrucianism came after luther died you dunce
@@soundimpact4633I think you need to take your meds