Between Plato and Luther: The Intellectual Roots of Infallible Revelation in Western Christianity

Reflective Commentary (2025)

This essay undertakes a critical examination of infallible, divine revelation in Christianity, focusing on the dynamic interplay between Scripture, Tradition, and ex cathedra authority as understood within both Catholic and Protestant traditions. One of its main strengths lies in its expansive historical grounding, tracing the development of concepts of revelation from classical thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle, through the mediaeval period and Reformation, and into the work of modern theologians such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Christopher Dawson. By situating theological debates within these broader intellectual and cultural movements, the essay demonstrates how questions of authority and revelation have been shaped across different epochs, rather than arising in isolation.

The comparative analysis draws a thoughtful contrast between the Catholic reliance on a threefold authority —Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium (including ex cathedra pronouncements) —and the Protestant commitment to sola scriptura. This exploration of underlying logic helps to highlight how these epistemologies give rise to divergent approaches to ecclesial authority, tradition, and the interpretation of scripture. Philosophical frameworks, particularly Platonic and Aristotelian paradigms, are employed as interpretative lenses throughout the discussion. The essay associates Platonic tendencies with Catholic notions of hierarchical and transcendent authority, while connecting Aristotelian perspectives to Protestant emphases on individual reasoning and ongoing development. In this way, the text illuminates the distinct stances taken by figures such as Pope Leo X and Martin Luther, whilst also acknowledging the risks of philosophical oversimplification inherent in the application of such broad categories.

A further focal point is the attention given to canon formation and the processes of textual transmission. The essay foregrounds the contingent, historical nature of the ways in which biblical texts became recognised as authoritative, showing that both authority and tradition are not merely inherited but are products of human discernment and centuries of debate. By examining these multiple layers—the philosophical, historical, and textual—the essay recognises that questions of infallibility and revelation are rooted as much in the development of traditions and interpretative communities as they are in the texts themselves.

This essay aims to offer a nuanced examination of how Christian understandings of revelation and authority have been constructed, negotiated, and, at times, contested. Through its combination of historical analysis, comparative theology, and philosophical reflection, it aims to illuminate the ongoing significance of these foundational issues for both Catholic and Protestant traditions.

 
Infallible, Divine Revelation: Scripture, Tradition and Ex Cathedra Utterances in the Life of the Church (2015)

Introduction[1] [2] [3] 

The French philosopher and Jesuit priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in his book The Divine Milieu, “sought to teach how to see God everywhere, to see him in all that is most hidden, most solid and most ultimate in the world.”[2]  De Chardin, the Jesuit priest, found God in all aspects of life.  De Chardin, the French philosopher, found God in general revelation that transcended, although without the exclusion of, divine and specific revelation.   In his interpretation, all human activities are useful, even necessary to the spiritual evolution of the body of Christ.  De Chardin opens with “The Christian knows that his function is to divinise the world in Jesus Christ.”  Within the sociological context he proposed that religion was expressed through the day to day lives of the Christian. Thus society progressed simultaneous by the expression of God’s will within the daily lives of his people.  Philosophically, de Chardin held that religion was an evolutionary, even migratory, natural theology. 

Writing for the Gifford Lectures in 1947 Christopher Dawson concluded that “Religion is the key to history.”[3]  Theology seasoned by centuries of intellectual evolution gave rise to expanding  philosophies of religion.  These philosophies matured as plausibility structures.  Philosophies matured that informed the ideology of a cognitive minority within the larger Catholic church.[4]  De Chardin and Dawson are prime examples of this development.

 For de Chardin revelation was not an episodic narrative delivered by a few select authors rather an ongoing “natural process which drives human action from ideal to ideal and towards objects ever more internally coherent and comprehensive in their embrace, reaches-- thanks to the support of Revelation-- it’s fullest expansion.”[5]  His weltanschauung was firmly embedded in evolutionary theory in the context of his philosophy, culture and society.

Reflection upon de Chardin and Dawson is designed to open the mind to the impact of the sitz im leben of philosophies of religion within the late quattrocento.   The philosophies of Pope Leo X and Martin Luther directly illustrate distinct views regarding the dispersion and reception of information, or revelation, from God?    

Maturing the Idea of Divine Revelation

Divine revelation from God delivered to man has long been the foundation for divisive thought among scholars in the evolving of theology.  Divergent thought has been expressed in many forms such as medieval enchantment, Renaissance humanism, Scholastic and natural theology, Reformation theology, Enlightenment secularism, and the diaspora of denominational political theology.  Divine, specific revelation was uniquely held by the Hebrews long before Christian thought emerged.  Plato and Aristotle held contrarian yet cohesive ideas regarding the nature of God within a quasi, general revelation.  These, too, in a pre-Christian milieu.  Throughout the decline and fall of the Roman empire the idea of God’s revelation went through tumultuous periods leading to an increase in the power of the Catholic Church.  The power of the state waned as the power of the church increased thus providing greater voice to the other-worldly.  With the emergence of Constantine a seismic shift occurred leading to the convergence of the secular and religious. 

Secular and Religious Thought Become One

De Chardin’s notion that daily activities of the Christian contribute as a portion of God’s revelatory act serves as one form of merging the physical and spiritual.  The divine milieu[6] is a world in which God’s revelation never ceases until the fullness of the work is done.  “Little by little, we may rest assured, the work is being done.  Thanks to the multitude of individuals and vocations, the Spirit of God insinuates itself everywhere and is everywhere at work.”[7]  According to the theology of de Chardin the day to day work of the Christian is little by little revealing God to the world.  The individual is actively involved in the revelatory process.  De Chardin held that these small efforts make up the comprehensive whole of revelation.  This revelatory process is neither the inspired delivery of Scripture through man’s written efforts nor the establishing of Christian tradition based upon revealed text.  Through the daily work of man the Spirit of God integrates into all aspects of man.  Man is creating God’s revelation as his works every day in the world.  Thus, the work of revelation is a mutual effort of the Spirit of God and the Christian.  The evolution of revelation is not the same philosophy of the Spirit of God engaging θεόπνευστος for the transmission of the sacred text[8] and the oral tradition of the prophets.[9]

The value of de Chardin and Dawson to the discussion in this essay is that their ideas are modern day examples of theology born during the early days of the Roman Church.  As we shall examine in detail the ideological clash that occurred a millennium ago set the course for the birth of humanist ideology of the Renaissance.  The breach of faith leading to the Reformation charted the course for thinkers such as de Chardin and Dawson.  The issues of who has communication from God and what by what authority is this communication to be delivered to the recipients became a severe debate among the theologians.           

Paul, the Apostle: Father of Ex Cathedra as Sacred Magisterium?

In a Christian theological context the idea of the infallible, divine revelation of God’s thoughts to man is a plausible structure for defining one’s ecclesiology.[10]  In the traditional Christian setting it is rarely conflicting to accept the thirty-nine “books” of the Old Testament as canonical Scripture due largely to the systematic, meticulous process through which the Scribes handed Scripture down from generation to generation.  While the Old Testament “original” manuscripts do not exist the preserved text is considered to be standard.  Thus, if one accepts that the Old Testament is the Word of God then there is likely confidence in the integrity of the Old Testament Scripture.[11] 

Only on rare occasions does a scholar have the benefit of studying original manuscripts.  Often the primary source for historical discovery is not a first generation text.  Unfortunately, we do not have the original manuscripts of the New Testament nor a consistently handed down cohesive codex for the New Testament.  However, the Old Testament has a reliable history of generational transference.  The “New Testament” was not a reliable source until after the canonization of New Testament manuscripts as the accepted documents.  Simply stated, it did not exist.  This makes the discussion a bit more tenuous.  The time and place for the transmission of “New Testament’ Scriptures is much different than the origin and transmission of “Old Testament” Scriptures.  The New Testament was developed over a 250-300 year period.  There is no complete canon of Scripture in existence known as the “New Testament” from the apostolic period of history.  Thus, the canonization of the official compendium of Scripture was left to the craft of theologians and other stakeholders who made the decision as to what was really to be considered as Scripture. There was a point in time when the theological library did not exist in an orderly form.[12]  A decision process occurred in which fallible men determined what was infallible revelation.  The judgment to include or discard what was the divine, infallible word of God was fraught with philosophical danger.[13]  The rugged terrain must take into account not only the “what” but the “why” of selection.  To discern how to approach determining what is to be the textus receptus is no small undertaking as these Scriptures are to be honored and revered by all who seek God through these works.  The answer to this question- the “how to approach” the canonization of Scripture- philosophically orients the logical progression of the theological mind throughout all ages to come.

According to F.F Bruce, the letters of Paul “whether as entire documents or in fragments, were carefully collected.”  The significance of this statement is to acknowledge that there was no one time revelation that dropped out of heaven into the library shelves of the world.  Rather a much more fragmented delivery of works now considered to be the infallible, divinely revealed word of God.  From a philosophical view one must carefully consider this idea of “how” the word of God was delivered to understand “how to” determine one’s held beliefs on the conflict between Pope Leo X and Martin Luther.  Their divisive thoughts embody a core debate that structurally impacts the ecclesiology for all time.

The commonly accepted western tradition is that men were moved to record the very words of God in a written format.  These written words became the foundation for what was to become new covenant, or New Testament, Scripture.  Paul was primarily known as a letter writer to teach and encourage fledgling churches in their growth life.  Thus, he encouraged the exchange of his letters among the churches.  These letters circulated among churches for years until nearly 100 years passed when a codex of sorts began to become standard. 

Where Paul’s letters prior to becoming a codex considered to be the infallible, divine revealed word of God?  Or were these simply letters from a church leader to other church leaders?  What was the status of infallibility and divine revelation during those intervening years when the full puzzle of the manuscript collected?  The answer to this question makes a difference in how one formulates a view of the Sacred Magisterium and ex cathedra later discussed in this essay. Bruce further concludes that it was not until the second century that “an unknown benefactor of all succeeding ages copied at least ten Pauline letters into a codex from which copies were made for use in many parts of the Christian world.”[14] 

During the apostolic ministry of Paul he had the Old Testament Scripture as an accepted source of God’s word delivered to man (Sacred Text), the rabbinic teaching as the interpretation of God’s word (Sacred Tradition both written and oral) and the Sacred Magisterium (the personal ability to speak “ex cathedra” the utterances of God).[15]  This historical precedent provides insight into how God communicated with a select few in the early church.  The idea[16] of these three methods-- Sacred Text, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium-- of receiving[17] God’s revealed word and/or application of the message of God is not a new innovation of the Catholic church.  Receiving the message is a process of transmitting the mind of God into the mind of man to provide a divinely originated word from God.  Those who drafted the Sacred Text had a unique essence from God to record as Scripture the thoughts of God.  Sacred Tradition is the interpretation and application of Scripture.  Traditions such as the Talmud (the central text of Rabbinic Judaism) and Mishnah (the first written record of the Oral Torah given in parallel to the written Torah) are sources for the developing of the Sacred Tradition.  The authors chosen to embody inspiration (θεόπνευστος) wrote the Scriptures.[18]  Many consider Moses to be the author of Torah and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as authors of the gospel accounts.[19]  Peter is credited to have written 1 and 2 Peter while Paul is noted as having written a large portion of the New Testament.  The Christian view is that the canon of Scripture was written by men prompted by the Holy Spirit culminating in the late first century.   The given assumption by a large number of Christian thinkers is that θεόπνευστος ceased at the closing of the first century.  Thereafter, the biblical “books” were completed.  These writings gave rise to the New Testament some 200 years later.[20] 

Leo and Luther:  Lineage of Ex Cathedra as Sacred Magisterium?

Men have arisen through the centuries who distinctly believed their words to be the words of God.  Men such as the pope in ex cathedra.  Others proclaim their message to be the correct message.  Men such as Martin Luther, a contemporary scholastic theologian,[21] took it upon himself to modify the New Testament text.  The result of Luther’s work was linguistic redaction and theological reformation and alteration of an ancient text, the New Testament.[22]  Difficulty arises when these two men, Pope Leo X and Martin Luther, become vehemently opposed to one another.  When contradiction arises who can state whether the opposition is right or wrong in philosophical orientation?  On the one hand the Gregorians exalted papal authority while “Luther repudiated the papacy all together.  The Gregorians cited the ancient canons as warrant for their reforms; Luther hurled the book of canon law into the flames.”[23]  Luther by “a spiritual declaration of independence... boldly cast off, once and forever, the ecclesiastical authority of Rome.”[24]  Luther denounced a works religion by concluding that “the more we seek salvation, the more God gives damnation.”[25]  Erasmus, the “apostle of humanism,” himself a translator of the New Testament “was not a man to break with the traditional ecclesiastical system.”[26]  All differing perspectives by men in positions of authority that assist in forming the philosophy of religion for all coming generations.

The premise of Luther’s work Concerning Christian Liberty[27] was founded upon what he believed the Bible taught on the subject.  For Luther, Scripture was God’s final revealed word to mankind not subject to the innovations of man.  He matured his views of sola scriptura based upon this idea.  As philosopher-kings[28] both Martin Luther and Pope Leo each were considered to speak on behalf of God.  Yet, their messages were distinctly different, even opposing of the other.

Catholic Church tradition holds that its fundamental doctrine is found in the Sacred Text.  Sacred Tradition consisted of that body of truth handed down from generation to generation including interpretations of Scripture and instituting organizational structure within the Church.  Sacred Magisterium consisted of papal words equally authoritative with Holy Scripture held to be God’s divine word, according to Catholic tradition.  Both Luther (theologian) and Pope Leo (Holy See) considered their interpretation as ordained by God and thus the word of truth.  Luther as guardian of truth.  The church as enforcer of truth. 

Conceptually, magisterium refers to office of the teacher.  Functionally,  the duty of instruction.  Sacred Magisterium resides in the office of the Holy See.  The Pope is said to be a conduit for the infallible, divinely revealed word of God.  When the Pope sits in “ex cathedra” he is said to possess papal infallibility.  In essence, his utterances in “ex cathedra” are understood to be of divine origin.  Sacred Magisterium in ex cathedra is a cornerstone of Catholic dogma in the authoritative lineage of Petrine supremacy. 

“Ex cathedra” is a Latin phrase translated "from the chair".  From time to time when the Pope speaks “ex cathedra” his utterances are binding and infallible (Sacred Magisterium).  Ex Cathedra papal utterances reflect Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  Orthodoxy would argue that the infallible papal teachings must not contradict Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.[29]  In practice, this was not the result.  The Pope spoke ex cathedra as the very voice of God's will.  In this tradition, papal utterances were the inspired words of the Holy Spirit expressed with the same force of ancient Holy Scripture provided to man by inspiration of God.  Too often ex cathedra became the tool of the conqueror.

In Concerning Christian Liberty, Luther rejected not only Pope Leo’s ex cathedra utterances but the very office of the papacy as God's institution on earth.  He denied the pope’s claim to be the Vicar of Christ.[30]  Philosophically, Pope Leo and Martin Luther appear to have approached their theological orientation through the eyes of a Platonist.  In particular, Plato’s cave.[31]  As philosopher-rulers each man was positioned so that his utterances would carry authority as the ordained words of God.  The pope as the Vicar of Christ.  Luther as the prophet of God.[32]

Interpretation (hermeneutic) choices are directly anchored in assumptions (epistemology).  The Holy Catholic Church saw Christians as patrons of the Court of Rome, subject to the Church and papal infallibility.  Luther held that Christians have liberty in Christ free from the Court of Rome.  Scripture allows for Christian liberty based solely on the "word of truth" independent of any ecclesiastical legislation in the form of papal authority.  Luther argued that many forms of corruption create a model of taxation without representation as subjects of the Court of Rome.  Further, that the power of the Catholic Church including the Infallibility of the Pope and political structures of the institution were at core corrupt.  He argued that the Catholic Church was more aptly termed the "Court of Rome" that has become more corrupt than Babylon and Sodom.  His passionate rhetoric crested in polemic that "not even antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness.”[33] 

The term “antichrist" is the strongest antithesis to the name of Christ.  In 2 Thessalonians 2:7 biblical scholars have attributed the words "for the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken away" to the papal office.  This Scripture has historically been applied to the five references of "antichrist" in 1 and 2 John. These, too, are often interpreted as references to the papal office being antichrist. This sentiment was already in a fever during the time of Luther.  Yet, another example of philosophy being integrated into the practical theology of the church.

Luther issues this rather fervent word carefully selected to impart disgust upon the Catholic institution.  The Church of Rome "has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death and hell"[34]  Luther refers to papal authority as "monstrous evils of this age" and the Court of Rome marked by Luther as a "foolish tyranny."[35]

Historical markers of the thought include the Catholic Church’s strategic intent for universal expansion of the papal empire.  As history unfolded the division of the Roman Church became the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Roman Church.  The Protestant Reformation movement emerged amid protests of Christians regarding alleged corruption of the Catholic Church resulting in worldwide sectarian denominations taking exception to the dogma and practices of Catholicism.[36]

Pope Leo X, Martin Luther and the Leipsic Disputation                                   

The plot thickens when Pope Leo X came into such ill repute with Luther that Luther refers to him as being “among those monstrous evils of this age.”[37]  Luther refers to their ideological conflict as “waging war’ and likens the rule of Leo to that of the foolish tyranny of Pius and Julius.[38] Luther admitted that he was born “to contend on the field of battle with factions and with wicked spirits.  This is the reason that my writings abound so much with war and tempests.”[39]  He states that “It is my task to uproot the stock and the stem, to clear away the briars and the underwood, to fill up the pools and the marshes.  I am the rough woodman who has to prepare the way and smooth the road.”[40]

In his monologue against the “Court of Rome” Luther argued that the Roman Church was “lost, desperate, and [a] hopeless impiety” having once been “the most holy of all Churches.”[41]  Further, the Church of Rome “has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death and hell; so that not even antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness.”[42]  All this as preparation for the indictment against Leo.

Charles Miltitz made entreaty to Luther to recant and to keep silence on these matters.[43]  Luther states that he had been prepared to yield to the great name of Leo and keep silent.  But a greater enemy appeared in the form of Johann Eck (Eccius), a defender of papal doctrine,  who took up the cause to attack Luther.  This resulted in the Leipsic disputation[44] in which Dr. Andreas Karlstadt engaged in the debate over allegations against papal authority.[45]

The Leipsic debate took place in 1519.  Among the core tenets forming the intellectual arena for debate were questions surrounding the necessity of a pope and papal supremacy.  If Christ is head of the Church why did Christians need a pope?  If it is doctrinal heresy to repudiate papal supremacy then all the early Christians were heretics?

 Luther excluded man as a participant in adjudicating matters of God, excluded man as a participant in the authority of the traditional canonical writings of the Holy Bible and excluded man as a participant in extra-canonical revelations of God to man.  The Catholic Church included man as a participant in adjudicating matters of God, accepted the apocryphal writings in addition to the canonical writings of the Bible and accepted papal infallibility in extra-canonical revelations of God to the Pope.

 At the dawn of the Protestant Reformation Luther wrote “Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” (commonly know as “The Ninety-Five Theses).  Within a short time this work became widely distributed and the center of controversy.  Nearly three years after the publication of Luther’s ninety-five theses Pope Leo X issued a rebuttal entitled “Arise, O Lord”. The lasting impression of the work is evident in its historical relevance even today. 

Of importance to this present study is the evolving of a theological view among those who had separated themselves from the Catholic Church.  That is, the belief that the Bible is the only source of knowledge (sola scriptura) pertaining to the salvific work of God.  Herein lies the formation of an articulated view of the philosophy of religion founded in a specific form of divine revelation from God to man.  Further, the singular idea that the Bible contains all truth related to doctrinal matters is of paramount importance to the structure of change in both the Reformation.[46]  In summation, for many any doctrine not found to be explicit or implicit in Scripture is to be rejected. 

Luther: Transition from Ecclesiolatry to Bibliolatry

According to Melancthon “we ought not to interpret Scripture by the Fathers, but the Fathers by Scripture.”[47]  Further, he stated “the meaning of Scripture is to be obtained by comparing Scripture with Scripture.”[48]  The Reformation ushered in a change in man’s demeanor toward the Bible.  Luther is said to have “substituted bibliolatry for ecclesiolatry.”[49]  Not only did Luther embrace sola scriptura “he began work on the German Bible, which for more than twenty years was his constant occupation.”[50] Melanchthon was a champion of the infallibility of Scripture.  He placed “the truth of Scripture above reason” concluding that “spiritual things can only be understood by the direct help of the Spirit.”[51]  John Calvin “was the real founder of the extreme doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture.”[52]  All together forming a long progression of scholarly theologians who believed the Bible to be the only source of truth for man.  This resulted in the emergence of a more clearly articulated philosophy of God’s revealed will to man that stood in opposition to years of ecclesiology.

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, grappled over the question of the mortality and immortality of man.  These questions lead to wrestling with philosophical questions pertaining to the existence of God.  Ultimately the question of divine revelation and interaction with man emerges front and center to all discussions.  These questions have had substantial impact on western thought today. 

Socrates led seminal philosophical discussions concerning man and the other-worldly.[53]  Man viewed as more than simply a physical being on earth but a spiritual being with a higher purpose involving the beyond.[54]  Plato “became the godfather of the religious, artistic, intuitive, and mystical side of the Western personality.”[55]  He emerged as one of the great disciples of Socrates furthering the exploration of man in relation to eternity.  Plato sought to restore a declining society saving it from ruin already occurring.  The philosopher ruler looked down on the city from the mountaintop noting declining moral systems in need of repair.  It was from this posture that Plato formulated his worldview.  A worldview always looking in retrospect at a deteriorating past with imagination of how to make the future better.  Conceptually, the philosopher ruler is the idea man to lead the people who can’t lead themselves.[56]

Aristotle, having devoted a large portion of his life in the Academy at Athens under the tutelage of Plato, eventually made a sharp break in worldview with the teachings of the master.  Rather than advocating an “other worldly” platonist theology Aristotle led the paradigm shift incorporating a more scientific approach for the here and now.   He did not view society as an ever declining morally decadent aggregation of non-thinking man.  While he saw good in the community at large Aristotle gave credence to the individual man who was constantly increasing in his reasoning capacity.

A natural adaptation of Aristotle’s philosophy is that man progresses toward a better reasoning capacity.  In short, an evolution of the mind.  A work in progress.  Aristotle may be one of the first true progressives in the world of philosophy.  The end result is happiness through productive work.  This progress results in man as an evolving rather than a devolving creature.  By examining the rudimentary design of knowledge, reality and existence with an eye focused on “this-worldly” Aristotle’s “great-souled man”[57] did not stand on the mountaintop.  He did not direct his gaze down at society but moved among the people as a true individual.  His reasoning man did not become the philosopher-ruler.  For the philosopher-ruler’s primary purpose is to “fix others” not possessing the intellectual capacity to understand their own needs.  Aristotle did not attempt to intellectually modify man’s brokenness. Aristotle saw man as the great individualist cum laude as man.  Aristotle did not view God as an intervening, meddling artificer. He conceptualized God as the “Unmoved Mover” who, frankly, does not know the world exists because it is imperfect.[58]  Imperfection cannot reside with perfection.  God is perfect.  Man is imperfect.  The two do not connect.  From this vantage point Aristotle’s successful man is not dreamy about the eternal rather is cognizant of the here and now.  The “great-souled man” is ever moving forward.  He is seeking progress.  Working toward a better here and now through the productivity of his own hands.  Aristotle’s man gains knowledge through inquiry capturing deeper insight through investigation and discovery.  From this view both Pope Leo and Martin Luther were not at philosophical foundation Aristotelian.  They would have been positioned as philosopher-rulers who were needed to help man fix what he could not fix.  From a thought orientation both men lacked the reasoning mind, or logic of Aristotle.  Plato’s looked backwards.  Aristotle saw forward.  One saw decline at every turn while the other saw opportunity for becoming stronger.  This research paper is focused on the discovery of the intellectual forces that have greatly influenced views on the infallible, divine revelation of God to man.[59] 

It is against this backdrop that we explore an often Byzantine narrative of thought. Too often theologians attempt the creation of a “synoptic gospel” of sorts with the theories held by Socrates and Plato in comparison to Aristotle.  This has proven to be a Rock of Gibraltar.  The two philosophies are systemically incongruent.   As time passed the platonist and the peripatetic theories encompass all manner of interpretive digressions.  Divergence of thought has led to multiplicity techniques of interpreting the literary text of Scripture that simply are not going to meet intellectually.

A Platonist might develop a line of thought as such:  man is morally declining.  Man cannot save himself.  The Platonist philosopher ruler knows best for man.  Man does not know what he needs to think, say or do in order to find his own path out of moral decadence.

An Aristotelian might develop a line of thought as such: man is an ever evolving.  Man is a constantly moving toward being a better individual.  Man is ever progressing forward.  Progress is a decision of one.  Man alone can save himself even if from himself.  Man’s decision to move forward engaging proper behaviors will make progress.  Only man knows what he needs to think, say and do in order to chart his course to greater success.

The distinction of philosopher-ruler versus the great souled man is fundamental to one’s ability to interpret the world.  Whether one sees the world only as a physical place (i.e., the real world) in which there is no spiritual realm or the world only as a veiled existence feeding into the spiritual world, which is the real world.  Juxtaposed to this thought is the conclusion that the distinction of philosopher ruler and great souled man is paramount in one’s ability to interpret Scripture. 

Underlying Philosophy Determines Direction of Thought                      

German biblical scholars such as Rudolf Bultmann developed a method of biblical criticism known as form criticism.[60]  Not only was scholarly work performed regarding the priority of Mark and questions about the Johannine gospel but a deeper study was conducted on the pre-manuscript period of the New Testament era.  Continually in all ages of mankind scholarly work has been conducted with regard to the authenticity of the manuscripts, historical integrity of the biblical text and role of divine revelation of Scripture.  Specifically, the finer points of the infallibility of the revelation of God to man have received intense theological banter and aligned schools of thought accordingly.  Herein lies the difficulty with questions of infallibility: at what points in time is the beginning and end of Scripture being breathed out by God?

Traditionally, and in theory, evangelical Christianity holds a more Platonist view of Scripture being delivered by God to man.  This informs the philosopher-ruler mindset that Scripture cannot be read and interpreted by the general masses.  While this is diametrically opposed to standard tradition taught by evangelical Christian leaders this is not the logic leading to this interpretation. Fundamental evangelical Christian thought is that the Bible is “word for word” the God-breathed message to man.  Conclusions follow that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word for word message of God.[61] 

The logical progression of thought challenges much of the supposed conclusions of Catholic belief of Sacred Text, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Magisterium.  When viewed from this point in time the division is much more readily seen.  Yet, at the time of Pope Leo and Martin Luther the issue was fresh having not had time for minds to vet through the relevant issues with the theological positions held by each man.

Christians are taught that God-breathed Scripture is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”[62]  The quandary is not whether the Old Testament meets these qualifications rather does the New Testament.[63]  Form criticism questions the formation of Scripture that is generally accepted as the “word for word” delivery of God’s message.  The twenty-seven New Testament documents were confirmed at the third Synod of Carthage in 397 AD as a result of 250-300 years of formation.  The choice of documents to be included in the canon of New Testament Scripture was not made by any one person or church council.  The documents that became the New Testament evolved over many years to become the accepted text of the New Testament.

Protestant Christians are not accepting of the Catholic view of Scripture as being inerrant with the addition of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium.  However, one view is that the received and accepted text is the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures.  The apostle Paul encouraged Timothy that “from a child you have known the holy Scriptures.”  In context the key elements include that all Scripture that is received from God is breathed from him into man for transmission.  These Scriptures provide the necessary tools for teaching, reproof, correction and training in the “how to” of righteousness so that the man of God can be fully equipped to to the work before him.  This rigid interpretation stands in opposition to the ex cathedra utterances held authoritative by Catholic constituents. 

Textual uses of “Scripture” is in reference to the Old Testament Scriptures.  This is not a reference to the New Testament as the particular documents to be canonized had not been written at that time.  Additionally, many years passed before a decision was made as to which documents would be included in the “New Testament” as canonical Scripture. 

Saul of Tarsus was trained in rabbinic thought and lived as a Jewish Rabbi.  He vehemently persecuted those who did not embrace Scripture and rabbinic dogma.   He learned Scripture from the time of childhood. He learned rabbinic law in the scholarly institution.[64] 

The Jewish perspective was that the Holy Scripture was from God.  Yet heavy credence was given to the rabbinic interpretations such as The Talmud.  Jewish theology anchored belief in the divinely received and preserved text from God.[65]

Sacred Scripture is historically considered by the Roman Catholic Church as being infallible.  That is, an error free message.[66] 

The message of Scripture is that which encompasses not only the delivered text but the tradition of the Church as well.  Inclusion of the Sacred Tradition of the Church as a portion of the message delivered from God to man is for some a pandora’s box of theological conundra.  Yet, it is in this view that we see the openness to a broader view of divine revelation than a more restricted paradigm that only allows for divine revelation within the received canonical Scriptures.  This is a similar approach held by the Jewish scholars.[4] [5] [6] [7] [67]

Catholic theology recognizes three authoritative sources of divine truth: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium.  That is, the text of the Bible, the traditions held by the church and the words of the Pope.  In regards to Scripture and Tradition the Catholic church and the Jewish faith have similar approaches.  However, with regard to the Sacred Magisterium a line of demarcation exists between the Jewish faith and Catholic theology.  The Jewish scholars held Scripture as sacred.  Ritual took place before one could touch the scrolls containing Scripture.  One must have a certain cleanness prior to being in the presence of Scripture.  Ritual preparedness was a symbol of spiritual readiness to walk into the presence of God.  Even the name of God was not to be spoken or written.  The tetragrammaton distanced the mind and the words from the actual name of God.  All of this functioned as a deep respect for God.  Thus, when Scripture was read by Ezra, the Scribe,[68] the people stood while the words of God were shared with them by the man of God.

The narrative reads,

And all the people gathered as one man at the square which was in front of the Water Gate, and they asked Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the Lord had given to Israel. Then Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly of men, women and all who could listen with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month. He read from it before the square which was in front of the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of men and women, those who could understand; and all the people were attentive to the book of the law.  Ezra the scribe stood at a wooden podium which they had made for the purpose.[69]

The narrative surrounding the Nehemiah text is interesting from a pragmatic perspective with the high view of Scripture.  The people congregated in the town square with the intended purpose to be exposed to God’s message.  The congregants who stood  “as one man at the square” requested of the Scribe, Ezra, that he bring the “book of the law of Moses which the Lord had given to Israel.”  Interesting, that the people turned to the learned man of them knowing that he had access to the written law of Moses that had been delivered by God.  Further, they asked him to read the law to them.  Ezra who is now referred to as “the priest” brought the law before the people--men, women and all-- who “listen with understanding.”  This activity took place from morning to night while the people remained “attentive to the book of the law.”

 Here Ezra the Scribe and the priest brought forth the law of Moses to be delivered to the people who desired to know God’s message.  In this instance the only method of sharing the message was the reading of the text from the pulpit.  There is no hint of tradition or inspiration taking place in this reading of the Scripture.

            Further,

Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people for he was standing above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up. Then Ezra blessed the Lord the great God. And all the people answered, “Amen, Amen!” while lifting up their hands; then they bowed low and worshiped the Lord with their faces to the ground. Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, explained the law to the people while the people remained in their place. They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.[70]

The Sacred Text elicits sacred response.  As Ezra “opened the book in the sight of all the people...all the people stood up.”  Ezra proceeded to bless God before all present.  The people responded with amen.  The natural response to the hearing of God’s word is the desire to worship and praise God.  The people answered in unison, “Amen, Amen!”  As the words departed the scroll through the voice of Ezra into the minds of the people their hearts were stirred.  They bowed low and “worshiped the Lord with their faces to the ground.”  Then the law was explained to them and translated to give the sense of the meaning to help the people understand.

For those who endorse the Bible Scripture is the foundation of their faith.  Yet, this view is diluted in the modern church to the point that many Christians have not given thought to whether or not the Scripture is in fact the divine, infallible revelation of God.[71] 

Conclusion

The infallible nature of Scripture is a discussion throughout all of history of God’s interaction with man.  Questions concerning the canonization of Scripture have had tremendous impact on the perceptions of what is Scripture from a historical perspective.

 The Old Testament has a rich history of systematic transmission and is easily recognized by scholars as the received word of God.  Transferred for many years by the hands of the Scribes onto scrolls eventually copied into standardized texts for use in the study of God’s revealed truth.  The Catholic tradition accepts certain of the apocryphal writings as inspired books of God.

 How much of the Bible is inspired.  All of it?  Part of it?  Are each of the words inspired?  Phrases inspired?  Once a foundation is made defining inspiration then a secondary conversation poses itself as difficult to the theologian.  Is Scripture the only source of inspired message from God?  Sola Scriptura? 

The Catholic Tradition allows for oral tradition and written extraneous traditions to be incorporated into the standard system of belief.  So does the Jewish faith.  Evangelical and Protestant Christians do as well but are much more hesitant to admit the case.  The major issue between Luther and Pope Leo X was whether the ex cathedra utterances were actually sanctioned by God as divine revelation.  Pope Leo and the Holy Roman Church affirmed as so.  Luther denied this being the case.  These and many other issues became the wellspring that led to the Protestant Reformation giving birth to many forms of Christian expression of faith.

Footnotes

[1] The purpose of this essay is to explore the rational assessment of philosophical arguments set within historical context as interwoven into infallible, divine revelation measured within the framework of Scripture, Tradition and Ex Cathedra utterances of the Christian church.  The early draft of this essay contained a lengthy discussion of the revelation of God to man during the American Restoration Movement.  The entire section regarding the American Restoration Movement of the churches of Christ was deleted as the topic is not apropos to this essay.

[2] Teilhard de Chardin, The Divine Milieu (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 9.  De Chardin embraced natural theology as “at oneness” with the universe.  Natural theology fully expressed in the earth through the existence of man within that earth.  For de Chardin the cumulative activity of man became the divine expression of God on the earth.  All men who expressed positive activity toward the nature of God and Christ contributed to the divine milieu.  The proclivity toward natural theology placed de Chardin at great odds with the papal authorities.  De Chardin lived in “spiritual exile” from the very religious body he promoted throughout his lifetime.  This due to his philosophy of the God and man relationship.

[3] Christopher Dawson, Religion and Culture (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2013), 37.

[4] Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City: Anchor, 1967), 47.  Berger states, “By contrast, man’s relationship to his environment is characterized by world-openness.  Not only has man succeeded in establishing himself over the greater part of the earth’s surface, his relationship to the surrounding environment is everywhere very imperfectly structured by his own biological constitution.” 

[5] Divine Milieu,  37.

[6] “Milieu” being defined as “environment.”  The term “milieu” is of French origin having no clear translation into the English language.

[7] Ibid., 79.

[8] 1 Tim. 3:16-17 (English Standard Version).  “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”  Paul included the body of the Old Testament in his reference to “all Scripture.”  He does not to appear to have been referencing a future set of canonical texts although in hindsight the Christian world aggregates both the Old and New Testament documents in an inclusive “All Scripture” that was breathed out by God.  The Jews of Paul’s day rejected this at the advent of Christianity’s New Testament as they do today.

[9] 1 Sam. 19:18-24.  The “school of the prophets” in Ramah is an example of repeated encounters of prophesying in which the actual message, if written by anyone, has not been transmitted as sacred text of Scripture.  We do not have any reliable data leading to the conclusion that all acts of prophetic utterance formed anything other than “oral tradition.”  When I first wrote this statement credence was not given to the deeper philosophical traditions, even contrary traditions, that do not embrace the concept  of θεόπνευστος.  Additionally, there was no thought as to the sociological context that leads to this conclusion.

[10] For the redaction of my former essay the term “a plausible structure” adds the dimension of recognizing other philosophies that influence a body of people and the customs of a society that form the cultural environment.

[11] In my original essay dated July 2014 the following sentence was included as a statement of fact.  The sentence reads, “Critics of the Old Testament have not successfully argued against the authenticity of the canon of Old Testament Scripture.”  The author cannot argue this to be a statement of fact.  While the idea that critics have “not successfully argued against the authenticity of the canon of Old Testament Scripture” is a held belief I cannot endorse this statement as a matter of fact for all peoples.  This is based on construct and a matter of logical argumentation.  As a philosophical inquiry I now discern that this is one perspective among many viewpoints.  In the tradition of a Hebrew or a Christian one would want to argue the veracity of this comment but for the atheist the desire would be to argue against the veracity of this comment.  The struggle is that it all depends on one’s epistemological and ontological foundation.  Hence, the question of philosophical orientation.

[12] The use of the term “theological library” as a term for the “New Testament” is an intentional commentary on how the biblical narrative has been applied since the codex was completed.

[13] A significant shift has occurred in thought concerning the canonization of the manuscripts into the canon of New Testament Scripture.  Prior to the study of the humanities my perspective was focused on defending the body of text called the New Testament without giving real credence to the defining of the corpus.  When scholarly review is made of the texts within their historical setting it quickly becomes apparent that the philosophical orientation of those selecting the documents (to be called “books” in later times) could not disinform themselves from their philosophical underpinnings.  In essence, the selection of the canon of Scripture cannot be divorced from the strengths and weaknesses of those in the selection process.  Nor can one eliminate the impact of political agendas driving the process of selection.  This idea negates the concept of the King James Version of the Bible being dropped out of heaven into the hands of the first century church.  As a note, I understand the stark contradiction of this sentence.

[14] F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 465.  The idea that Paul’s theological framework included Sacred Text, Sacred Tradition both written and oral, and Sacred Magisterium is an idea that had not been matured in my thoughts at the time of this original essay.  However, as time has passed I strongly hold that this is a primary starting point for understanding the methods used by God to deliver the divinely inspired word to mankind.

[15] 2 Pet. 1:21.   “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”  The Old Testament Canon experiences the same issues of collection and authenticity as the New Testament albeit to a lesser degree.  The idea that the Old Testament was handed down word for word for many generations tends to lead one to accept these works as the true canon of Scripture.  Yet, when one delves deep into the recesses of time to determine the origin of the Old Testament the same questions emerge.  To define the work of Paul as “Sacred Magisterium” is an unorthodox interpretation of the θεόπνευστος.

[16] The original term used in this sentence was “logic” rather than “idea”  The decision to redact the term is that logic focuses more on the argument than the concept.  The point is not to make a logical argumentation from theory rather to acknowledge the historicity of this method of dissemination of God’s word.

[17] The original term as “of learning” has been altered to “of receiving.”  The question is not how one learns rather how does one receive a message of divine origin.  How one learns is more hermeneutical in nature.

[18] The men chosen by the Holy Spirit to write the documents now canonization as Scripture is not nearly so simple to dissect as was thought by this author at the time of writing of the original essay.  To, whether Jew or Christian, we engage a series of assumptions that lead us to accept that what we have is God’s holy message delivered in pristine form to serve as the field guide for man’s journey from this life to the next.

[19] From the original essay, Who knows other than the authors of the texts that became the New Testament whether these men actually had an ex cathedra experience with their quill?”  The questions of authorship is of paramount importance in the search for the canon of God.  This question directly influences one’s philosophy of God’s interaction with man to deliver is divine will.  It is assumed that Moses wrote the Torah.  It is inaccurately held that Paul wrote Hebrews.  Arguments continue to be discussed regarding the validity of Mark 16:9-20 which is considered a late addition in the Latin Vulgate but lacks much to be fully accepted as Scripture based upon standards set to determine whether a text is to be included in the Canon.  The subtle impact of this discussion upon the theological wars of the late Renaissance is first discovered in this idea.  For Luther to argue against papal ex cathedra as an imposition upon the church of the day cannot be argued from the perspective that there is no precedent.  On the contrary, precedent does exist in the form of the Apostle Peter in his writings.  If one argues that the Holy See (the pope) is in the divine genealogy for the divine revelation of God’s mind to the church then one could accept the possibility that God continues to speak through his prophets in all ages.  This decision orients the philosophical direction of all subsequent theology.

[20] This is stated from the perspective of historical rather than theological examination.  This author does not here argue for the sake of  the authenticity of these works as being of divine origination.

[21] Preserved Smith, “Luther's Development of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Only,” The Harvard Theological Review 6, no. 4 (October 1913): 465.  That Martin Luther was “a contemporary scholastic theologian” did not resonant with this author when the original essay was drafted.  Scholastic theology supposes that knowledge is gained through dialectical reasoning.  While Luther argued against ex cathedra he redacted the New Testament to suit his judgement on what was to be considered the New Testament.  In a sense, he sat in his own ex cathedra while practicing Sacred Magisterium upon the Sacred Text influenced by Sacred Tradition.

[22] Here my edits reflect a different perspective of Martin Luther and historiography.  In the original essay I wrote, “Martin Luther concluded…”  At this juncture I realized I do not know what Martin Luther concluded because I have not read an primary source to state what Luther concluded.  This simple yet important alteration has occurred in my research mind.  To state what an author concludes requires a source stating what the author concluded.  If I am interpreting what a man says either through deduction or induction the requirement is to reflect in the most logical manner with accuracy what has been discovered through historical research.

[23]John W. O'Malley, Four Cultures of the West (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 59.

[24] William Bishop, “Erasmus,” The Sewanee Review 14, no. 2 (April 1906): 135.   The depth of study in the Italian Renaissance has provided an acute awareness of the vast canyon that existed between the papal state and men such as Luther.  Luther having been a faithful servant of the Holy Roman church “cast off” the authority of the church never to turn back.

[25] Smith, 422.  “The righteousness of God which he puts in or imputes to man without any merit or even effort of the latter.”

[26] Howard Savage, “The First Visit of Erasmus to England,” PMLA 37, no. 1 (1922): 112.  Erasmus was a proponent of the “new theology of the Renaissance” era encapsulated as the philosophy of humanism.  This philosophy at core was an era discovering the dignity of man.  At the beginning of my studies in the doctoral program I had no definition of humanism other than what had been instilled through a lifetime of theological bias oriented in the American Restoration Movement.  My understanding was that humanism in thought was akin to atheism and a form of heresy to be fought against at all costs.  At this juncture I see humanism as one of the true tenets of my intellectual epistemology. Ontologically, humanism informs my philosophy.  As I reflect on “theological bias” versus “an informed theology” I cannot endorse the intellectual breakdown of the modern day tradition so inherently embraced in the American Restoration Movement.  This philosophy lacks the intellectual vigor I have been exposed to in studia humanitatis.  The “scholars” of the American Restoration Movement have foregone recognition of historical research in the primary sources from the classical period, have developed an ontological approach without foundation in reason, have been proponents of an anemic hermeneutic, and have embraced their own form of ex cathedra from the sages who lived during the mid-19th century to mid-20th century.  Their theology did not successfully transition from that era.  In a sense, the American Restoration Movement is in a time warp much like the posterity of the Quaker and Amish traditions.  Sacred Scripture has been replaced by Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium.  The intellectual “scholarship” of the 21st century American Restoration Movement is rudderless.  Those who “contend for the faith” make an attempt at being stalwarts of the faith by simply mimicking their heroes of the past.  This conclusion was drawn after reading Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion (New York: Classic House Books, 2009), 23.  Freud wrote, “They are full of contradictions, revisions and falsifications, and where they speak of factual confirmations they are themselves unconfirmed.  It does not help much to have it asserted that their wording, or even their content only, originates from divine revelation; for this assertion is itself one of the doctrines whose authenticity is under examination, and no proposition can be a proof of itself.”  The men who “mount the pulpit” do so in rapid fire recital of Scripture while blindly performing eisegesis of the text without proposing for a secular age the defining moments to propel their ideology forward in a world unknown to the thinkers of the past.

[27] Martin Luther, Concerning Christian Liberty (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 3.  The seminal work defining much of the debate is discovered in the work of Martin Luther. 

[28] Arthur Hermann, The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization (New York: Random House, 2014), 564.  The following two sentences are removed being judged irrelevant:  “ He professed himself to the last a loyal adherent of the Romantic man.  At the most basic understanding Scripture is viewed as delivered of God to man.”

[29] In the original essay the idea expressed was that “Ex cathedra papal utterances must be congruent with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  The authority of the pope to decide what is the accepted formal belief of Roman Catholic Church is tantamount to Sacred Magisterium. ”  After much reflection in the work of Renaissance studies it does not appear that this conclusion is accurate.  Leonardo Bruni’s History of the Florentine People leads to the conclusion that the papal office was used as a tool of political maneuvering.  Sacred Text and Tradition had a definite position in the era of Pope Leo X.  However, the history of the papal office was one overwhelming dictated by the use of the Petrine authority as a political theology.  It does not appear that ex cathedra and Sacred Magisterium were engaged with the motive of preserving the infallible, divine word of God.  The focus of this essay is not an excavation of the depth of this idea but to simply acknowledge the shift in my perspective.

[30] This following sentence are deleted due to lack of relevant meaning within this context and poor syntax.  “The philosophical foundations important to an understanding of Luther's work create tension related to origin of thought and interpretation.  Luther’s foundation was much different than that of the pope Catholic thought is founded upon the power in the Court of Rome through the Holy Catholic Church.  The different starting point is the underlying issue that ignited Luther's strong verbiage against the Catholic institution.”  

[31] The words “ looking into Plato’s cave” have been removed as not being founded upon solid logic.  The sentence read,  “Although both Pope Leo X and Martin Luther each approach religious thought from a Platonist point of view their interpretations looking into Plato’s cave are quite varied.”

[32] Original text read, “Pope Leo believed his sources of power originated in Sacred Scripture culminating in political power.”  This sentence is not supportable without fuller research.  It is not historically accurate to assume what a man “believed” regarding “power” and “political power.”  A second sentence is here deleted due to lack of relevance and poor syntactical structure:  “Yet a consideration of the scientific method by which interpretation of knowledge forms the intellect's epistemological base informs that those principles by which one chooses to be guided dictates in a cause-effect manner the outcomes of philosophical conclusions.”

[33] Luther, 8.

[34] Ibid, 4.

[35] Ibid, 3.

[36] Sentence removed as not being relevant to the line of thought in the essay.  Sentence reads. “Born in reaction to the political power base of the Catholic Church Protestants refused to succumb to the overt pressure applied by the Court of Rome, a term Luther associated with the Catholic Church.”

[37] Luther, 3. The first section of the little book is called “Letter of Martin Luther to Pope Leo X.”  Here Luther equates the dogma of ex cathedra as corrupt error against the word of truth. 

[38] Ibid, 3.

[39] M Michelet, “The Life of Martin Luther, Gathered from His Own Writings,” The North American Review 63, no. 133 (1846): 436.  “It is in vain to deny that Luther was at times somewhat coarse in his communications with others; and to ascribe it, after the usual fashion, to the spirit of the age, though it shows that he was not alone in that sort of indulgence, does not make such language refined, nor reconcile it with the purest taste.”

[40] Philip Melancthon,” The Catholic Layman 6, no. 66 (June 1857): 61.

[41] Luther, 4.

[42] Ibid, 4.

[43] “Religious Toleration at Rome,” The Catholic Layman 4, no. 46 (October 1855): 61.  “We appoint and ordain that for all future times no one shall print, or cause to be printed, in our city (Rome) any book or other writing, of whatever kind, unless they be first diligently examined in this city by our Vicar and Master of the Sacred Palace by subscription of their own hand.”  To further authentic this statement, “This law was made by Pope Leo X., in the Fifth General Council of Latean, A.D. 1515.”  This is only a few years after the entreaty of Miltitz to Luther and the Leipsic debate.

[44] Robert Kolb, Martin Luther' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 3.

[45] John W. Horsch, “Martin Luther's Attitude Toward the Principle of Liberty of Conscience,” The American Journal of Theology 11, no. 2 (April 1907): 309.  Dr. Karlstadt, the former dean of Wittenberg University, was banished from Saxony because “he proceeded with the introduction of reforms independently of Martin Luther.”

[46] The words “and Restoration movements” were deleted as this essay is not focused on the American Restoration Movement.  Further deletion: “The doctrine of sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”) is the same deeply held tenet that Thomas Campbell proclaimed as the divine path to simple evangelical Christianity.  The advent of Luther’s ninety-five theses and Campbell’s “Declaration and Address of the Christian Association” point to a shift in thinking that propelled the Protestant Reformation and the American Restoration Movements forward.  Each led to a simple model of relying on Scripture as the sole authentic source of truth.”

[47] “Philip Melancthon,” 62.  Melancthon believed “there is but one Scripture inspired by the Holy Ghost, and pure and true in all things.” This interpretation is admirable but has many questions to be answered prior to embracing wholeheartedly and with somewhat of a naive faith.

[48] Ibid, 62.

[49] Preserved Smith, “The Methods of Reformation Interpreters of the Bible,” The Biblical Word 38, no. 4 (October 1911): 235-44.  According to Smith, Luther “was the real founder of the extreme doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture.”

[50] Ibid, 240-241.  Luther’s translation was a superior work in comparison with predecessors; however, “a rigid examination of his principles shows that they were not truly scientific, but were warped by apologetic considerations.”  As a theologian whose dogma was Scripture only Luther was “sharply criticized” for his attempt to make the New Testament an exegetical playground for his own theories.  An example is found in Rom. 3:28 when he inserted “alone” to bring the Pauline theology to state “we therefore conclude that man is justified by faith [alone].”  He deeply respected the epistle to the Romans stating that it “is the true kernel of the New Testament, the clearest of all gospels, worthy that a Christian man should not only learn the words by heart but converse with them daily as food for the soul.”  Luther committed the same intellectual breach of which he accused Pope Leo X.

[51] Ibid, 243. 

[52] Ibid, 244.

[53]Bishop, 132. As we shall discover later in this discussion “Luther’s life and interests were throughout more simple, more ‘other-worldly’ than were those of his great contemporary Erasmus.”  It is this authors conclusion that Luther was deeply embedded in the Platonist theology of the other-worldly.

[54]  John Horsch, “Martin Luther's Attitude Toward the Principle of Liberty of Conscience,” The American Journal of Theology 11, no. 2 (April 1907): 309.

[55] Herman, 564.

[56] Ibid. 54.

[57] Ibid. 54.  The great-souled man is “the man who is good to the highest degree in everything and knows it and is proud of it-- but who is, perhaps thankfully, in short supply.”

[58] Ibid. 50.  “Aristotle’s term for this God is the Unmoved Mover or Prime Mover, since He presides over everything that changes or moves in the universe, without changing or moving Himself.  He alone achieved His actuality, or energia, simply by being.  He thinks, and everything moves.”

[59]Deleted the following sentence due to lack of relevance.  Sentence read, “As a frame of reference this paper seeks to understand the influences across the epochs of time that led to the American Restoration Movement in the United States.”

[60] Rudolf Bultmann, Form Criticism: Two Essays On New Testament Research (New York: Torchbooks/Harper & Row, 1966).   This work is a polemic against the historical Jesus (demythology) in support of the belief in the kerygma (proclamation) of Jesus as the true essence of New Testament faith.

[61] This is a thorny issue to study as this leads into the core ideology of translation.

[62] 2 Tim. 3:16-17.  For those of Christian origin it is generally accepted that God communicated to mankind delivering what is known as the Holy Bible.  The Catholic tradition includes the Apocryphal writings.  The fact that the Bible is God’s word is less questioned than how much of the book is word for word the God-delivered message.

[63] At some point in time the idea of collecting the Old Testament Scriptures occurred.  Little is mentioned of this fact due to the focal point of the New Testament.

[64] 2 Tim. 2:15.  Deleted due to lack of relevance:  “However, as history verifies the Jewish tradition was to study the Scriptures to ‘rightly divide the word of truth.’  The tradition of study was first simply an oral debate among the Jewish scholars that eventually led to the compilation of interpretations of Scripture to be applied to the daily life of the Jewish faith.”

[65] Deleted as lacking relevance:  “In practice, the admission of tradition in addition to the text as sacred and reliable for faith is part of the Jewish faith.”

[66] The author considers Scripture to be riddled with many manuscript issues.  Even so, my belief is that the book continues to house the mind of God.  The following was deleted due to lack of relevance:  “However, this is not to state that the Bible is free from minor errors of detail encountered in the transition of the inspired message of God being delivered to mankind.” Also deleted, “Catholic theology is an evolution of thought emerging as church theologians study, interpret and legislate holy mandate to the body of believers.  The Roman Church marked with centuries of alleged corruption remained the dominant ecclesial body worldwide.  While controversy plagued the institution in areas of civic, theological and political agendas the power infrastructure being so great that the Church continues today as the largest Christian body on earth today.”

[67]This idea remains a deeply held conclusion throughout the journey thus far.

[68] Ezra 7:10.  “For Ezra had set his heart to study the Law of the LORD, and to do it and to teach his statutes and rules in Israel.”  The use of the Scripture as a primary resource to explain historical presence in the Old Testament has a reasoned legitimacy in the in mind of this author.

[69] Neh. 8:1-4a.

[70] Neh. 8:5-8.

[71]These sentence was rewritten to reflect a viewpoint different that the view expressed in this sentence which reads, “Even since the time of Ezra the foundation for all faith is the written word of God.  The same high view of Scripture remains today in the modern church.  If a church proclaims to be Christian in orientation there is a level of belief that the Bible is the infallible, divine revelation of God.” 

Bibliography 

Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City: Anchor, 1967.

Bishop, William. “Erasmus.” The Sewanee Review 14, no. 2 (April 1906): 135.

Bruce, F.F. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1977.

Bultmann, Rudolf Form Criticism: Two Essays On New Testament Research. New York:

Torchbooks/Harper & Row, 1966.

Dawson, Christopher. Religion and Culture. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of

America Press, 2013.

de Chardin, Teilhard. The Divine Milieu. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.

Freud, Sigmund.  The Future of an Illusion.  New York: Classic House Books, 2009.

Hermann, Arthur. The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle and the Struggle for the Soul of

Western Civilization. New York: Random House, 2014.

Horsch, John W. “Martin Luther's Attitude Toward the Principle of Liberty of Conscience.” The

American Journal of Theology 11, no. 2 (April 1907): 309.

Kolb, Robert. Martin Luther. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Luther, Martin. Concerning Christian Liberty. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004.

Michelet, M. “The Life of Martin Luther, Gathered from His Own Writings.” The North

American Review 63, no. 133 (1846): 436.

O'Malley, John W. Four Cultures of the West. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.

“Philip Melancthon.” The Catholic Layman 6, no. 66 (June 1857): 61.

“Religious Toleration at Rome.” The Catholic Layman 4, no. 46 (October 1855): 61.

Savage, Howard. “The First Visit of Erasmus to England.” PMLA 37, no. 1 (1922): 112.

Smith, Preserved “Luther's Development of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Only.” The

Harvard Theological Review 6, no. 4 (October 1913): 465.

-------------“The Methods of Reformation Interpreters of the Bible.” The Biblical Word 38, no. 4

(October 1911): 235-44.