Luther and Bucer

[Augustinus51]

Hello everybody!

I would like to know at what time Luther repudiated the agreement with Bucer?
Indeed, the Book of Concord (solida declaratio, vii) says that the Smalkald articles give the true explanation of the Wittenberg's Concord, in such a manner that sacramentarians cannot continue to hold their own interpretation of the sacrament.
Is it at this time (when Luther met Bucer at Gotha) that the Concord of Wittenberg collapsed?
If no, can you tell me when this occured?

Thanks

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

All I have been able to find are that Martin Bucer are as follows: At Augsburg in 1530, he generally agreed with Lutheran teaching, but would not subscribe to the Augsburg Confession; at the Diet of Regensburg he tried to unite Protestants and Romanists, however, he refused to sign the Interim then accepted an invitation by Cranmer to teach theology at Cambridge and promote reformation there.

Source: Concordia; CPH 2005, Pg. 705.

 

[Till]

What makes you think that the Concord of Wittenberg collapsed? As far as I know it did not. Without it the South-German cities would not have joined the Schmalkaldischer Bund.

I recall reading somewhere Luther later expressing poor opinion of Bucer but I do not recall where. Maybe that is what you mean. Well, Bucer was no Lutheran. Unfortunately, for otherwise the Church of England might possibly have accepted Lutheran theology and we might probably have never seen the Anglo-Catholic movement which lead so many into error and even back to Rome. And maybe we might also not have seen the Puritans, the spread of Calvinism, the Methodist reaction to calvinism, the holyness movement, Pentecostalism et cetera et cetera et cetera.

Bucer was always looking to build bridges and convince people to compromise. Which at first sounds good. But was it really?

 

[Augustin]

Ok, I agree to say that the concord never collapsed.
But did Luther known the particular interpretation of Bucer on this matter?
Did he belived that Bucer is a "perfect lutheran" or did he known his tendancy (which looked like the Calvin's teaching)?
Have you got any document on this matter?

 

[Till]

Salut Augustin,

I doubt there are documents that outline what Luther thought about Bucer's position prior or during the meeting but why does that matter? They came to a formulation of the doctrine of the Eucharist that they both agreed with. As did the others present. That is what counts. The Swiss did not agree and consequently did not join Schmalkald.

As I wrote I recall reading - and I wish I knew where I read it. Pieper maybe. I will look it up on the week-end - Luther later expressing low opinion of Bucer not being reliable or something along those lines. But that does not mean that Luther repudiated the wordings of the Wittenberg Concord.

Bucer thought the argument between Luther and Zwingli was splitting hair. He did not understand what was at stake. We, 500 years later with all the knowledge of what happenend, should understand.

 

[Augustin]

Salut, Till

My problem (with the 7th chapter of the Book of Concord) is that the Concord is quoted, but the book seems to say that (Bucer and his friends?) were dishonest.
If someone does't know this history, he can almost imagine that the concord collapsed in 1537.
Indeed, the book claims that:

"In the following year, when the chief theologians of the Augsburg Confession assembled from all Germany at Smalcald, and deliberated as to what to present in the Council concerning this doctrine of the Church, by common consent the Smalcald Articles were composed by Dr. Luther and signed by all the theologians, jointly and severally, in which the proper and true meaning is clearly expressed in short, plain words, which agree most accurately with the words of Christ, and every subterfuge and loophole is barred to the Sacramentarians (who had interpreted [perverted] the Formula of Concord"

But, in this conditions, how to explain that the concord survived at the assembly of Smalkald?

 

[Till]

I guess from a theological point of view and looking at only Bucer you could say that the Concord later broke down.

The politically important point of the Wittenberg Concord however is that it allowed different cities and region to join the defence treaty of the Schmalkaldischer Bund. Which of course did not break down when the theological differences with Bucer came to the forefront again later.

In all these inner-protestant arguments during the Reformation we must never forget the political pressures that were applied onto the theologians and often led to compromises. Unity was declared without having really been reached. Necessary compromise at the time when you look at it from a political and military angle as the antichrist in Rome would otherwise probably have succeeded in stopping the Reformation.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

What makes you think that the Concord of Wittenberg collapsed? As far as I know it did not. Without it the South-German cities would not have joined the Schmalkaldischer Bund.

I recall reading somewhere Luther later expressing poor opinion of Bucer but I do not recall where. Maybe that is what you mean. Well, Bucer was no Lutheran. Unfortunately, for otherwise the Church of England might possibly have accepted Lutheran theology and we might probably have never seen the Anglo-Catholic movement which lead so many into error and even back to Rome. And maybe we might also not have seen the Puritans, the spread of Calvinism, the Methodist reaction to calvinism, the holyness movement, Pentecostalism et cetera et cetera et cetera.

Bucer was always looking to build bridges and convince people to compromise. Which at first sounds good. But was it really?

History is so full of "what ifs.

Being an old Confessional Lutheran; I'm of the opinion that theological compromise is never good.

I recall reading (and like most here am having trouble finding the source) that Henry VIII sought admission to the Schmalkaldic League but was unwilling to sign the Schmalkald Articles, as doing so may have affected his hold on the English Church.

Had he done so would things have been much different today? Seeing what has happened to the (State) Churches in the historic Lutheran territories, and many of the Lutheran Churches here in North America, I doubt that things would be much different.

 

[Till]

History is so full of "what ifs.

Being an old Confessional Lutheran; I'm of the opinion that theological compromise is never good.

There is a good article here http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BalgeSmalcald.pdf that shows some of the pressures Luther and Melanchthon were under.

Looking at the political and military dimension saying "compromise is never good" is IMHO not the right answer. The protestant areas needed protection.

 

[Tangible]

Interesting discussion. I love armchair historical revisionist speculation.

I'll toss these two names in the mix ...

Blessed Martyr Patrick Hamilton

Blessed Martyr Robert Barnes