It's interesting that you're doing a course on that. I'm teaching a course on it myself this very evening.

As for books, a good overview is Owen Chadwick's The Reformation in the Penguin Church history series. I think that Alister McGrath's Reformation Thought: An Introduction is also good.

I think that some Protestant Christians have a hard time explaining what happened in the 16th century because they have a belief that their church has always existed. When pressed for evidence, they will often argue that there is so little because it was always hidden away, persecuted either by the Empire or by the Catholic Church.

Regarding Trent, I think that it would be good to note that the anathemas that it laid down applied only to those who were born Catholic at the time and who then deliberately left the Church and consistently held to their new convictions when challenged by the leaders of the Church and shown by them a full picture of what the Church actually taught on the topics on which they departed.

Another to note about Trent is to see it somewhat in the context of the major councils of the fourth and fifth centuries. Those provided definitions of various christological and trinitarian doctrines which had been believed in the past but simply not as articulated by the Church's teaching authority as it was by the councils. The councils only took up the issues because the traditional but unarticulated beliefs had been publicly challenged.

Similarly, if one looks at the mid-15th century, there are no clear definitions on some of the precise issues of justification that were raised by Luther, et al. The Council of Trent, I believe, represents the traditional but unarticulated belief that had been generally held in the past.

Regarding Luther and Zwingli, when I travelled to Germany about 10 years ago, I had a chance to go to Marburg. I so wanted to see the table where Luther and Zwingli met and on which Luther carved 'Hoc est meus corpus.' Unfortunately, the wing of the museum which housed that table was closed for renovations.
Sean Gallagher | 08.02.04 - 2:39 pm | #

D'Aubigne's History of the Protestant Reformation is excellent, as is J.A. Wylie's History of Protestantism. Wylie is available online - not so sure about D'Aubigne.
Tim | Homepage | 08.02.04 - 3:01 pm | #

David - You are right that most people overlook the fact that the RCC and Reformers taught a different gospel. Of course there is such ignorance on that matter in our own day, it makes sense that there would be confusion about it when looking to the past as well.
Tim | Homepage | 08.02.04 - 3:02 pm | #

Hi David. One way to help clarify what happened with the Reformation is to stress that there were actually two separate wings that went in two very different directions -- the "Augustinian" wing and the "Donatist" wing. The Donatists" sought to purify the mediaeval Western church of its gross corruptions and immorality by stressing good works -- sometimes explicitly (hyper-Arminianism), sometimes by officially denied but hard-to-evade implication (moderate Arminianism). The "Augustinian" wing, by stark contrast, saw the solution to sin as grace, not "work harder to be good". One saw the alternative to a Church full of unrepentant sinners as one filled with deserving saints: the other, as one filled with repentant sinners.

Catholicism, ironically, is actually midway between the two. Yes, while closer to the Pelagian pole than Augustinian Protestantism is (because Catholicism denies predestination and the finality of justification in this life), its sacramental theology makes it, arguably, more grace-focused in practice than the extreme forms of Arminianism (where sacraments/ "ordinances" do nothing to help you at all if you ain't already got sufficient faith. Paradoxically, faith itself becomes a work!).

This helps explain the apparent paradox of ex-fundamentalists or ex-Pentecostals reverting to Catholicism because they were "sick of Protestant [sic] legalism".
Tom R | 08.03.04 - 1:52 am | #

Are you going to treat in any way treat the recent Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification signed by representatives of the leadership of the Catholic Church and the World Lutheran Federation?

Although it is a recent document, I think that is important to show a contemporary understanding of the Reformation from the perspective of a large number of Christians.
Sean Gallagher | 08.03.04 - 10:41 am | #

I can hardly wait!
Larry | Homepage | 08.03.04 - 2:39 pm | #

Would you say that the ultimate reason for the Reformation split was over the doctrine of justification? This seems to be what the explanation typically boils down to.

I'm doing an independent study this fall on the doctrine of justification in the Reformation. One book I'm looking forward to especially is Pelikan's "The Growth of Medieval Theology (The Christian Tradition, Vol. 3 - 1300-1700)."
Darren | Homepage | 08.03.04 - 6:41 pm | #