"Even today" or "also today"? Korey Maas on Rome & Bible, and on Martin Luther

      Dr. Korey Maas, an LC-MS theologian, is the Chairman and Associate Professor of History at Hillsdale College.  He authored a helpful article "On the Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture" in the January 2021 number of Concordia Theological Quarterly. It is an essay to help Lutherans when they have their "faith shaken if and when they encounter some fairly standard objections." Luther is consulted along with other orthodox theologians of the past.  I was quite pleased with this essay, but two statements mar this otherwise helpful essay: 

1. Rome and Holy Scripture:

      In the very paragraph that he quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this topic, he goes on to state (p. 52-53):

“…even today Rome essentially concedes that Luther was correct in understanding her position to restrict 'authentic' interpretation [of the Bible] to the papacy.”

Dr. Maas, who chooses his words carefully, chose to use the word "even": "even today".  The Cambridge Dictionary describes what "even" here means: “We use even to add emphasis or more information to a surprising or unexpected thing”. Another way of expressing Dr. Maas's statement is to say that "It is surprising that today Rome essentially concedes…her position to restrict 'authentic' interpretation to the papacy.”  But why would he be surprised that Rome still teaches that the Holy Scriptures are to be interpreted by the Pope?  The Roman Catholic Church has taught this since the Council of Trent. So why would Dr. Maas weaken his defense of Lutheran doctrine on the sufficiency of Holy Scripture in the same article that he defends it? (Could it be the high standing of Vatican II that is held within the LC-MS?)

      What Dr. Maas should have stated was “…also today Rome essentially concedes … her position to restrict 'authentic' interpretation to the papacy.” No surprise here.

2. Martin Luther:

      On the same p. 52, Dr. Maas stated: 

“Because it is well known that Luther himself often spoke in unhelpfully exaggerated and hyperbolic terms to get his points across…”

I was a bit surprised by the forcefulness of Dr. Maas's criticism of Luther.  Ostensibly he uses it to forestall charges of "Luther worship".  But let us examine this.  

      The Apostle Paul spoke of “dung” in Philippians 3:8: "[I] do count them but dung, that I may win Christ"; and Christ spoke in strong terms against the Pharisees (Matt. 3:7: “generation of vipers”), etc. to “get his point across”. More examples could be multiplied. So where does it come from Dr. Maas’s critical remark against Luther?  Is he saying Luther was unhelpful because his “point” was not valid?... or just because he spoke in what he calls “exaggerated” and “hyperbolic” terms? — Is he referring to Luther’s frequent grouping of Jews, Turks, and Papists?  If so, how would he say that this grouping is “exaggerated and hyperbolic”? Don't all of these groups deny the Holy Scriptures as the source and norm of true faith? — Is Dr. Maas saying that the Pope is not the Antichrist because that is “exaggerated” and “hyperbolic”? Many would say that Luther's assertion is "well known", "unhelpful", “exaggerated", and “hyperbolic”. — Is Dr. Maas stating this to satisfy some at Hillsdale College who object to Luther's polemical writings? Is he not raising a "fairly standard objection" that could cause Lutherans to have their "faith shaken"?

      Dr. Maas's statement could have just as easily come from a Roman Catholic theologian. Was it really necessary to use this statement to make his point about Luther's objection to Rome's teaching on the Pope's authority to interpret Scripture? A good antidote to Dr. Maas's characterization of Luther would be Walther's and Pieper's defense of Luther's polemics here. Dr. Maas’s “exaggerated and hyperbolic” characterization of Luther is unhelpful for his otherwise helpful essay… “On the Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture”.