The Protestant Reformation: Were its Doctrines Inspired?


Recommended Posts

A spin-off from the Calvinism thread—

The subject of Christian history and of the Reformation in particular was a fairly rare occurrence in Priesthood and Gospel Doctrine classes, back when I was LDS. But when it did arise, the instructor would invariably make a statement that the Reformation was “inspired.” Presumably this is what it said in the lesson manual, because no one ever bothered to justify the claim by explaining what men like Martin Luther and John Calvin actually stood for.

For a long time, I was guilty of apathy towards the subject. But a few years ago, that began to change and I started looking into the question.

What I learned surprised me in two ways. First, I found the doctrines that the Reformers espoused were quite persuasive and consistent with my own reading of the Bible. And second, the LDS position was almost always better aligned with the Roman Catholic position that the Reformers were repudiating. From an LDS doctrinal point of view—it was hard to see the Reformation as anything but a further regression into “apostasy,” a further falling away from the “truth.” It seemed a complete contradiction to me that LDS would call the Reformation and the Reformers “inspired”—when they would dispute their every assertion.

I’m curious if any LDS out there would agree with my assessment. And yes, I understand that there were social and political consequences with the Reformation and that these were largely positive developments, setting the stage for greater individual liberty and even economic freedom. But the ends don’t justify the means. God can use bad for good (see Genesis 50:20)—but we would never say this makes bad things “inspired” (whether doctrines or deeds).

So what do LDS say about the specific doctrines of the Protestant Reformation? Were the doctrines themselves inspired, or were they merely the vehicle God chose to bring about societal change and political reforms and to set the stage for a “restoration” via Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery?

For those needing some background to answer the question, a summary of the Reformers basic theological beliefs can be found in the “Five Solas” (and once again Wikipedia comes through with a succinct and balanced entry).

  • Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
  • Sola fide ("by faith alone")
  • Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
  • Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")
  • Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")
--Erik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")

The scriptures can contradict one another. That can also be used to make some rather hateful points. Even these scriptures demand commentaries and interpretations. I like the idea of living prophecy.

Sola fide ("by faith alone")

I think that to be a Christian one needs to live as a Christian. I would go with the Catholic and Mormon thought that good works should be included as a necessary part of following the way.

Sola gratia ("by grace alone")

Since we have no magic, it has to be by God.

Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")

Well, it certainly is not by our power.

Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")

What about Jesus and the Holy Ghost? For Trinitarians I would point out that no single aspect of the three-part pokemon would hog all the glory. For the LDS there are three separate personages.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do LDS say about the specific doctrines of the Protestant Reformation? Were the doctrines themselves inspired, or were they merely the vehicle God chose to bring about societal change and political reforms and to set the stage for a “restoration” via Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery?

I speak only for myself, not for the Church as a whole. I'll give you my ideas.

For those needing some background to answer the question, a summary of the Reformers basic theological beliefs can be found in the “Five Solas” (and once again Wikipedia comes through with a succinct and balanced entry).

"[O]nce again Wikipedia comes through with a succinct and balanced entry," huh? In my experience, Wikipedia ranges from idiosyncratic to laughably biased, only occasionally "succinct" and rarely "balanced". But, whatever.

Before answering your specific questions, let me give an overall impression I have. Most non-LDS Christians have a naïve view of scripture and doctrine, in that they take ancient teachings in a modern light without giving much (if any) thought to the conditions of the people originally receiving that revelation.

Example 1: The ancient Hebrews received the record of Noah and the "great flood". As far as I know, the ancient Hebrews did not have an understanding of the Earth as a gigantic ball on the surface of which we live, so the idea that "the whole earth" would be covered with water would not have meant the same thing to them as to us. Furthermore, I am told that the Hebrew term for "earth" is also the Hebrew term for "ground" and "land", so that the scriptures could have well been translated "all the ground was covered with water" or "the whole land was covered with water". These have much different meanings than the modern idea of a "global flood". Yet many Christians, including Latter-day Saints, persist in imagining that the modern interpretation of these ancient words is the only correct one.

Example 2: Paul taught among Jews who believed that they were justified because of their rites of worship, and among Gentiles who grew up believing that their sacrifice to this or that god gained them favor in his/her eyes. Paul had to teach such people as clearly as he possibly could that their meager little acts of sacrifice and service could never and would never earn them salvation -- that salvation came as a gift from God, free to all who truly asked for it, and not as a payment for services rendered in mortality. Yet many modern Christians twist Paul's teachings to mean that merely saying, "I believe you, Jesus! Be my Savior!" is sufficient to gain God's grace and "be saved". I have heard such "Christians" say things like, "I was saved on December 4, 1993. I could kill you where you stand, and I would STILL BE SAVED! PRAISE BE TO JESUS!" Of course, this bears no real resemblance to Biblical doctrine, but so they have interpreted it.

In the same light, if you consider traditional Catholic Christian teachings vs. the teachings of the Reformers, I think you can see the reason God's anointed servants in the latter days recognized their inspiration.

Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")

Catholic theology held that tradition established God's will just as much as revealed scripture. For a thousand years, Catholics had actually been instructed by their priests not to read scripture at all, because the interpretation of scripture was held in reserve to holy men, and not to the vulgar populace as a whole. The Reformers rejected both these principles, maintaining that God's revealed word was the source of truth, not merely tradition, and that the revealed truth was available to all who sought for it. This core idea is obviously compatible with LDS theology, however much else we have had revealed to us in addition.

Sola fide ("by faith alone")

Catholic theology held that those who had not earned a place in heaven by their performance of sacraments and good works on earth could not yet enter heaven, but would be purged of their sins first by suffering. Prayers and votives and such could be of help in aiding the dead in overcoming their purgatory and achieving heaven. Pagans and others who did not receive the Catholic sacraments were, of course, lost for all eternity in a hell too painful for adequate description. The Reformers, like Paul of old, maintained that acts of worship per se didn't save people; rather, it was their belief in and faith in God that gave them a place at the table. Obviously, there was wide variation in the specific doctrines that the various Reformers believed and taught, but the basic idea that sacraments and prayers alone didn't push you into heaven was very compatible with LDS doctrine.

Sola gratia ("by grace alone")

My argument would be similar to that given above for sola fide.

Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")

This one is obvious. Mormons don't pray to Mary or Saint Peter or whoever. There is no intermediate between us and Christ; rather, Christ mediates between us and God. This is the most obvious of the LDS-compatible doctrines of the "five solas".

Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")

We honor and revere good men and women of all ages, but we give glory only to the Father. We have no "Saints" in the Catholic sense, so in this the LDS position is also pretty evidently similar to the Reformers' ideas, at least moreso than with Catholicism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Vort—

Appreciate your response to my query. Regarding your experience with Wikipedia, I agree it had a pretty rough beginning. But I think it has gotten quite good on many subjects of late. Did you have any issues with the link I posted? I liked it, so I’d be interested if you have any specific criticisms. And feel free to cite a better source, if you know of one.

I will admit I didn’t expect to see an LDS poster argue the Five Solas are compatible with LDS doctrine. But in making such an argument, it seems to me you’ve presented an incomplete/inaccurate view of the issues.

Regarding Sola Scriptura (from Wikipedia)—

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture. However, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.

By contrast, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches teach that the Scriptures are not the only infallible source of Christian doctrine. For them Scripture is but one of three equal authorities; the other two being Sacred Tradition and the episcopacy. These bodies also believe that the Church has authority to establish or restrict interpretation of Scriptures because, in part, it implicitly selected which books were to be in the biblical canon through its traditions, whereas Protestants believe the Church passively recognized and received the books that were already widely considered canonical.

Now you tell us, “This core idea is obviously compatible with LDS theology.” But in making such a claim, you’ve misstated what that core idea really is. The Catholic tradition of discouraging actual reading of Scripture is tangential to the issue. The core idea of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith. Period. And this is clearly incompatible with Mormon teaching. Mormons (at least all the ones I’ve ever met) most emphatically do not believe the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority. You can find a number of statements to this effect by LDS in this very forum. Like the Catholics, Mormon’s believe the “episcopacy,” or top leadership, has equal (or greater) authority over Scripture. This is a rejection and a denial of the “core idea” of Sola Scriptura.

In the interested of time, I’m going to pause with Sola Scriptura and give you an opportunity to respond. Again, if you have a better source, one that you think is more balanced and more accurate than Wikipedia, please post it. I’ll get back to your other comments soon.

Thanks again, Vort. I always appreciate a thoughtful post, even when I disagree with it.

--Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding your experience with Wikipedia, I agree it had a pretty rough beginning. But I think it has gotten quite good on many subjects of late. Did you have any issues with the link I posted? I liked it, so I’d be interested if you have any specific criticisms. And feel free to cite a better source, if you know of one.

No, the link you posted seemed to be a pretty decent overview of the topic. Of course, I'm no expert on the five solas, so my opinion on the article's accuracy is worth what you paid for it.

I will admit I didn’t expect to see an LDS poster argue the Five Solas are compatible with LDS doctrine. But in making such an argument, it seems to me you’ve presented an incomplete/inaccurate view of the issues.

From my part, it seems to me that you didn't really read my explanation very closely. In the interest of not saying "Go back and read it again!", I'll try again to explain myself, but it's likely to be redundant.

Regarding Sola Scriptura (from Wikipedia)—

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture. However, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.

By contrast, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches teach that the Scriptures are not the only infallible source of Christian doctrine. For them Scripture is but one of three equal authorities; the other two being Sacred Tradition and the episcopacy. These bodies also believe that the Church has authority to establish or restrict interpretation of Scriptures because, in part, it implicitly selected which books were to be in the biblical canon through its traditions, whereas Protestants believe the Church passively recognized and received the books that were already widely considered canonical.

Now you tell us, “This core idea is obviously compatible with LDS theology.” But in making such a claim, you’ve misstated what that core idea really is.

No, I have not. The Wikipedia entry gives a more thorough explanation of the idea, including philosophical implications thought out over a period of decades or centuries. The core idea of sola scriptura, in my view at least, is this:

The word of God trumps tradition.

As I tried to explain in my previous preface, the Reformation did not occur in a vacuum. The circumstances of the Reformation included the pervasive influence of the Roman Catholic Church and its doctrines, one of which was the importance of tradition. From the Catholic viewpoint, at least at the time (maybe today, as well), the question "Why do we do things like this?" could be answered perfectly well by saying, "Because that's how we have done things for a thousand years." The Reformers rejected this line of reasoning, insisting that conduct and beliefs be based on the word of God -- which to them meant scripture. Latter-day Saints believe essentially the same thing, although we have a much expanded definition of the "word of God".

The Catholic tradition of discouraging actual reading of Scripture is tangential to the issue. The core idea of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith. Period.

As I have argued, I think that this is not the core issue, merely a philosophical extension. Again, the doctrine of sola scriptura did not arise in a vacuum. Like Paul's teachings about the vanity of works and the supremacy of grace, it must be understood in context of its time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever seen two fishermen arguing about the "one that got away"? They were both on the same boat that day but depending on who you ask the fish was 500 lbs and the largest in recorded history (of the area) or it wasn't. They will never agree on those facts since they could not actually get the fish out of the water!!!

We either believe the prophets or we don't. Since none of us were there to witness the revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The core idea of sola scriptura, in my view at least, is this:

The word of God trumps tradition.

As I tried to explain in my previous preface, the Reformation did not occur in a vacuum. The circumstances of the Reformation included the pervasive influence of the Roman Catholic Church and its doctrines, one of which was the importance of tradition. From the Catholic viewpoint, at least at the time (maybe today, as well), the question "Why do we do things like this?" could be answered perfectly well by saying, "Because that's how we have done things for a thousand years." The Reformers rejected this line of reasoning, insisting that conduct and beliefs be based on the word of God -- which to them meant scripture. Latter-day Saints believe essentially the same thing, although we have a much expanded definition of the "word of God".

As I have argued, I think that this is not the core issue, merely a philosophical extension. Again, the doctrine of sola scriptura did not arise in a vacuum. Like Paul's teachings about the vanity of works and the supremacy of grace, it must be understood in context of its time.

Hey Vort—

Appreciate your patience and clarification. It seems to me (and I did read your posts carefully) that you’ve offered such a broad interpretation of Sola Scriptura and its “core idea” that it would be palatable to anyone whose worldview included a supreme being.

And at the same time, it’s hard to imagine many Catholics lining up to defend the authority of sacred tradition, if all it meant was—as you wrote—“that's how we have done things for a thousand years.” Afraid you've missed the point completely. By sacred tradition, Catholics mean apostolic succession. Regrettably, we don’t seem to have any Catholics on the thread who might offer an opinion on the subject.

By asserting the supremacy of the Bible’s authority over sacred tradition and the authority of church leadership (e.g., the Pope, or in an LDS context—the Prophet), the Reformers distinguished their views from Catholicism. I submit they also distinguished them (albeit unknowingly) from the subsequent teachings of the LDS Church.

Unless we change definitions, dismiss plain meanings as “philosophical extensions” and substitute “core ideas” that render the doctrines innocuous—we’re faced with doctrines that bluntly contradict LDS teachings. And so the question remains: Do LDS think the actual doctrines of the Reformation were inspired, or were they merely a means to an end (i.e., a catalyst for societal and political change setting the stage for the LDS restoration)?

--Erik

PS. I’m setting aside your examples (Noah and Paul), as they are not directly related to the topic at hand. But they certainly merit threads of their own, if you wished to start them…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do LDS think the actual doctrines of the Reformation were inspired, or were they merely a means to an end (i.e., a catalyst for societal and political change setting the stage for the LDS restoration)?

"In due time honest men with yearning hearts, at the peril of their very lives, attempted to establish points of reference, that they might find the true way. The day of the Reformation was dawning, but the path ahead was difficult. Persecutions would be severe, personal sacrifice overwhelming, and the cost beyond calculation. The reformers were pioneers, blazing wilderness trails in a desperate search for those lost points of reference that they felt would lead mankind back to the truth Jesus taught.

Wycliffe, Luther, Hus, Zwingli, Knox, Calvin, and Tyndale all pioneered during the period of the Reformation. Significant was the declaration of Tyndale to his critics: “I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the scripture than thou doest.”

Such were the teachings and lives of the great reformers. Their deeds were heroic, their contributions many, their sacrifices great—but they did not restore the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Of the reformers, one could ask: “Was their sacrifice in vain? Was their struggle futile?” I answer with a reasoned no. The Holy Bible was now within the grasp of the people. Each person could better find his or her way. Oh, if only all could read and all could understand! But some could read, and others could hear, and all had access to God through prayer."

-Thomas S. Monson, Ensign August 2006

"The activities of Gutenberg, Columbus, and other prominent figures of the Renaissance helped set the stage for another great movement in European history: the Protestant Reformation. This religious movement, which took place primarily during the 16th century, was so powerful that “no area of Europe or field of thought and activity was unaffected by it.” Elder McConkie wrote: “The spirit of inspiration rested upon Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and others, causing them to rebel against the religious evils of the day and seek to make the Bible and other truth available to all who would receive such.” Elder Petersen called the work of the Reformers a “significant prelude to the great events in which the Prophet Joseph Smith was the primary figure.”

-Arnold K. Garr (associate department chair of Church history and doctrine at Brigham Young University), Ensign June 1999

Hope these quotes help answer your question. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Connie—

The quotes you’ve supplied do not directly address the question. I’m not asking whether LDS think the men behind the Reformation were inspired, or whether the movement itself was inspired in a general sense. I’m asking about the doctrines—and the Five Solas specifically. Obviously a logical response to Sola Scriptura is to make the Bible widely accessible (as Tyndale did). But does this mean Sola Scriptura itself is inspired, or was it merely a means to that end?

Am I failing to make myself clear, or is my question really that difficult?

--Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My surface-level observation is that LDS faith practice has some Catholic elements (church governance and the general "high church" atmosphere of the Temples), Arminian evangelicalism (missionary rigor, holiness codes such as the WoW and the Law of Chasity), and Pentecostalism (gaining a testimony, being led by the Spirit), but not so much with Calvinism. Joseph Smith seems to have opposed most of Calvin's TULIP.

That said, I'm sure there are aspects of the solas that could be agreed with, and other aspects that might draw contrast. Part of what this string will do is demonstrate whether posters prefer to highlight similarities or draw distinctions, both of which can be useful exercises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi ErikJohnson-

Sorry you're so frustrated and unsatisfied with the answers you have received thus far. Good luck on your quest.

-Connie

p.s. for anyone who may be interested, here is an Ensign article by a BYU professor who wrote on Calvin's doctrines and how they agree and do not agree with LDS doctrine (it was written in the 1970s): LDS.org - Ensign Article - Reformed Protestantism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries, Connie. I’m really not “frustrated.” And I apologize to anyone I may have given that impression. I am disappointed we don’t seem to have any LDS on the board who have made some study of Protestant doctrine and are prepared to discuss it vis-à-vis my question. The whole point of this board, for me, is to address subjects and lingering questions that could not be answered back in the day, and which still interest me. My hope is that via the internet, I could cast a wider net and get perspectives that were unattainable previously.

That said, your link to Richard O. Cowan’s article, “Reformed Protestantism” was quite interesting. He gives a very good overview of John Calvin and draws a number of useful distinctions between Calvin’s theology and the doctrines of the LDS Church. Methinks Daniel Peterson, along with some of his defenders on that other thread, could learn a thing or two from Cowan.

What struck me most about Cowan’s article was how he effectively ceded the Bible to Calvin. With one solitary exception, every time he drew a distinction between LDS beliefs and Reformed Protestant beliefs—he cited the books of Joseph Smith (i.e., The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price). And the one exception was his own misunderstanding. John 3:3-5 does not mention baptism, nor would it make any sense in the context therein. Cowan made an erroneous inference.

I wonder if this article was a career limiting move for Cowan. Certainly his name is not know by the average LDS. I suspect he’s the sort of guy I’d enjoy having a drink with.

--Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A spin-off from the Calvinism thread—

The subject of Christian history and of the Reformation in particular was a fairly rare occurrence in Priesthood and Gospel Doctrine classes, back when I was LDS. But when it did arise, the instructor would invariably make a statement that the Reformation was “inspired.” Presumably this is what it said in the lesson manual, because no one ever bothered to justify the claim by explaining what men like Martin Luther and John Calvin actually stood for.

For a long time, I was guilty of apathy towards the subject. But a few years ago, that began to change and I started looking into the question.

What I learned surprised me in two ways. First, I found the doctrines that the Reformers espoused were quite persuasive and consistent with my own reading of the Bible. And second, the LDS position was almost always better aligned with the Roman Catholic position that the Reformers were repudiating.

From an LDS doctrinal point of view—it was hard to see the Reformation as anything but a further regression into “apostasy,” a further falling away from the “truth.” It seemed a complete contradiction to me that LDS would call the Reformation and the Reformers “inspired”—when they would dispute their every assertion.

I've made something of a hobby of the study of the comparative religion and religious history. Of all the Western Christian religions, Catholicism is the most different from LDS in almost every aspect. Top-down authoritative organization and the belief in truth beyond the text of the Bible are two things that fit, but even in those we are immensely different. So to call the LDS faith similar to Catholic is really quite a stretch in my opinion, but you are welcome to think what you will. I admire good Protestants and Catholics alike, and I don't think it's terribly important to try to vilify either of them in the process of making a point.

When tossing out the "you're too Catholic" a word of caution seems appropriate. The Reformers had a broad variety of understandings, but the central uniting idea was that Catholicism had gotten it wrong -- thought they varied a great deal on describing exactly what Catholicism had been wrong about. It is well nigh impossible for such a broad and varied movement to not "throw the baby out with the bathwater" on at least a few occasions.

Decently educated Latter day Saints are no different than well educated Protestants and Catholics. They know their history and can tell you what Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others stood for. The vast majority of LDS, Protestants and Catholics have heard some of the names but most could not tell you a blessed thing about any of them. That's a human awareness problem, not an LDS problem.

I’m curious if any LDS out there would agree with my assessment. And yes, I understand that there were social and political consequences with the Reformation and that these were largely positive developments, setting the stage for greater individual liberty and even economic freedom. But the ends don’t justify the means. God can use bad for good (see Genesis 50:20)—but we would never say this makes bad things “inspired” (whether doctrines or deeds).

So what do LDS say about the specific doctrines of the Protestant Reformation? Were the doctrines themselves inspired, or were they merely the vehicle God chose to bring about societal change and political reforms and to set the stage for a “restoration” via Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery?

For those needing some background to answer the question, a summary of the Reformers basic theological beliefs can be found in the “Five Solas” (and once again Wikipedia comes through with a succinct and balanced entry).

  • Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
  • Sola fide ("by faith alone")
  • Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
  • Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")
  • Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")
--Erik
I'm running out of time to go into this further.

"Presumably this is what it said in the lesson manual, because no one ever bothered to justify the claim by explaining what men like Martin Luther and John Calvin actually stood for." As I've already stated, the ignorance to religious history is not limited only to the LDS faith. On average, I think Latter Day Saints are more aware and more educated than the vast majority of other Christian faiths.

Case in point: I served my mission in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is predominantly Baptist. As I'm a hobbiest at religious history and a history geek in general, I knew about the origins of the Baptist Church. So when Baptists would tell me, "Your church was started by that John Smith guy." I would reply, "No, that was your church." They never understood it because they had virtually no awareness of the foundation of their own religion. But the fact remains that:

a.) John Smyth effectively founded the Baptist religious denomination in 1609.

b.) You can almost never find a Baptist who is even remotely aware of that fact.

Ignorance to religious history exists in every relgion, not just ours.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following items are the greatest achievements of the Protestant Reformation (in my personal opinion.)

1.) The Bible sweeps the Earth and is available to be read by anyone who can read.

2.) Reformers question many things, and in turn all of Christianity has to start asking questions and rethinking things. The Protestant Reformation stands as a starting point of less blind acceptance of tradition and practice, and more validation based upon comparison to the Bible and personal revelation from God Himself.

3.) Competing doctrines has tended to make all branches of Christendom more "honest." Prior to the Reformation, there was tremendous corruption at all levels of Christianity, most notably in the Catholic Church. In many ways, this corruption led directly to the Reformation. In the centuries since then, Catholicism has become vastly less corrupt and Protestant religions have most generally avoided becoming corrupt institutions themselves. At minimum, everyone had to keep up good appearances.

4.) Early Protestantism in most of its forms makes the case for simplification of religious practice by placing greater emphasis on the relationship between the believer and God, and less emphasis on the relationship between the believer and the Earthly religious organization. Less emphasis was placed upon physical and temporal things and greater emphasis was placed on spiritual things.

Some of the unfortunate results:

1.) Many people were killed for failure to accept the religion espoused by princes, kings and aristocracy where they lived. Tremendous ill-will from those violent years remains to this day. So many people were victims to religious bigotry in those centuries.

2.) A blessing and a curse at the same time, the tradition arose that "the Bible is God's only perfect word. The Bible contains everything that God ever intended for us to have. If it is not in the Bible then it is false." This was instrumental in bringing into question many Catholic practices that had absolutely no basis in scripture. In numerous cases, the Bible directly contradicted Catholic practices. Unfortunately, the practice of using the Bible as the measuring stick of correctness perpetuated its own myth. It turned the Bible into something that the Bible itself never claims to be: The receptacle of all divine truth, perfect, complete and infallible. Highly unfortunate as it effectively slams the door on God ever revealing anything new to mankind.

3.) The body of Christendom was forever after divided in its theology, doctrines and practices, and it is trapped in a perpetual war of words on the matter. And it sets the precedent that "when disagreement arises, just make your own denomination."

Had the Protestant Reformation never happened, then the Restoration through Joseph Smith would have been almost impossible. Latter Day Saints rightly view the Reformation as the light before the dawn. We are grateful for the efforts and sacrifices of the Reformers and their followers. We do not agree with all of the conclusions drawn by the Reformers, but I think that quite forgivable. They didnt' agree with each other either.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Faded—

If you must restate my positions to get your points across, at least make an effort to do it fairly. Half the time it bears no resemblance to anything I wrote, and I end up agreeing with you! Normally I just let it go. But today I’m calling you out.

A couple of examples so you’ll understand what I’m talking about:

Faded: “So to call the LDS faith similar to Catholic is really quite a stretch in my opinion, but you are welcome to think what you will.”

Me: I totally agree with you. But what I wrote was this: “The LDS position [vis-à-vis the doctrines that distinguish Protestantism from Catholicism] was almost always better aligned with the Roman Catholic position that the Reformers were repudiating.” And I stand by that statement. I think we began to substantiate it when we unpacked the first of these (Sola Scriptura) earlier on the thread. Is anyone going to argue the LDS view is really closer to the Protestant? If someone has such an argument—I’d love to hear it and discuss. And if anyone cares to do so—we can go through the other four Solas.

I have never said the LDS faith is similar to Catholicism. Protestantism and Catholicism are infinitely closer to one another than either is to Mormonism. They debate many things, but at the end of the day—Catholics and Protestants recognize the same God. All doctrines are not of equal weight, in my opinion. Who God is—is paramount.

Faded: “When tossing out the "you're too Catholic" a word of caution seems appropriate.”

Me: No doubt it would be! But I’ve never suggested Mormons (or anyone else for that matter) are “too Catholic.” I have nothing but respect for believing Catholics who know their faith. And while I think they’ve added elements to Christian faith and practice that aren’t helpful or necessary, they nonetheless worship the same God I do. And that’s what matters most. I might seek a conversation with a Catholic who believes his Bible and loves Jesus—but I wouldn’t seek his conversion, the way I would with someone who believes in a different God (or “Gods”).

Regarding your following post, it’s the doctrines I’m asking you to discuss, not the “achievements” or the “results.” The founding of Salt Lake City might have been a wonderful achievement by Brigham Young and his followers—but that achievement wouldn’t be germane to the question of whether Young’s doctrines were inspired of God, would it? See the disconnect? This thread is about doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, and whether they were inspired of God. So please get on topic and tell us whether you think any or all of the Five Solas were inspired. Start with the first one, if you wish. If you don’t have an opinion on whether the specific Protestant doctrines were inspired or you think it’s a dumb question—feel free to say so. I promise I won’t be offended.

--Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but I wouldn’t seek his conversion, the way I would with someone who believes in a different God (or “Gods”).

Yeah....like them Mormons!!! Dang different God believers....:eek:

Brigham Young and his followers

Brighamites???? Huh,:confused: and I always thought they were followers of Joe Smith....even though THEY claim to be followers of Christ.......:huh:

Thinly veiled slights Erik....not very nice:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 95 Theses of Martin Luther: 95 Theses - Wikisource

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite,(“Repent ye” or “Do Penance”) willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

I agree.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

Confession to the Priesthood leader -- we consider it an important step, but only in extreme cases. The VAST majority of repentance is strictly between the sinner and God Himself. So in the majority of cases, we would agree with Luther here.

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.

We would agree with Luther here. More to the point, we would stress that the right kind of repentence must occur. Self-punishment in such forms as whipping and flailing oneself for the purpose of punishing oneself for sin -- a practice common in Catholicism in centuries past -- is entirely missing the point. And to my understanding, Luther agrees. We must repent inwardly and live as a changed person outwardly.

4. The penalty, therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

This strikes at Martin Luther's personal experiences and at his theological paradigm shift. At long last, he realized that self-hatred is not only a bad thing. It's offensive to God. It was making him miserable when God did not intend for him to be miserable. We wholeheartedly agree with Luther on this point. There is such a thing as Godly Sorrow that leads us to true repentance and happiness. Then there is the sorrow that leads to despair and misery. It is critically important that any believer in Christ avoid the pitfall of self-hatred and then allow themselves to think that it is a feeling God intends for them to feel. It is of Satan, not God.

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.

We would agree with Luther here. No earthly spiritual guide gets to forgive sins. Only God gets to do that. Of course this is leading into Luther's objection to the sale of indulgences and defying the notion that the Pope had such authority grant to him to validate anything similar. We agree with Luther on this point as well.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.

Extention and clarification of thesis 5 and we agree with the general premise, though we do not believe that the Pope has authority granted to him to even forgive or judge at all. We would concur that there is a certain balance of things -- the eclesiastical leaders have a certain number of things that of necessity they must pronounce judgement and so forth. Removal from the body of the Church would be an example. But it can never be understood to usurp God's right to forgive or not forgive. God has the final say in matters of forgiveness and judgement. I think we agree with Luther in general on this thesis.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.

We wholeheartedly agree that one must be humbled in all things. The absolute necessity of "vicar/priest" is something we would agree with only in extreme cases, and not as a general rule for every sin ever committed.

Okay so that's 7 down and 88 to go.

Eric, I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that we must discuss the Protestant Reformation ONLY in the context that you have laid out for us. The Solas are nice and all, but they are a retroactive summary of the Protestant Reformation, not the specific thoughts of the actual Reformers themselves. They serve to act as a unifier of ideology, but they are incredibly general. That makes them difficult to discuss on a point by point basis. And all Protestant faiths do not necessarily line up behind them. If your entire purpose is to discuss the 5 Solas then that is fine -- but it'd be a short discussion. I think you already know where we stand on those issues, so I'm at a loss what you are asking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“The LDS position [vis-à-vis the doctrines that distinguish Protestantism from Catholicism] was almost always better aligned with the Roman Catholic position that the Reformers were repudiating.” And I stand by that statement. I think we began to substantiate it when we unpacked the first of these (Sola Scriptura) earlier on the thread. Is anyone going to argue the LDS view is really closer to the Protestant? If someone has such an argument—I’d love to hear it and discuss. And if anyone cares to do so—we can go through the other four Solas.

1 Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")

I've already covered this piece.

The following items are the greatest achievements of the Protestant Reformation (in my personal opinion.)

1.) The Bible sweeps the Earth and is available to be read by anyone who can read ...

2.) A blessing and a curse at the same time, the tradition arose that "the Bible is God's only perfect word. The Bible contains everything that God ever intended for us to have. If it is not in the Bible then it is false." This was instrumental in bringing into question many Catholic practices that had absolutely no basis in scripture. In numerous cases, the Bible directly contradicted Catholic practices. Unfortunately, the practice of using the Bible as the measuring stick of correctness perpetuated its own myth. It turned the Bible into something that the Bible itself never claims to be: The receptacle of all divine truth, perfect, complete and infallible. Highly unfortunate as it effectively slams the door on God ever revealing anything new to mankind.

The LDS viewpoint is neither Catholic nor Protestant, as both Protestant and Catholic are in agreement that there is no more authoritative revelation from God equal to the Biblical Prophets and Apostles.

However, Protestantism and Catholicism are very different on this point. Catholicism claim authority on a "second only to scripture" basis in the form of Ecumenical Councils, the personal authority of the Pope and even the authority of the local Priest. It was specifically the belief that the Pope's and the Church were misusing their power that directly led to the Protestant Reformation. There were a lot of other factors and in reality, it was a perfect storm scenario that fractured the unity of Christendom. But the objection generally held by Protestants was that the Pope and Church were exercising authority they didn't actually have. Thus, when summarizing what Protestant faiths held in common, "by Scripture alone" becomes the critical unifying starting point. It is the true foundation of the Protestant Reformation.

It is noteworthy that because Protestantism picks and chooses what they do and do not accept from the catalog of things that are not in the Bible. They accept some Ecumenical Councils and reject others. They accept some decisions by some Popes and reject others. So I would contend that Protestantism is not true to it's conviction of "By Scripture Alone." They accept the decisions made at the Council of Nicaea as authoritative. The Council of Nicaea is not in the Bible. The Nicene Creed is not found anywhere in the Bible. So Protestants do not confine themselves to "By Scripture Alone" like they claim. They keep some bits of non-Biblical practice while rejecting others.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is essentially "option C" as it relates to the first Sola. We do not accept the authority of the Pope nor do we accept the validity of the Ecumenical Councils convened by the Roman Catholic Church throughout it's history. We wholeheartedly believe that the Bible can and should be used as an important standard for measuring truth and correctness. However, we do not confine ourselves to only accepting truth if it can be found in the Bible. So we agree with both sides and neither side.

2 Sola fide ("by faith alone")

3 Sola gratia ("by grace alone")

4 Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")

5 Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")

The important thing to remember about the rest of the Solas is that different Protestant groups understand each of them differently. To some, Faith = Works + Belief. To others, Faith = Belief only. Protestants differ greatly on how grace is attained and who can qualify for it. Some viewpoints held by one Protestant group are vastly different and completely contradictory to the viewpoints held by another. So these are good summary statements, but each group defines them as they see fit.

The keys to the 5 Solas encompassing all of Protestantism are found in Sola 1 (which I've already discussed), Sola 4 and Sola 5. "Through Christ Alone" and "Glory to God Alone." This puts forth the idea that salvation does not come by and through the Church (specifically the Roman Catholic Church). It comes from God and God alone. The Catholic Church has no right to say who is saved and who is damned. The Catholic Church has no right to modify salvation and the justice of God in any way. These are the rights of God and God alone. Only He can decide who is saved and who is damned. Protestant groups vary greatly on where you go from there.

On this point, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints once again represents "Options C." We do not accept the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and thus we wholeheartedly agree that that Church has no authority to determine who is saved and who is damned. We do believe in the existence of valid Priesthood authority from God as a necessity to perform the rites and ordinances that are required for them to be fully valid before God. However, we wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that any mortal Priesthood leader has the right to usurp or alter the judgment of God at their own whim (ala the Sale of Indulgences, etc.) Confession on a more limited scale does exist in our religion, but it is absolutely understood that confession to mortal ecclesiastical leaders does not grant us forgiveness from God. Only God gets to do that. We understand confession of serious sins as a step in the repentance process, and that God has commanded it, so it is a necessary step humbling ourselves before God and necessary for repentance in rare cases. It does not bestow forgiveness in any way. Likewise, the Prophet cannot forgive sins. So we agree with both sides, and we disagree with both sides.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that evangelical Christianity has gone to great length to push the idea that God has spoken, dictated His word and made clear His expectations to us (the scriptures) and now sits quietly in His throne leaving humanity to fend for itself.

Dogma and tradition aside, the notion of a distant disconnected and uninvolved Heavenly Father is completely counter intuitive. My grandmother had her old dilapidated bible to glance but tid bits of wisdom and insight from the scriptures. But she was convinced that God was real, that He acted, intervened and directed the life of His children on earth, that he whispered to them at night, gave them dreams and illuminated their minds when they were humble enough to seek His counsel.

She had no preachers, teachers or influences of any kind but her old, faded bible printed in Madrid in 1802. The Gospel makes sense, the word of God finds echo in the desires of our heart to find meaning beyond what life has to offer, to have ope that our existence, love and families do not end at the edge of the grave. It makes sense that since a thousand years is just a minute in His calendar, a millennium ago His word was heard; why not today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Faded—

Your introduction of Luther’s “Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” on the thread as an alternative to discussing the Five Solas is interesting, but probably not that useful for our purpose. The 95 Theses weren’t intended as stand-alone points of doctrine (which becomes clear as you read through them). And while they address a number of related topics along the way—Luther’s unquestionable intent was to refute the practice selling “indulgences” to mitigate punishment in Purgatory. That, and to let the Pope know he needed to fix the problem posthaste!

What’s interesting is that at the time he composed the “Theses”—Luther believed in Purgatory (which also becomes clear when you read through them). But Luther later repudiated that doctrine, and today almost no Protestants hold such a belief. Accordingly, the 95 Theses are not the best representation of Protestant doctrine, because the very premise on which they are based—the existence of Purgatory—has been eliminated.

But since this thread is about doctrines that distinguish Protestantism from Catholicism and whether the LDS position better aligns with the Catholic in such cases—you have, perhaps inadvertently, given us a very relevant example: How does the Catholic conception of Purgatory compare with the LDS conception of a Spirit Prison? On the surface, it appears once again that the LDS view is closer to the Catholic than it is to the Protestant. And certainly both seek to make intercession on behalf of the dead—Catholics through prayer, and LDS by conducting proxy “ordinances.” Protestants, of course, deny any effort to make intercession for the dead.

Your thoughts on this? Is this another example where LDS teachings are closer to Catholic doctrines than Protestant? Do you think the Protestant repudiation of Purgatory and intercession for the dead was inspired by God—or was this just a further drift into “apostasy” (vis-à-vis LDS doctrines)?

--Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah....like them Mormons!!! Dang different God believers....:eek:

Brighamites???? Huh,:confused: and I always thought they were followers of Joe Smith....even though THEY claim to be followers of Christ.......:huh:

Thinly veiled slights Erik....not very nice:)

You’re being awfully sensitive, bytor2112. Protestants and Catholics do worship the same Triune God, and LDS have a different idea—especially when it comes to the 2nd Person of the Trinity: Jesus. If I’ve misstated the facts, please correct me.

Regarding Brigham Young, I’m not sure what you mean by “Brighamites”—but I’m pretty sure from my 7th grade Utah History class that he’s the one who lead the LDS to Utah. So I think what I wrote regarding he and his followers founding Salt Lake City should make complete sense. And he did espouse a number of doctrines, many of which originated with his predecessor and some that were unique to his tenure as LDS prophet.

Not sure how this constitutes a slight in any way. Again, I’m always happy to take correction if I misstate something. I do err from time to time…

;0)

--Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Faded—

Your introduction of Luther’s “Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” on the thread as an alternative to discussing the Five Solas is interesting, but probably not that useful for our purpose. The 95 Theses weren’t intended as stand-alone points of doctrine (which becomes clear as you read through them). And while they address a number of related topics along the way—Luther’s unquestionable intent was to refute the practice selling “indulgences” to mitigate punishment in Purgatory. That, and to let the Pope know he needed to fix the problem posthaste!

The 95 Theses is an example of the initial thoughts of one of the Reformers, Martin Luther. I think it would be fair to say that Martin Luther is probably the most admired Reformer among Latter Day Saints. The 95 Theses are essentially exactly as you characterized them: A beginning point. You're general statement that, "LDS thinking is more in agreement with Catholicism than Protestantism" is incorrect in this case and in many, many other cases. Frankly it is far to broad of a generalization. In these beginning Reformist thoughts, Latter Day Saints can find themselves more in agreement with Luther than not. Of course, that would put our point of view in direct opposition to Catholicsim of Luther's time.

Purgatory is an interesting topic of conversation. We agree that there is more going on than, "Heaven or Hell, Saved or Damned." However, we do not believe in Purgatory in the same sense Catholicism does.

I will repeat what I said before. On the majority of issues where Catholicism and Protestantism disagree, Catholicism is Option A and Protestantism is Option B. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Option C.

Our understanding of proxy work for the dead, Spirit Prison, and a number of other generalities can be pointed to as similarities if you please. If you take a closer look at each case, Catholic doctrine and LDS doctrine are vastly dis-similar to one another on such points. Common ground with Catholicism can be nice as a basis for dialogue, but it is based on extreme generalizations on certain topics.

Luther denouced the existence of Purgatory, and we would not disagree with him in that denunciation. But there is more to it than what Luther and the other Reformers concluded there was.

Protestantism all too often tended to throw the baby out with the bath water doctrinally. Often, there was a general concept that was right, but severely distorted. Protestantism threw the distorted version out and called it false doctrine. In so doing, they lost some things.

Erik, I did decide to play ball and offer up some reaction and discussion on the 5 Solas. Did you have any reactions to those thoughts?

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't want to interrupt Erik but now the thread seems to be clowing down, I'll put my thoughts in...

I think that the reformation had two wings, and for want of better terms I shall call them "magisterial" and "anabaptist". (The following is only a superficail discussion of a vast topic)

Magestrial reformation was lead largely by ex-priest or scholars (eg Calvin Luther Zwingle Knox). They tended to state churches, infant baptism, hierichial church government, reformed theology and were happy to use the state to enforce relgious orhtodoxy.

Anabaptist wing was more lay in orientation. They tended to non state churches, congreagational church government, believer's baptism, (anachronistically although the term is) arminian or even semi-pelaginian thelogy and believed the state should not enforce religion.

Of course they was a spectrum and not everbody fits into neatly into such category.

However it always struck me as odd that most "evanglelicals" remember and reverence magisterial protestant leaders, even though on whole range of issue we differ from them. To be brutally honest these same revered leaders quite often had the state sanction execution or at least persecution of people who largely share beliefs common with evanglelicals. Yet the leaders of the anabaptist wing fail to be known, yet alone reverenced. (with the exception of perhaps Bunyan but his stints in prison show how even mild evanglelical types were treated by magisterial reformed christians). Far fewer evanglelicals know about Menno Simmons (as an example) but it was the Mennonites that had considerable influence on the creation of the English Baptists.

It strikes as only a little less absurd for LDS to think kindly of the magisterial reformers then it does for many evanglelicals. Both Baptist/Pentecostal/Church of Christ/SDA and the LDS would have all quite happy been severally persucted by these men (and sometimes even executed) for nothing more then choosing to believe differently.

Edited by AnthonyB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent points Anthony. I think it is a travesty to bypass the Anabaptists when talking about the Protestant Reformation. Unfortunately, their history gets muddied by "less radical" Protestants and Catholics alike. I think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has a lot in common with the Anabaptists in one important aspect: Their enemies went to such great lengths to demonize them that it is almost impossible to have a clear picture of their history.

Noteworthy Characteristics of Anabaptists:

1.) Believer's Baptism - Baptism is to be administered to believers only. In other words, no infant baptism and baptism was only to occur at the point where the individual chooses to commit their life to Christ.

2.) Symbolism of Holy Communion - Communion is a memorial of the death of Christ, and transubstantiation does not occur.

3.) Restricted Communion - The bread and wine should be broken with baptized believers only.

4.) Religious Separation - Christians should be separated from the world. Some groups like the Mennoites and Ammish took this to the extreme of complete separation from society. Most Anabaptists of the 16th century did not practice separation in that fashion.

5.) Separation of church and state - Christians should not make an oath or hold the office of magistrate. Government and religion should be independant of one another.

7.) Pacifism - Christians should not exercise self-defense or go to war.

It was primarily item 1 and item 5 that were extremely unpopular with every other Christian religion at the time. In the mold of Catholicism, all of your more "moderate" reformation movements viewed State control of religion to be essential. The idea of separating Church and State was utterly preposterous. Additionally, "re-baptism" practiced by Anabaptists was considered extremely controversial at the time. More than one kingdom in Europe pronounced the sentence of death for the practice. Considering the era, rebaptism would have been the only possible way for believer baptism to occur since pretty much everyone had been baptized as an infant, but they went a step further by declaring all Catholic baptism to be invalid (because it did not hold the prerequisite of an individual dedicating their life to Christ at their baptism.)

I do find it completely fascinating how the world has changed as it relates to the Anabaptists and their views. We would hardly consider them the insane radicals that Europeans of the 16th century characterized them to be.

Protestantism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theology of Anabaptism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An interesting chart of the Protestant Reformation (only specifically references the largest movements of course.)

Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t dispute your overall point, AnthonyB, but I feel obliged to nitpick just a little (because I’m a huge fan of John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress). Strictly speaking, it isn’t accurate to say, as you wrote—

with the exception of perhaps Bunyan but his stints in prison show how even mild evangelical types were treated by magisterial reformed Christians

First, Bunyan lived a full century after the “Magisterial” Reformers you mentioned. Second, he was persecuted, not by Reformed Christians (he actually was one, and you’ll find Pilgrim’s Progress very much affirms Reformed theology)—but by the largely Arminian leadership of the Church of England in concert with the government of Charles II. So in this particular example—you really have it backwards.

The Arminian faction became ascendant in the Church of England during the reign of Charles 1, and by many accounts was a contributing factor to the English Civil War, leading to the temporary overthrow of the monarchy by Oliver Cromwell (who was Reformed). Bunyan supported Cromwell, and after Cromwell died and the monarchy was reestablished under Charles’s son, Charles II, Parliament passed the “Clarendon Code” and other laws reestablishing the Church of England’s authority. It was under those laws that Bunyan was prosecuted and imprisoned—the environment in which he wrote Pilgrim’s Progress and other works.

But again, I think your overall point is a fair one. Had Joseph Smith lived in the 16th Century and traveled about denying the Trinity and recruiting followers—as he was able to do with relative freedom in 19th century America—he would have gone the way of Servetus, per your post on the previous thread. But 19th century America had new values that were sacrosanct, worth killing and dying for—enshrined in a “Bill of Rights.” You could deny the Trinity in 19th Century America and live to tell the tale—but use your position to destroy a privately owned printing press…

--Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share