The Protestant Reformation: Were its Doctrines Inspired?

[Connie]

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

[ErikJohnson]

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

[Faded]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

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.

[Faded]

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.

[ErikJohnson]

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

[bytor2112]

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....

Brigham Young and his followers

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

Thinly veiled slights Erik....not very nice

[Faded]

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.

[Faded]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

“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.

[Islander]

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?

[ErikJohnson]

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