The Protestant Reformation: Were its Doctrines Inspired?

[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’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

[Moksha]

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.

.

[Vort]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

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.

[ErikJohnson]

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

[Vort]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

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.

[Islander]

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.

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by Vort

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…

[Connie]

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.

[ErikJohnson]

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

[prisonchaplain]

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.