Modern Protestants and Reformation Sunday
So yesterday was "Reformation Sunday." The anniversary of the day that Father Martin Luther nailed his 95 Thesis to the door of a church in Wittenberg.
Of course, there was nothing remarkable in this action itself. If I took a writing of mine and nailed it to somebody's door, that action might be interpreted as hostile and violent. Not so in Luther's day; lots of things got nailed to church doors, because that's how you alerted people to the fact that you wanted to debate something.
Think of the church door as a 16th century version of an Internet discussion forum.
Even Luther downplayed this action, saying he was quite surprised at what came of it. He wrote later in life that he assumed someone else would come after him and finish the disputations outlined in his theses.
But what is really most confusing to me is why American Protestants today still celebrate Reformation Sunday.
There are three issues (ok, four) in particular: Baptism, The Eucharist, Infant Baptism, and Mary.
These are not insignificant issues, these are the very grit and grisle of why Protestants refuse to be Catholic. But Luther's views on these particular issues were much more Catholic than they were Protestant.
In fact, the views of American Evangelicals today - and I include here all denominations, including Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, etc. - are actually inherited from another group of "Reformers," namely, the Anabaptists. These were the folks that rejected infant baptism, because baptism (for them) was only symbolic of a believer's profession of faith; this was the sect that believed Holy Communion was merely symbolic, and advocated a separation of Church and State.
So we have today a large group of neo-Anabaptists, who commemorate Luther's action at Wittenberg which (theoretically) sparked the Reformation.
The problem?
Luther hated the Anabaptists. Any student of history knows this. He thought it right and proper for the German secular rulers to violently oppress the Anabaptists, because their unbiblical (according to Luther) teachings were dangerous. He repeatedly condemned these views as diabolical heresies, and those who held them as hell-bound heretics.
500 years later, the theological great-great-grandchildren of the Anabaptists are celebrating Reformation Sunday and venerating the memory of the man who - were he alive today - would gladly see them all burned at the stake.
I don't get it.
Here's the answer they offer: well, sure, Luther didn't get far enough away from Catholicism, but the work he did on advancing sola scriptura and sola fide more than make up for that fact.
Um ... can I just ask one question? How is it that a man who - because he believed Christ was substantially present in the Eucharist - adored the consecrated host and chalice is even considered by American Evangelicals as being a Christian?
If the Anabaptists are right about communion being merely symbolic, then Luther was an idolator. Doubly so, in fact, because he also advocated praying the Hail Mary and venerating Mary as the Mother of God. But he was a Christian and went to heaven?!
You can't have it both ways. Either Luther was a damned and damnable idolator who went to hell for worshiping bread and wine, or he was a Christian who held to biblical truths, in which case the neo-Anabaptist American Evangelical is a damned and damnable heretic for denying the power of God at work in the sacraments.
These differences cannot be swept under the rug of Non-Critical Doctrines. Unless of course idolatry is a non-essential.
Recommended reading:
Roland Bainton, Here I Stand
Luther, Large Catechism
Luther, Table Talk
Hartmann Grisar, Martin Luther: His Life and Work
Of course, there was nothing remarkable in this action itself. If I took a writing of mine and nailed it to somebody's door, that action might be interpreted as hostile and violent. Not so in Luther's day; lots of things got nailed to church doors, because that's how you alerted people to the fact that you wanted to debate something.
Think of the church door as a 16th century version of an Internet discussion forum.
Even Luther downplayed this action, saying he was quite surprised at what came of it. He wrote later in life that he assumed someone else would come after him and finish the disputations outlined in his theses.
But what is really most confusing to me is why American Protestants today still celebrate Reformation Sunday.
There are three issues (ok, four) in particular: Baptism, The Eucharist, Infant Baptism, and Mary.
These are not insignificant issues, these are the very grit and grisle of why Protestants refuse to be Catholic. But Luther's views on these particular issues were much more Catholic than they were Protestant.
In fact, the views of American Evangelicals today - and I include here all denominations, including Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, etc. - are actually inherited from another group of "Reformers," namely, the Anabaptists. These were the folks that rejected infant baptism, because baptism (for them) was only symbolic of a believer's profession of faith; this was the sect that believed Holy Communion was merely symbolic, and advocated a separation of Church and State.
So we have today a large group of neo-Anabaptists, who commemorate Luther's action at Wittenberg which (theoretically) sparked the Reformation.
The problem?
Luther hated the Anabaptists. Any student of history knows this. He thought it right and proper for the German secular rulers to violently oppress the Anabaptists, because their unbiblical (according to Luther) teachings were dangerous. He repeatedly condemned these views as diabolical heresies, and those who held them as hell-bound heretics.
500 years later, the theological great-great-grandchildren of the Anabaptists are celebrating Reformation Sunday and venerating the memory of the man who - were he alive today - would gladly see them all burned at the stake.
I don't get it.
Here's the answer they offer: well, sure, Luther didn't get far enough away from Catholicism, but the work he did on advancing sola scriptura and sola fide more than make up for that fact.
Um ... can I just ask one question? How is it that a man who - because he believed Christ was substantially present in the Eucharist - adored the consecrated host and chalice is even considered by American Evangelicals as being a Christian?
If the Anabaptists are right about communion being merely symbolic, then Luther was an idolator. Doubly so, in fact, because he also advocated praying the Hail Mary and venerating Mary as the Mother of God. But he was a Christian and went to heaven?!
You can't have it both ways. Either Luther was a damned and damnable idolator who went to hell for worshiping bread and wine, or he was a Christian who held to biblical truths, in which case the neo-Anabaptist American Evangelical is a damned and damnable heretic for denying the power of God at work in the sacraments.
These differences cannot be swept under the rug of Non-Critical Doctrines. Unless of course idolatry is a non-essential.
Recommended reading:
Roland Bainton, Here I Stand
Luther, Large Catechism
Luther, Table Talk
Hartmann Grisar, Martin Luther: His Life and Work
<< Home