VDMA
Member
Martin Luther and “Here I Stand”!
Sola Scriptura
“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures and by clear reason (for I do not trust in the pope or councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.”
It is debatable if Martin Luther actually said the above quote.
What version of “Here I stand” is correct?
Baptist/Reformed/etc have taken the principal of the sola scriptura (A Baptist and a confessional Lutheran would not necessarily agree fully on definitions of the “five solas”) and had a number of their own “Here I stand” moments that ended up rejecting clear biblical teachings.
What Lutherans mean by sola scriptura is not necessarily the same as what a Baptist means by sola scriptura. I see the point that Catholics and Orthodox make, when they criticize Protestants. As a confessional Lutheran, I would uphold the historic apostolic biblical view of baptismal regeneration (and the necessity of baptism), I would also agree the sacrament of private confession and holy absolution (Office of the Keys) is clearly taught in sacred scripture, it is a biblical sacrament, I would also agree with Catholics that Christ is corporal present in the Eucharist (His true body and blood), I would also agree fully with Catholics on the Two Natures of Christ, but not with Calvinist and Zwinglians, case in point—there symbolic views on Eucharist. I would also agree with Catholics that, it is right to refer to the Blessed Virgin Saint Mary, the Ark of the living God, as the mother of God, etc. Main, point, Luther and Lutherans agree on many points with the Catholic Church (without getting into nuance). The point of the Reformation was not to be as un-Catholic as possible, but faithfully Catholic.
If Luther could surveyed the landscape he would be shocked grieved with what happened afterwards (he was grieved by division before his death). If you read Luther’s Works, he would not doubt anathematize 90% of Americans Protestantism. There is a disconnect between Baptist Protestantism and the historic church.
Why is the “Baptist” interpretation of scripture alone correct and not Confessional Lutheranism, etc.?
Sacred scripture clearly teaches sacramental theology. Did the Holy Spirit lead Baptist to reject baptismal regeneration, private confession and holy absolution, the real corporal presence in the Eucharist, the historic understanding of the two natures of Christ, etc.?
“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures and by clear reason, I am bound by the Scriptures”!
Sola Scriptura
“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures and by clear reason (for I do not trust in the pope or councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.”
It is debatable if Martin Luther actually said the above quote.
What version of “Here I stand” is correct?
Baptist/Reformed/etc have taken the principal of the sola scriptura (A Baptist and a confessional Lutheran would not necessarily agree fully on definitions of the “five solas”) and had a number of their own “Here I stand” moments that ended up rejecting clear biblical teachings.
What Lutherans mean by sola scriptura is not necessarily the same as what a Baptist means by sola scriptura. I see the point that Catholics and Orthodox make, when they criticize Protestants. As a confessional Lutheran, I would uphold the historic apostolic biblical view of baptismal regeneration (and the necessity of baptism), I would also agree the sacrament of private confession and holy absolution (Office of the Keys) is clearly taught in sacred scripture, it is a biblical sacrament, I would also agree with Catholics that Christ is corporal present in the Eucharist (His true body and blood), I would also agree fully with Catholics on the Two Natures of Christ, but not with Calvinist and Zwinglians, case in point—there symbolic views on Eucharist. I would also agree with Catholics that, it is right to refer to the Blessed Virgin Saint Mary, the Ark of the living God, as the mother of God, etc. Main, point, Luther and Lutherans agree on many points with the Catholic Church (without getting into nuance). The point of the Reformation was not to be as un-Catholic as possible, but faithfully Catholic.
If Luther could surveyed the landscape he would be shocked grieved with what happened afterwards (he was grieved by division before his death). If you read Luther’s Works, he would not doubt anathematize 90% of Americans Protestantism. There is a disconnect between Baptist Protestantism and the historic church.
Why is the “Baptist” interpretation of scripture alone correct and not Confessional Lutheranism, etc.?
Sacred scripture clearly teaches sacramental theology. Did the Holy Spirit lead Baptist to reject baptismal regeneration, private confession and holy absolution, the real corporal presence in the Eucharist, the historic understanding of the two natures of Christ, etc.?
“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures and by clear reason, I am bound by the Scriptures”!
Last edited: