Home » Mind & Soul » Lutheranism » Lutherans: Catholic, Protestant, or Other?

Lutherans: Catholic, Protestant, or Other?

© John L. Hoh, Jr.

The appeal was not entertained. The Emperor, who soon afterwards concluded peace with the Pope (June 29, 1529), and with the King of France (Aug. 5), refused even to grant the delegation of the Protestant States a respectful hearing at Piacenza (September), and kept them prisoners for a while.

From this protest and appeal the Lutherans were called Protestants; with good reason, if we look at their attitude to Rome, which remains the same to this day. It is the duty of the church at all times to protest against sin, error, corruption, tyranny, and every kind of iniquity. But the designation, which has since become a general term for evangelical Christians, is negative, and admits of an indiscriminate application to all who dissent from popery, no matter on what grounds and to what extent.

It must be supplemented by the more important positive designation Evangelical. The gospel of Christ, as laid down in the New Testament, and proclaimed again in its primitive purity and power by the Reformation, is the basis of historical Protestantism, and gives it vitality and permanency. The protest of Speier was based objectively upon the Word of God, subjectively upon the right of private judgment and conscience, and historically upon the liberal decision of the Diet of 1526.

I wrote a paper in the seminary that looked at the differences between the three branches of Christianity. Basically, it boils down to this: Which is the predominant tool for formulating doctrine, Scripture, Tradition, or Reason? Yes, all three branches use all three elements, but which is the highest authority? In my research, I found that Roman Catholicism, in its official doctrine, tended to rely on Tradition. In fact, the official Church teaching is that the Church created Scripture, not the other way around! Hence, the Church can supersede Scripture through Tradition or "on-going revelation."

The Reformed branch (Baptists, Assemblies of God, others) rely heavily on Reason in their official positions. Infant baptism? It doesn't make sense and besides, the child doesn't know what's going on and can't believe. This, despite the promise from God that baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21). Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper? Could never happen. He'd run out of body long ago (although I'm beginning to think that a denial of the Real Presence in communion on this basis is a denial of the Resurrection. A living body regenerates itself; a dead body doesn't. Besides, how many people did Jesus feed with five fish and two small loaves?).