The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-1, titled "Bible Questions and Answers."  A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE.

Question

I was brought up Lutheran and it appears that there are inconsistencies in Luther's Small Catechism, in relation with the Bible, primarily Baptism and Communion. If Luther was truly a man of God and the Lutheran Church is really following him, why is the Lutheran Church today so liberal and caught up in man's tradition?

Answer

Martin Luther, if he was alive today wouldn't be a member of most Lutheran churches, so we don't want to blame him for what they are today--they have come so far from Lutheran theology. Martin Luther was obviously God's anointed man in many ways. No man is the reservoir of all truth. Martin Luther was the product of years, and years, of years of Catholicism. It is a work of God that he could ever see through it at all, because it was so absolutely oppressive and overpowering. But, he started to read the Bible and he wrote a commentary on Romans, and when he got through Romans, he realized that the doctrine of salvation was all fouled up in the Catholic Church. They were teaching "salvation by works" and he hated it. They were buying their way into heaven through the indulgences and all that stuff.

So, Martin Luther was basically used by God to develop, what theologians call "soteriology" the doctrine of salvation. He was a "soteriologist" and the truth of the matter is that the Reformation was a soeteriological reformation, that never touched the field of ecclesiology (the doctrine of the Church). That is why the hot bed of Lutheranism--Germany, went completely liberal and produced a guy like Hitler. Though his [Luther] soteriology was right, he didn't live long enough or whatever--God could only use that man to fight one battle. My grandfather use to say, "If you do one thing well in your life, you would be ahead of most people." That is right, he did one great thing extremely well, in understanding the doctrine of "salvation by grace through faith"--the "just shall live by faith." It never really impacted all of ecclesiology; it never really impacted the church at its widest possible range and definition. Consequently, there was the potential of its disintegration in the system.

You know, Martin Luther never even got out of the Catholic Church--he was a priest. So, we don't want to fault Luther--Luther did what Luther did, and we can all be greatful for that, and those people who understood Luther, understood that he was saying something about salvation that had never been said, at least in their experience in the Catholic Church. Now, having said all of that, it is important to point out: Luther's basic emphasis in soteriology never really touched very much else--it never really did.

So, the Lutheran Church that developed, had weaknesess built into it--two of those you pinpointed. It is interesting, in your paper, that you came to Baptism and the Lord's Supper, because they never quite got over the "baby baptism" thing. They never got out of that, they never followed to a logical conclusion what Luther was really teaching, and today, there are many Lutherans, in fact, most Lutherans, I would think, believe that their place in the kingdom was initiated by their baptism as an infant, and then confirmed at the age of twelve or whatever. And that is what we call "sacramental Christianity" as opposed to "personal Christianity," it is that you are there because of the sacrament.

The second thing is, in communion, Luther made a quantam leap, because the Catholic Church taught "transubstantiation" and "transubstantiation" says that in the mass the host and the whatever, the cup and the bread, are, by the priest, literally transformed into the very body and very blood of Jesus Christ, so that what is left has to be protected and cared for and put away and all of this, because it is the real body and the real [blood]. Now, that made Luther angry and so he moved away from that to a view called "consubstantiation," which you probably read about, and what Luther said was, "No, it has the spiritual presence of Christ, and the spiritual body of Christ in the cup and the bread." Well, that is nothing, I don't know what that is, but it was a big step away from where they were, but he wasn't all the way to where we are today, where we say it is only a remembrance.

So, we don't want to fault Luther, he made some tremendous steps, and theology coming out of the "dark ages" from 500 to 1500, when he pinned his thesis on the Wittenburg Church door, coming out of those "dark ages" I mean, that was a massive step for him. He went as far as he could and it has been taken beyond that, unfortunately, some of the Lutheran people are more concerned with holding on to their roots, and holding onto to Martin Luther--they will quote him more than they will the Bible, and he was limited in his understanding, because he was so much of a pioneer coming out of that kind of theology.