Do you agree with Luther: "Father of the Protestant Reformation"?

"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of sacred scriptures or by clear reason, for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves, I am bound by the scriptures I've quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not retract anything since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."  So said Martin Luther.

Here are a few questions to consider in light of Luther's words: First, how did Luther know what the Sacred Scriptures were? On whose judgment was he relying in his determination of which books belonged to the Bible? Is his criteria trustworthy? Second, why did he trust in his own reason more than that of the Pope or the determinations of Church Councils?

So it is clear from the beginning, I do believe that Luther was right when he said, "it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience." This does not, however, rule out the real and frequent possibility that someone's conscience may not be fully or properly formed.

Concerning the first set of questions listed above, consider the following sampling of quotes from Luther:

 • “St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has    nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.” (Martin Luther, Preface to the New Testament)

 • “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . . . For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. . . . let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it.” (Martin Luther, Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522)

What is Luther using to determine whether these books are part of Sacred Scripture? His own preconceptions about the nature of the gospel and whether or not he can detect Christ to be taught therein. Fundamentally, he seems to set himself up as judge of Scripture itself. Therefore, he himself is not even living by "his own" principle of sola scriptura, but rather sola Luther (or his own reasoning, which in other places, he decries, as sampled below).

On the face of it, his criteria may sound good and noble (whether the book is consistent with the nature of the gospel and/or whether Christ is taught therein), but upon further exploration we find that his own faulty reason (a human faculty which, again, he ironically deposed as an unworthy guide. See below for a few examples...) gets in the way and becomes a roadblock or blinder to seeing how James and Paul, while, perhaps, seeming contradictory, actually dovetail quite nicely (perfectly) by the design of the great Reason Who is above human reason. God is a master of paradox.

The bottom line, however, is that the Church guided by the Holy Spirit had already come to believe the divine authorship of these books which Luther brought into question. This should have satisfied his doubts and in faith he ought to have sought understanding.

Concerning the second question, here are a few considerations. First, he seems to assume that his own conscience and reason could not be in error (or at least not as much as that of others. I will save an explanation of the Catholic view of the proper role of one's own conscience for another day.) Why does he hold his own reason up above that of the consenting reason of the Church over centuries? At the same time as he seems to hold up his own reason, we find him denouncing reason. Did he merely denounce the reason of everyone who disagreed with him? If reason is so faulty and ought to be so mistrusted (I'm not denying that one's reason can lead them astray), then why did he not mistrust his own? Here are some quotes of his:

 • “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but–more frequently than not –struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” (Martin Luther, Table Talk, 353).

 • “But since the devil’s bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she’s wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil’s greatest whore.” (Martin Luther, Last Sermon in Wittenberg, 1546)

 • “Therefore, whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason (Matt. 5:29)” (Martin Luther, Lecture on Psalm 45, 1532)

 • “Whoever wants to be a Christian must be intent on silencing the voice of reason.” (Martin Luther, Sermons on the Gospel of St. John 6:46)

Hmmm...

Doesn't it stand to reason that if reason itself is so untrustworthy as Luther claims, Luther should not be trusting his own reason as he applies it in arriving at his sola scriptura or any other uniquely Protestant constructs?