'Luther': Sola Scriptura

The movie "Luther" covers the early years of Martin Luther's life, from his days as a monk in the early 1500s to the proclamation of the Augsburg Confession in 1530, which founded the Lutheran Church in Germany. It is a wonderful, entertaining historical drama which, despite some flaws, shows how one man's faith in God changed the history of the world.

At one important point in the movie "Luther," a wonderful, entertaining historical drama about the life of the 16th century Protestant reformer Martin Luther, Luther admits to the German emperor that he may have been too harsh when attacking some of the Roman Catholic leaders.

Later in the movie, in fact, he realizes, and painfully regrets, that some of his actions in support of controversial ideas have led to many deaths during the peasant revolt in Germany, which was inspired by his writings and fed by the intemperate zealotry of some of his supporters.

At the same time, however, the Luther presented by this movie returns several times to the central issue that occupied his mind, and changed the world: the primacy of God's Word, the Bible.

"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason ... I will not recant," Luther tells the German and Catholic authorities accusing him of heresy. "My conscience is captive to the Word of God."

For history tells us it was the demands of study for academic degrees and preparations for delivering lectures as the teacher of biblical theology at Wittenburg University that led Luther to study the Scriptures in depth. His study of the Bible, the source of Christianity, convinced him that the Church had lost sight of the central truths of the faith: Sola Scriptura!

The movie "Luther" covers the early years of Martin Luther's life, from his days as a monk in the early 1500s to the proclamation of the Augsburg Confession in 1530, which founded the Lutheran Church in Germany. It begins with the thunderstorm that led Luther to cry out to St. Anne, the patron saint of miners like his father, "Help, St. Anne! I'll become a monk."

At the monastery, Luther is wracked by guilt because he feels completely unholy in the face of the God of Justice. His mentor orders him to pursue an academic career to relieve the strain. Soon, however, the young theology teacher is trying to correct the corrupt Catholic Church in Rome, whose corruption Luther saw first-hand. He begins teaching his students and the people in Wittenburg about the mercy and compassion of God, while complaining about the Church selling forgiveness of sins to the people for money.

All of this angers the pope and many of his officials, who are trying to collect money to build St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. They charge Luther with heresy, and the climax of the first half of the movie occurs when Luther refuses to renounce his writings, unless convinced by Scripture.

Joseph Fiennes does an excellent job of portraying this revolutionary historical figure, whose Protestant Reformation clearly led to the founding of America and the establishment of representative government in both England and the United States. Although he appears to be a bit too thin and young by the end of the movie, there are surviving portraits of Luther from the early 1520s when most of "Luther"takes place which approximate Fiennes' features.

Supporting Mr. Fiennes, as Luther's supporter, Prince Frederick the Wise, is the legendary, always enjoyable Peter Ustinov, star of such classic historical movies as "Spartacus" and the great "Quo Vadis."

Director Eric Till, who also did the MOVIEGUIDE(R) Award-winning TV program "Bonhoeffer: Agent of Grace," does a marvelous job of capturing the settings and atmosphere of 16th century Germany and Italy. The movie is engrossing throughout, even though the high points and climax in the second half of the movie don't match the powerful drama of the scenes where Luther refuses to recant.

MOVIEGUIDE(R) can find little or nothing wrong, factually speaking, with the historical portrayal of this part of Luther's life, but "Luther" is told from a Lutheran, Protestant viewpoint. Hence, the movie may offend Roman Catholics, especially when Luther cracks some jokes about the Catholic leaders he opposes, including Pope Leo X.

The ending of the movie also has one cardinal complaining, at Leo's death, that, if Leo had been more like Luther, perhaps Roman Catholicism could have been reformed. Of course, after Leo's death, the Catholic Church did indeed undergo reform within the movement known as the Counter-Reformation.

"Luther" clearly shows that Martin Luther's career led to an increased respect for the mercy of God and the importance of God's Word, the Bible. It also informs viewers, in an end credit, that Luther helped spread a new understanding of religious freedom throughout Europe. This is true, but only to a certain extent, because, for the next 150 years or so after Luther's death, Europe was gripped by religious wars in the wake of the Protestant Reformation.

In other words, a schism in a church can be an awful thing, especially when it leads to violence, although we are called by Scripture to stand for the Truth when absolutely required.

Regrettably, the movie says little about the other great foundation of Lutheran and Protestant belief – that each and every Christian is saved, and justified or declared righteous, by God's grace through faith, not by works. This is a failing in "Luther," even though the movie correctly and boldly stresses faith in God through Jesus Christ.

In the final analysis, "Luther" is must-watching, because it shows, in a compelling and dramatic fashion, how Luther's faith in God changed the history of the world. "Luther" is an entertaining, powerful portrait of the Truth which people of all faiths will appreciate and enjoy. It is one of the best movies of 2003.

Dennis A. Clauss
Executive Producer "Luther"
4321 N. Ballard Road
Appleton, WI 54919-0001

Certainly looks interesting. The trailer on the official site is very compelling (though I didn't care for the whole 'Luther in bed with the runaway nun' part). It really is unfortunate that they don't deal with the sola fide aspect of the Reformation, but it looks like a fantastic movie. I can't wait to see if it lives up to expectations.

>>"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason ... I will not recant,">>

I wonder of the movie shows the part where Luther is told where the bible explicitly demonstrates purgatory, whereupon Luther proceeds to "cover up" the evidence by proclaiming that Revelations, Hebrew, James, 2+3 John, 1+2 Peter, 1+2 Maccabees and Wisdom are *all* apocryphal. Yes, not only what later protestants call the apocrypha, Luther also threw out large chunks of the New Testament, in order to maintain his position.

Do you think they'll show that part?

I wonder of the movie shows the part where Luther is told where the bible explicitly demonstrates purgatory...

Let's see those Biblical sources.

Do you think they'll show that part?

I'm more interested in your Scriptural support.

>>I wonder of the movie shows the part where Luther is told where the bible explicitly demonstrates purgatory...>>

>Let's see those Biblical sources.>

They were strong enough to convince Luther that He concluded their authors intended to establish beliefs Luther couldn't tolerate. He openly acknowledged he removed them from the bible because they were contrary to his perception of God.

They include:
Some of the ones I remember include:

Revelations 20 depicts the dead being called forth from Hades to be judged. If they *all* are to be condemned, then they would have been judged already when they were sent to Hades the *first* time. (suggesting purgatory to Luther)

Peter (not sure which) says that the disobedient believer will survive, but as one passing through fire. (suggesting Purgatory to Luther)

Peter also desribes the risen Jesus as having preached to the SPIRITS in prison, which Luther understood to be purgatory.

James insisted that true religion consisted of works (violating sola fidelis)

2 Maccabees depicted victorious Jews offering loot to the temple in order to atone for the sins of their fallen beloved comrades (the same passage is the source for the date of Christmas!) (This book was never restored to the Protestant bible)

Hebrews describes Jews preferring to be tortured than to be released, so they might gain a better resurrection, a reference to 2 Maccabees

In the portion of Daniel which Luther excised, Shadrack, Meshach and Obednigo praise God for purifying them by exposing them to the fire in the furnace, without allowing them to be consumed in the flames.

I doubt it will. It probably won't get into his scatalogical obsessions either. And from the review, it sounds like the filmmakers take Luther's denial of responsibility for the consequences of his beliefs (peasant riots, immediately, and modern, more horrible consequences) at face value.

On the other hand, the relationship between Luther and the Ustinov character could be interesting -- a tyrant using Luther's beliefs as justification to seize total control over his subjects, who are left without recourse to a Church disposed against tyranny. And Luther, cheering him along, saying he didn't mean that everyone could interpret the Bible for themselves, only that the Church can't interpose itself between individuals and the all-powerful state (as long as it's Lutheran, that is).

I looked at the movie's website, and it seems to be yet more protestant revisionist history. Luther the hero, standing up against the evil Church. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be an interesting movie to watch. It could just be marketing, after all. I'll probably rent it, so if I yell at the screen I won't bother anyone I don't know or can't easily apologize to.

Someone ought to make a movie about the real Luther.

I have read quite a bit about Luther, and I agree a movie about the real man and the times would be wonderful. Remember, there was two sides to the story. Luther was a self admitted hot head and tended to spout off. He was not pleased with the peasent revolt, nor with the princes response.

There were problems in the church at the time. The sale of indulgunces was getting way out of hand, and Leo X was not a good or Godly leader by any streach of the imagination. If Luther and Leo had been more even tempered, the Reformation probably wouldn't have happened.

>>You sure have a way of muddying that up. I've seen RCs say just the opposite.>>

Well, don't miss the point that works are a *necessary* sign. And this is where much of protestantism and Catholicism differ (although many American RCs take the protestant position):

The church canons are measures to reveal to us the sign of our salvation. If we confess our sins, receive absolution, and, in such a state of grace, receive Holy Communion, Catholics have a sign of their salvation through those works. If we make up our mind that the church is wrong, and therefore do not mention certain sins, then we are not absoved of those sins, and we descrate the sacrament; it is no sign to us.

Such a person might insist he has faith, and is therefore saved. But does he have faith in the true God, or has he reshaped God into his own image? To know that what he has faith in is the truth, he must have faith in the Church which was established by Christ to call sinners to repentance.

When a person discovers his faith is faulty, for he fails to be in a state of grace, he can know to turn to Christ to perfect his faith; thus the Church serves as an *instrument* of grace.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.