Bible being the Sole Authority??

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
Show me, CC, where we are not permitted to have it. Where the Holy Spirit limits who may and may not have the word of God. Is it a book for Christians? The Catholic Catechism says we are Christians. If the Catholic Catechism says that, ""Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”
If the Catholic Church acknowledges that the written Word of God is with us, what Catholic then can claim it should not be so?

See above.

Jon
Click to expand...
Jon,

I did not supply the quote…I asked for an explanation. What you post is after the fact of what Luther said…
 
solarguy17 said:
Correct, listen to the Apostles, the Apostles have all passed away leaving the Bible as their message to us.
Click to expand...
Certainly.

But they didn’t just leave us with ONLY the Bible.

In fact, they left us with a Church and it is through the Church ALONE that you know what belongs in the Bible, solarguy.
 
benjohnson said:
I think this is going to perhaps drive you nuts, but we claim to be a valid continuation of the western church - so we would have the same answer as you. In that we have a shared history for 1500 years, and we have a slightly less shared history for the following 500 years.

As Luther said:

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” –Commentary on St. John, ch. 16
Click to expand...
Ben,

Here is what would drive me nuts…

A contradictory teaching from Martin Luther where he states the Catholic Church is the true Church, then later takes this back:
"Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them."
Click to expand...
Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon) A Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil, 1522. [Taken from volume III:254-271 of The Sermons of Martin Luther]

Here we get a concession…

Luther then later contradicts this with:
“If they excommunicate and persecute us because of our evangelical preaching and our knowledge of Christ, we already have the decision of Christ that they are not the true Church, and their office and all the authority of which they boast cannot avail against us; that rather our teaching and judgments against them shall avail before God in heaven. We are certain, by reason of the test which Christ here applies, that the true Church is with the few who know Christ”
Click to expand...
Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon) A Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil, 1522.[Taken from volume III:254-271 of The Sermons of Martin Luther]

So, now you got Luther saying he recieved the Word of God from the True Church that is not the True Church…cmon…Martin…what’s a Lutheran to do…

You explain it…I cannot…🙂
 
CopticChristian said:
Ben,

Here is what would drive me nuts…

A contradictory teaching from Martin Luther where he states the Catholic Church is the true Church, then later takes this back:

Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon) A Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil, 1522. [Taken from volume III:254-271 of The Sermons of Martin Luther]

Here we get a concession…

Luther then later contradicts this with:

Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon) A Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil, 1522.[Taken from volume III:254-271 of The Sermons of Martin Luther]

So, now you got Luther saying he recieved the Word of God from the True Church that is not the True Church…cmon…Martin…what’s a Lutheran to do…

You explain it…I cannot…🙂
Click to expand...
Hmm…:compcoff:
 
CopticChristian said:
Ben,

Here is what would drive me nuts…

A contradictory teaching from Martin Luther where he states the Catholic Church is the true Church, then later takes this back:

Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon) A Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil, 1522. [Taken from volume III:254-271 of The Sermons of Martin Luther]

Here we get a concession…

Luther then later contradicts this with:

Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon) A Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil, 1522.[Taken from volume III:254-271 of The Sermons of Martin Luther]

So, now you got Luther saying he recieved the Word of God from the True Church that is not the True Church…cmon…Martin…what’s a Lutheran to do…

You explain it…I cannot…🙂
Click to expand...
I had to study Luther in college. Most Lutherans will disagree with this, but Luther changed his mind on a so many things during his mission.

Conditional baptism - On May 12, 1531 Luther wrote to Wenzel Link about conditional baptism, affirming that “after careful consideration we have defined that it must simply be eliminated from the Church.” The next day, he changed his mind. Again ‘inspired,’ he wrote to Ossiandro: “I cannot condemn conditional baptism being given to children whose first baptism is doubtful”

Power of the Catholic Church - In 1519 he wrote: “I fully confess the supreme power of the Roman Church; after Jesus Christ Our Lord, she should be preferred to everything on earth and heaven.” This Church “is the one chosen by God; there can be no reason for anyone to break away from her and, entering into schism, separate himself from her unity.” In 1520, in his Lutheran Epistle, he strongly praised Pope Leo X, saying that his courageous life placed him above any attack.

However, in that same year Leo X would become the Antichrist and the Roman Church “a licentious den of thieves, the most depraved brothel, the kingdom of sin, death and hell.”

There are so many more, but the reason I stated those are because he was “once” for Sacred Tradition and The Church. He actually gave the Church authority but soon would take that back and place sole authority in Scirpture. The reason I believe Luther wanted to place the sole authority in Scirpture is because one can “make” Scripture mean what ever is pleasing to one’s theology if taken out of context.

Now I do not believe many “Lutherans” today are what Luther had in mind when he started his reform. If Luther was strictly giving Scripture the sole authority then why write a small and large catechism?
 
aidanbradypop said:
I had to study Luther in college. Most Lutherans will disagree with this, but Luther changed his mind on a so many things during his mission.

Conditional baptism - On May 12, 1531 Luther wrote to Wenzel Link about conditional baptism, affirming that “after careful consideration we have defined that it must simply be eliminated from the Church.” The next day, he changed his mind. Again ‘inspired,’ he wrote to Ossiandro: “I cannot condemn conditional baptism being given to children whose first baptism is doubtful”

Power of the Catholic Church - In 1519 he wrote: “I fully confess the supreme power of the Roman Church; after Jesus Christ Our Lord, she should be preferred to everything on earth and heaven.” This Church “is the one chosen by God; there can be no reason for anyone to break away from her and, entering into schism, separate himself from her unity.” In 1520, in his Lutheran Epistle, he strongly praised Pope Leo X, saying that his courageous life placed him above any attack.

However, in that same year Leo X would become the Antichrist and the Roman Church “a licentious den of thieves, the most depraved brothel, the kingdom of sin, death and hell.”

There are so many more, but the reason I stated those are because he was “once” for Sacred Tradition and The Church. He actually gave the Church authority but soon would take that back and place sole authority in Scirpture. The reason I believe Luther wanted to place the sole authority in Scirpture is because one can “make” Scripture mean what ever is pleasing to one’s theology if taken out of context.

Now I do not believe many “Lutherans” today are what Luther had in mind when he started his reform. If Luther was strictly giving Scripture the sole authority then why write a small and large catechism?
Click to expand...
Pop,

Then would you say Luther was on a mission from God or not?
 
aidanbradypop said:
I had to study Luther in college. Most Lutherans will disagree with this, but Luther changed his mind on a so many things during his mission.
Click to expand...
I hope you don’t get too much disagreement with Lutherans on this - Martin Luther was a man like any other who equivocated and changed.

As a ‘Lutheran’, to understand what the Evangelische Kirche is, you really have to look at the confessions, creeds and practices of the church and not just the Catholic Monk who started the process.

It’s the same reasoning that says we can’t even begin to understand the Catholic church by examining Pope Leo X - he wasn’t even an ordained priest and had a pet elephant. But as it was, it has nothing to do with true Catholic thinking.
 
CopticChristian said:
Pop,

Then would you say Luther was on a mission from God or not?
Click to expand...
In my opinion? No. I believe Luther was on a self seeking mission and took authority away from the Church.

However, I do believe Lutherans is modern times seek God.
 
CopticChristian said:
So, now you got Luther saying he recieved the Word of God from the True Church that is not the True Church…cmon…Martin…what’s a Lutheran to do…

You explain it…I cannot…🙂
Click to expand...
I probably could come up with a rational explanation on Luther’s use of sarcasm or polemics, but even if that fails, it’s not a quandary for us ‘Lutherans.’ For us, Luther was just a man, not our Bishop.

I’m probably simplifying, but as I understand it, what a Lutheran should do is obediently follow his Church and God, and do his best to spread the Gospel.
 
benjohnson said:
I probably could come up with a rational explanation on Luther’s use of sarcasm or polemics, but even if that fails, it’s not a quandary for us ‘Lutherans.’ For us, Luther was just a man, not our Bishop.

I’m probably simplifying, but as I understand it, what a Lutheran should do is obediently follow his Church and God, and do his best to spread the Gospel.
Click to expand...
Yeah that doesnt sit well with me:shrug:
 
joe370 said:
The Lutheran Church did not exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity. We can all read about the history of the CC but we (and I mean post-reformation Catholics and Lutherans) cannot claim to have shared in it, right, other than reading about the rich history? The history of Lutheranism has it roots established, at best, in the 16th century. After all, Martin Luther was a Catholic priest.
Click to expand...
I understand what you’re saying, and what you say makes perfect sense from a Catholic perspective; In that the Lutheran church split off from the Catholic church…

From our Evangelische Kirche perspective, we we lost out communion with the Bishop of Rome - but we had the same churches, liturgy, cathedrals, bibles, bishops, history, creeds etc as before and we hopefully continue in this as well as providence has allowed us.
 
benjohnson said:
I’m probably simplifying, but as I understand it, what a Lutheran should do is obediently follow his Church and God
Click to expand...
, and do his best to spread the Gospel.

👍

Christians belonging to the Lutheran Church, in terms of discerning truth, defer to the teaching office of the Lutheran Church, as per JonNC and a few others.

Christians belonging to the Catholic Church, in terms of discerning truth, defer to the teaching office of the Catholic Church.

Christians belonging to the Catholic Church defer to the teaching office of the Catholic Church because they believe that God ineffably preserves and transmits truth via the Catholic Church.

Is that the case with the Lutheran Church?
 
benjohnson said:
I understand what you’re saying, and what you say makes perfect sense from a Catholic perspective; In that the Lutheran church split off from the Catholic church…

From our Evangelische Kirche perspective, we we lost out communion with the Bishop of Rome - but we had the same churches, liturgy, cathedrals, bibles, bishops, history, creeds etc as before and we hopefully continue in this as well as providence has allowed us.
Click to expand...
👍🙂
 
cajunhillbilly said:
Why do we keep beating the same dead horse over and over? As an Anglican I believe that Scripture is the final authority, but not the only authority. I regonnize Sacred Tradition as well. I am sure our Lutheran brothers will say something similar.
Click to expand...
I guess because the old horse still keeps flinching.

I never have understood the saying that ‘Scripture is the final authority but not the only authority.’ It doesn’t make logical sense. It seems the other authorities are appealed to when the final authority doesn’t answer the question. So I guess the final authority isn’t final after all.
 
:whistle::whistle: I am still waiting for one advocate of “scripture being the final authority” tell me what Bible Abraham used for his final authority?
 
mackbrislawn said:
I guess because the old horse still keeps flinching.

I never have understood the saying that ‘Scripture is the final authority but not the only authority.’ It doesn’t make logical sense. It seems the other authorities are appealed to when the final authority doesn’t answer the question. So I guess the final authority isn’t final after all.
Click to expand...
Yes. It’s like having 2 “Master Lists”.

When someone says, “Let me check the Master List to see if you’re on it, and that will settle the dispute!” but you’re not on it, how authoritative can it be if you know there’s *another *Master List floating around?
 
cajunhillbilly said:
Why do we keep beating the same dead horse over and over? As an Anglican I believe that Scripture is the final authority, but not the only authority. I regonnize Sacred Tradition as well. I am sure our Lutheran brothers will say something similar.
Click to expand...
Sacred Scripture (including sacred tradition) cannot be the final authority. Scripture cannot speak for scripture, just as the Constitution cannot speak for the Constitution. After all, both are just writings, one of course being the word of God. My point is:

Only people can speak authoritatively regarding the teachings and exhortations found within the pages of sacred scripture. In the final analysis, Christians belonging to the Anglican Church defer to the teaching office of the Anglican Church because they believe that God ineffably preserves and transmits truth via the Anglican Church - correct?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top