Follow up on SS

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11936181]

I think you are being a little ‘generous’ to the Lutheran ‘reformers’. … There is a TON of evidence in the Fathers for Papal Primacy and Papal Authority.

But none in the Ecumenical Councils for papal Supremacy.

Again, this assumes that God ‘authorizes’ multiple communions with multiple conflicting doctrines. That kind of ‘thinking’ has resulted in the massive doctrinal dissention that is Protestantism. If your personal interpretation is not valid, as a Lutheran, what is it, specifically and exactly, which gives you ‘confidence’ in your ‘Confessions’?

That kind of thinking was, evidently, in the Church, in c1054, long before the Reformers. And BTW, my confidence need not be in quotes, and neither does confessions. Imagine if I were to place the term Catholic Catechism, or Magisterium in quotes.

OK. You said it. Luther never had a special authority beyond that of priest and theologian. AND YET, you have chosen to ‘follow’ him, and believe that he was right to challenge the Catholic Church of his day, to the point that even before he was excommunicated, he refuted or denied more than 4 dozen important Catholic doctrines.

Which of the church Fathers had a particular authority to write, or speak, beyond that of bishop? Further, as I have mentioned before, I follow Christ crucified. That Luther and the Lutheran Reformers play an important role in our theology is true, but I do not follow Luther.

Why is it that you put THAT MUCH FAITH in THAT one individual? Are you possibly claiming that he was THAT MUCH BETTER than all of the prior priests and theologians of the Catholic Church? Where does that leave all of the Calvins and a couple of hundred Smiths who have decided that Luther was not ‘all that’ and that THEY were better theologians?

Why are you shouting?
I answered the question above.

Again, Scripture does not ‘authorize’ churches to teach. Furthermore, Sola Scriptura is not a part of the teaching authority of a Church (or a church). After all, there are SO MANY Protestant denominations which USE Sola Scriptura to teach conflicting doctrines. How do you NOT see that as an indictment against Sola Scriptura, and for that matter, the man who invented it – Martin Luther?

*And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inb the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
*
Two points. 1) If you insist that ML invented SS, then it seems you also give him credit/blame for it. Therefore, it seems fair to say that those who use it improperly, in a way unlike the Lutheran usage, as many or most communions do today, have actually chosen a different method.
2) Whether or not they properly use the practice of SS, the fact is that they use it of their own volition. They are not lemmings. They freely choose to do what they choose. The option of not using it is there, in the two largest Christian communions, and in a smattering of smaller ones. We covered this before, and it ought to be quite obvious that I don’t subscribe to the Lemming Doctrine.

I join you in that prayer, but we don’t have the same degree of confidence, primarily because I don’t see ‘both sides’ as being equally concerned about the REASONS for our differences.

I actually do.

Personally I believe that we need to understand the ‘root’ of our differences if we are ever going to be able to solve them. I don’t think that they are going to just ‘magically disappear’ just because we want them to.

For you and I to assume that the leaders on both sides are not aware of and discuss these issues, probably know far more about the roots of these issues, seems presumptuous.

I also believe that we laypeople have to play a part in that hoped for reunion by addressing these issues on our level. We simply cannot throw up our hands and suggest that ‘our leaders’ are taking care of it. They have been ‘taking care of it’ for almost 500 years now.

Its curious, because I seem to have a much higher regard for the leadership in the Vatican. In fact, perhaps a higher regard for them than I do pan-Lutheran leadership.
What is different since Vat II is the way they have attempted to take care of it, using dialogue, instead of the attack-apologetics" of the centuries before.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

And also with you,
Jon

 

[joe371]

JonNC;11943244]But none in the Ecumenical Councils for papal Supremacy.

Hey Jon. Well, it’s either the Ecumenical councils minus the Petrine office (Eastern Orthodox Churches) or it is the Ecumenical Councils plus the Petrine office (Catholic Church) - yes? What I do not see as an option, is a Protestant Church, which, I suppose is why I am no longer a Protestant.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon. Well, it’s either the Ecumenical councils minus the Petrine office (Eastern Orthodox Churches) or it is the Ecumenical Councils plus the Petrine office (Catholic Church) - yes? What I do not see as an option, is a Protestant Church, which, I suppose is why I am no longer a Protestant.

Hi Joe
Well, it might be one of the reasons. lol
But not exactly. The Petrine office has to be involved, but so do the Orthodox. I see mo reason not to accept all of the ones accepted by both.
Jon

 

[joe371]

Hi Joe
Well, it might be one of the reasons. lol
But not exactly. The Petrine office has to be involved, but so do the Orthodox. I see mo reason not to accept all of the ones accepted by both.
Jon

It just seems hard to believe that once the east and the west separated, God stopped guiding His church, but that’s just me.

 

[JonNC]

It just seems hard to believe that once the east and the west separated, God stopped guiding His church, but that’s just me.

I certainly don’t believe that

Jon

 

[joe371]

I certainly don’t believe that

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

But none in the Ecumenical Councils for papal Supremacy.

Interestingly in your response you virtually admit to my point that there is a ton of evidence in the Fathers for Papal Primacy and Papal Authority, and focus in on one particular aspect, evidence of Papal Supremacy in the Ecumenical Councils. It appears that that is your only ‘port of refuge’.

Over the years I have noticed the pronounced tendency for Protestant Apologists to have two standards of evidence, one for their beliefs and the other for Catholic beliefs. You admit that there is a huge amount of evidence for Papal Authority, Primacy, etc. in the Fathers, but then use the lack of ‘Supremacy’ in the Ecumenical Councils? Of course without defining “Supremacy”.

Jon – where in the Ecumenical Councils do you find Sola Scriptura? Salvation by Faith Alone?

As you know, there is a great deal of evidence in the Ecumenical Councils regarding Papal Authority and Primacy. It appears that your answer is a distinction without a difference while at the same time admitting far too much. In some respects I appreciate your honesty.

BTW, since you are interested in historical precedents:

Could you please show me the precedent for a young priest and theologian at Europe’s least reputable university, and with significant mental health issues, challenging/refuting/denying more than 4 dozen accepted doctrines of the Church? Where does Scripture allow for that sort of thing? If not Scripture, then what about the Fathers or the Ecumenical Councils?

That kind of thinking was, evidently, in the Church, in c1054, long before the Reformers.

In other words, a c1054 schism which broke Christian unity somehow legitimizes the massive doctrinal dissention of the 16th century? That’s a stretch. For the record, the 16th century ‘reformers’ made the disunity of the 11th century look like child’s play.

Which of the church Fathers had a particular authority to write, or speak, beyond that of bishop?

As you know, most of the Early Church Fathers actually were Bishops, and thus had an authority far superior to that of Luther, who was not.

Further, as I have mentioned before, I follow Christ crucified. That Luther and the Lutheran Reformers play an important role in our theology is true, but I do not follow Luther.

I realize that you would prefer to see yourself as not being a follower of Martin Luther, but you can’t ignore the fact that Protestantism and especially Protestant Lutheranism was created out of the his radical theology and Scriptural Interpretations. As such, in that sense, you are his follower to an even greater degree than other Protestants who are not Lutherans.

Two points. 1) If you insist that ML invented SS, then it seems you also give him credit/blame for it.

I also realize that you would prefer to believe that Luther did not ‘invent’ SS, but I have also noticed that you have not stated that you don’t think he did. The same could be said about PI. As for the credit/blame, exactly what about SS (and PI) is credit worthy (specifically and exactly of course). In fact, SS (+PI) is largely responsible for Protestant doctrinal dissention and confusion. If you disagree, then of course it falls on you to suggest, specifically and exactly, what it could have been other than Luther’s SS+PI.

Therefore, it seems fair to say that those who use it improperly, in a way unlike the Lutheran usage, as many or most communions do today, have actually chosen a different method.

Are you suggesting that Lutherans ‘use’ SS properly and that all of the other SS Protestants don’t? I ask because over the years I have seen primarily Lutherans take this position, even more so than other Protestant communions. Of course they all say essentially the same thing but it seems that Lutherans are much more open about it. Everyone thinks that they ‘do SS’ better than all the rest, and that what they ‘add’ to Scripture in order to interpret it correctly is the ‘best thing’.

That being said, I have a question for you. Have you considered the possibility (even slight) that the 16th century innovation of SS is not Scriptural or Apostolic or a teaching of Christ?

Part 2 to follow

 

[Topper17]

Part 2

1. Whether or not they properly use the practice of SS, the fact is that they use it of their own volition. They are not lemmings. They freely choose to do what they choose. The option of not using it is there, in the two largest Christian communions, and in a smattering of smaller ones. We covered this before, and it ought to be quite obvious that I don’t subscribe to the Lemming Doctrine.

I have seen this position from Lutherans before but I am surprised to see it here, and I want to make sure that I understand you correctly. Please correct me if I am understanding your position incorrectly but it appears to me that you believe that:

A. Others ‘use’ Scripture improperly out ‘of their own volition’, meaning by choice or by their own decision. This means that they ‘use’ SS (or really Scripture) wrongly on purpose. Your choice of the word ‘volition’ was the key in that it indicates a conscious choice.
B. It also implies that the ‘correct choice’ is obvious to all, and that all people could make the correct choice as to how to ‘use’ SS, but that some people chose wrongly anyway. In other words, the choice to wrongly use SS is conscious and is, as you put it, they ‘freely chose what they chose.’ I take it that the “Lemming Doctrine” then holds everyone, everyone responsible for the their wrong beliefs because the correct belief is obvious to all. This is exactly the way that Luther approached people who believed differently than he did. There was no allowance for people being wrong while trying to not be.
Please explain if I have misunderstood because I sincerely hope that I have.

I actually do.

I don’t because over the years I have found out that Lutherans especially are not willing to consider the possibility that Luther’s SS+PI has damaged Christian unity. I think that that unwillingness stands in the way of real progress towards reunion. If you can’t admit to the reasons behind that disunity, there is far less chance that it will be solved. As for me, I recognize that the Catholic Church contributed to the problem by the abuse of various practices. On the other hand, none of those abuses warrented SS+PI or a wholesale doctrinal rebuke.

For you and I to assume that the leaders on both sides are not aware of and discuss these issues, probably know far more about the roots of these issues, seems presumptuous.

And for this reason, you consider it to be ‘inappropriate’ for you and I to discuss the role that Luther played in Protestant disunity? How is that above our pay grade? As for the term presumptuous, how does it not apply to Luther?

We know from Protestant sources that Luther developed SS as early as 1508-09, but certainly no later than 1515 or so. Are we supposed to believe that the massive doctrinal dissention that began in the early 1520’s right after he began to publically espouse SS? Is it just some sort of unfortunate historical coincidence?

What is worse is that the SS+PI that Luther taught from at least 1519 to 1525, and also that after 1525 (or so) he was much more prone to refer to his own personal authority to tell everybody what was and what was not Christian doctrine.

You can claim if you like that Luther had no authority past that of priest and theologian, but that position stands in complete opposition to Luther’s belief about the magnitude of his ‘authority’. In fact, Luther self-claimed a level of authority that surpassed that of anyone else, and in fact that of all others put together. His quotes on the matter make this very clear.

Its curious, because I seem to have a much higher regard for the leadership in the Vatican. In fact, perhaps a higher regard for them than I do pan-Lutheran leadership.

Thanks for the chuckle Jon. I am not the one here who considers the Pope to be the anti-Christ. On a less humorous note, could you please define ‘pan-Lutheran leadership’?

What is different since Vat II is the way they have attempted to take care of it, using dialogue, instead of the attack-apologetics" of the centuries before.

Revealing the Truth is not ‘attack apologetics’. It is, quite frankly in my opinion, working more effectively towards reunification that avoiding the discussion of embarrassing subjects.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Obviously there needs to be some significant paring down. Plus your claim about Luther having no authority past that of priest and theologian needs to be explored.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Joe,

Hey Jon. Well, it’s either the Ecumenical councils minus the Petrine office (Eastern Orthodox Churches) or it is the Ecumenical Councils plus the Petrine office (Catholic Church) - yes? What I do not see as an option, is a Protestant Church, which, I suppose is why I am no longer a Protestant.

I think you make an excellent and important point. Also it should be noted that prior to Luther, some people had challenged the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils while other people had denied the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. But nobody had denied both until Eck forced Luther to do so at the Leipzig Debate.

The Catholic Church, which believes in both has maintained more than 50% of Christianity within it’s Unity. The EO’s in their denial of the infallibility of the papacy has ‘evolved’ into 17 different doctrinally independent communions in a little less than a thousand years.

The branch of Christianity that Luther founded has ‘evolved’ into an uncountable number of doctrinally independent denominations in half the time that the Orthodox have developed 17. In addition, the doctrinal diversity of Protestantism makes the Orthodox look positively unified, which they basically are doctrinally.

Which tradition appears to be better protected by the Holy Spirit in terms of maintaining the Unity commanded by Christ and Scripture?

God Bless You Joe, Topper

 

[joe371]

I certainly don’t believe that

Jon

Hey Jon. I was in a bit of a rush when I responded earlier. I meant to say that I struggled, as a former Protestant aka non-Catholic with the idea that God might not be guiding the church due to the east - west split. However, I just pushed past it; tried not to over-think it too much. This is one of my favorite CCC quotes:

"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"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."Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

 

[joe371]

Topper17;11945697]Hi Joe,

The Catholic Church, which believes in both has maintained more than 50% of Christianity within it’s Unity. The EO’s in their denial of the infallibility of the papacy has ‘evolved’ into 17 different doctrinally independent communions in a little less than a thousand years.

The branch of Christianity that Luther founded has ‘evolved’ into an uncountable number of doctrinally independent denominations in half the time that the Orthodox have developed 17. In addition, the doctrinal diversity of Protestantism makes the Orthodox look positively unified, which they basically are doctrinally.

Hey Topper, that does seem to be the case. Several EO churches (I think 23 rites now) came back in full communion with the CC, which is a good sign.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11945629]
Interestingly in your response you virtually admit to my point that there is a ton of evidence in the Fathers for Papal Primacy and Papal Authority, and focus in on one particular aspect, evidence of Papal Supremacy in the Ecumenical Councils. It appears that that is your only ‘port of refuge’.

I guess one could misconstrue what I said that way. Then again, I did in an earlier post state that I do not believe the ECF’s can be used to defend either position.

Over the years I have noticed the pronounced tendency for Protestant Apologists to have two standards of evidence, one for their beliefs and the other for Catholic beliefs. You admit that there is a huge amount of evidence for Papal Authority, Primacy, etc. in the Fathers, but then use the lack of ‘Supremacy’ in the Ecumenical Councils? Of course without defining “Supremacy”.

Some people are duplicitous, I suppose. I’m sure that occurs among apologists of all flavors.

Jon – where in the Ecumenical Councils do you find Sola Scriptura? Salvation by Faith Alone?

I don’t think one finds them explicit in the councils, anymore than papal suopremacy.

As you know, there is a great deal of evidence in the Ecumenical Councils regarding Papal Authority and Primacy. It appears that your answer is a distinction without a difference while at the same time admitting far too much. In some respects I appreciate your honesty.

Primacy? Absolutely. Authority within his see? Clearly.

In other words, a c1054 schism which broke Christian unity somehow legitimizes the massive doctrinal dissention of the 16th century? That’s a stretch. For the record, the 16th century ‘reformers’ made the disunity of the 11th century look like child’s play.

It doesn’t.

I also realize that you would prefer to believe that Luther did not ‘invent’ SS, but I have also noticed that you have not stated that you don’t think he did.

That’s because the issue is noot so simplistic as “he invented it” or “he didn’t invent it”.

Are you suggesting that Lutherans ‘use’ SS properly and that all of the other SS Protestants don’t?

I said that, if you believe that Luther invented SS, then one must accept that the Lutheran practice is the proper use of it.

That being said, I have a question for you. Have you considered the possibility (even slight) that the 16th century innovation of SS is not Scriptural or Apostolic or a teaching of Christ?

It is, IMO, clearly a post-apostolic era practice.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11945636]

I have seen this position from Lutherans before but I am surprised to see it here, and I want to make sure that I understand you correctly. Please correct me if I am understanding your position incorrectly but it appears to me that you believe that:

A. Others ‘use’ Scripture improperly out ‘of their own volition’, meaning by choice or by their own decision. This means that they ‘use’ SS (or really Scripture) wrongly on purpose. Your choice of the word ‘volition’ was the key in that it indicates a conscious choice.
B. It also implies that the ‘correct choice’ is obvious to all, and that all people could make the correct choice as to how to ‘use’ SS, but that some people chose wrongly anyway. In other words, the choice to wrongly use SS is conscious and is, as you put it, they ‘freely chose what they chose.’ I take it that the “Lemming Doctrine” then holds everyone, everyone responsible for the their wrong beliefs because the correct belief is obvious to all. This is exactly the way that Luther approached people who believed differently than he did. There was no allowance for people being wrong while trying to not be.
Please explain if I have misunderstood because I sincerely hope that I have.

Yes, you’ve completely misunderstood.
A) they use sola scriptura of their own volition. That’s their choice. We believe they are using it wrongly. No where did I say they intentionally use it wrongly.

B) The Lemming Doctrine is the notion that everyone who sues sola scriptura uses it because Martin Luther came up with it, and that they therefore followed him (but really didn’t because they believe different things). Luther is not responsible for the choices people make. Other protestant groups and communions make their own decision. They have the choice of choosing the Catholic Church and its model as well.

I don’t because over the years I have found out that Lutherans especially are not willing to consider the possibility that Luther’s SS+PI has damaged Christian unity.
I think that that unwillingness stands in the way of real progress towards reunion. If you can’t admit to the reasons behind that disunity, there is far less chance that it will be solved. As for me, I recognize that the Catholic Church contributed to the problem by the abuse of various practices. On the other hand, none of those abuses warrented SS+PI or a wholesale doctrinal rebuke.

I can’t speak for others. My own position is that the actions of the Lutheran Reformers were not in a vacuum. Even the CC in its Catechism acknowledges blame on both sides.
Luther was bombastic, at times rude and crude, and often stubborn. I also think, at times, he over-reacted. Other Lutheran reformers less so. There were Catholics of similar stripes, as well. Both sides are to blame.
the opinion that none of the abuses warranted division is, frankly, easy to say now. It may not have been so easy in central Europe in the early 1500’s.

And for this reason, you consider it to be ‘inappropriate’ for you and I to discuss the role that Luther played in Protestant disunity? How is that above our pay grade? As for the term presumptuous, how does it not apply to Luther?

I did not say it was inappropriate for us to discuss. I said it was presumptuous for you or I to say that our leaders do not know about or refuse to discuss the matters of history.

You can claim if you like that Luther had no authority past that of priest and theologian, but that position stands in complete opposition to Luther’s belief about the magnitude of his ‘authority’.
In fact, Luther self-claimed a level of authority that surpassed that of anyone else, and in fact that of all others put together. His quotes on the matter make this very clear.

.
I can claim to be president of the United States. That doesn’t make it so. One’s authority is not determined by what one claims.

Revealing the Truth is not ‘attack apologetics’. It is, quite frankly in my opinion, working more effectively towards reunification that avoiding the discussion of embarrassing subjects.

We have differing views of how that looks, quite honestly.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

And also with you.
Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Joe,

Thanks for your response.

Hey Topper, that does seem to be the case. Several EO churches (I think 23 rites now) came back in full communion with the CC, which is a good sign.

I know that there have been some EO Churches which have ‘come back’, but don’t know the details. Could you point me in the right direction so that I can learn more about these situations?

What I think is significant about this development is that the 71% of Christianity which is either RCC or EO, actually are becoming more unified, while the 29% which is Protestant continues to fracture itself into even more and more competing and conflicting doctrinally independent denominations.

God Bless You Joe, Topper

 

[joe371]

Hey Jon.

JonNC;11948505]Yes, you’ve completely misunderstood.
A) they use sola scriptura of their own volition. That’s their choice. We believe they are using it wrongly. No where did I say they intentionally use it wrongly.

B) The Lemming Doctrine is the notion that everyone who sues sola scriptura uses it because Martin Luther came up with it, and that they therefore followed him (but really didn’t because they believe different things). Luther is not responsible for the choices people make. Other protestant groups and communions make their own decision. They have the choice of choosing the Catholic Church and its model as well.

Free will…

I can’t speak for others. My own position is that the actions of the Lutheran Reformers were not in a vacuum. Even the CC in its Catechism acknowledges blame on both sides.

CCC 817…

Luther was bombastic, at times rude and crude, and often stubborn. I also think, at times, he over-reacted. Other Lutheran reformers less so. There were Catholics of similar stripes, as well. Both sides are to blame.
the opinion that none of the abuses warranted division is, frankly, easy to say now. It may not have been so easy in central Europe in the early 1500’s.

Yeah, I suppose Monday-morning quarterbacking really serves no purpose. We were not there so it’s really not fair for anyone today to suggest how things should have gone.

I did not say it was inappropriate for us to discuss. I said it was presumptuous for you or I to say that our leaders do not know about or refuse to discuss the matters of history.

.
I can claim to be president of the United States. That doesn’t make it so. One’s authority is not determined by what one claims.

I came to believe that authority, within the Christian sphere, was, and continues to be derived from Jesus via apostolic succession, within the church He founded. Seems to be the most logical conclusions to draw i.e.the HS was sent to the fledgling church leaders on Pentecost, and continued to preserved truth via their successors and so on, and so on. Of course it took me quite awhile to commit to that idea.

I also believe that God uses other ecclesial communities as means of salvation:

“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” 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.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation

 

[joe371]

Hi Joe,

Thanks for your response.

I know that there have been some EO Churches which have ‘come back’, but don’t know the details. Could you point me in the right direction so that I can learn more about these situations?

What I think is significant about this development is that the 71% of Christianity which is either RCC or EO, actually are becoming more unified, while the 29% which is Protestant continues to fracture itself into even more and more competing and conflicting doctrinally independent denominations.

God Bless You Joe, Topper

Hey Topper, this article is pretty interesting. I agree absolutely with what you said, and pray for unity: maryourmother.net/Eastern.html

Excerpt:

“There are 22 rites in the universal Catholic Church, the 21 rites comprising the Eastern Catholic Churches, and the Latin Western rite. They are outlined in the following chart. A brief study of each one proves to be a fascinating study in Church History!”

God bless my friend…

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

As promised, Lutheran Scholars admit that Luther ‘discovered Sola Scriptura’ and along the way, admit to much, much more.

We have heard that Luther’s ‘authority’ was derived from his role as a Priest and a Theologian. This makes perfect sense, but it also calls us to examine his qualifications as Priest and Theologian. Of course both require an extensive education. For a Theologian especially a proper education is essential. In order for a Theologian to break from established Church teachings, on only the basis of their abilities as a Theologian, logically they would have to be extremely well qualified as a Theologian and be extremely knowledgeable on the Scriptures. In Luther’s case, he was neither but forged off on his own nevertheless. Lutheran Professor E. G. Schweibert comments that, not only did Luther ‘discover Sola Scriptura’, but that also what he did was ‘rebuild a whole system of theology on the basis of this own exegesis’.

“Once he was fully prepared to understand just what the Bible did teach on the doctrines of sin, grace, penance, and salvation, he was ready to rebuild the whole system of theology on the basis of his own exegesis and the study of the Bible in the original languages. Luther discovered Sola Scriptura, therefore, long before he was prepared to say just what the Bible taught in all matters of doctrine. In the meantime, too, he needed to master the languages through which, he, as an exegete, might rebuild the Pauline theology of the New Testament in terms of a sixteenth-century environment.” Schwiebert, pg. 174

It seems that Schweibert, a Professor of History at Wittenberg, College in Springfield, OH, doesn’t seem to have a “problem”, with the concept of a single man rebuilding a “whole system of theology on the basis of his own exegesis”. Of course, being a Lutheran, it probably didn’t “bother” him, given that the man in question was Martin Luther. My guess is that he would not be so “thrilled” if we were talking about that “single man” as being John Calvin or any one of the tens of thousands of people who have developed their own non-Lutheran denominations. On the other hand, for my part, I find it to be extremely troubling to place that that much authority was allowed to be placed in the hands of a single man, no matter who he is (or was). For all of the comments we Catholics are constantly subjected to in regards to “doctrines of man”, exactly what does this look like except for the ‘doctrines of (a) man’?

Amazingly, Schwiebert admits that Luther “discovered” Sola Scriptura LONG before he was even a “fair” Biblical exegete, and long before he knew well either Greek or Hebrew, both of which he considered to be necessary for Biblical Interpretation. In other words, Luther “developed” his views on Scripture long before he really understood (according to his own criteria) the Bible Itself. Luther simply “decided”, without having first become an “expert exegete”, what the Bible said, or in reality what he wanted it to say. He desperately needed to find Sola Scriptura in Scripture and so, with a little “work”, he did. Never mind that nobody else had ever “noticed” it before, and because it was so crucial to Luther that Scripture say Sola Scriptura, he treated anyone who disagreed with him as the anti-christ.

If a person wanted (or needed) to “revise” several dozen Christian Doctrines, it would be to their “advantage” to discover Sola Scriptura and the “right” to Personal Interpretation in Scripture first, before they began to deal with the other Christian Doctrines individually. By first denouncing the Authority of the Church and replacing it with their own, there is much less “need” to deal with the beliefs of those who came before. In downgrading the historical aspects of Christianity, there is a tremendous increase in the possibilities for the kind of “creativity and imagination” that Protestant Theologians have demonstrated on doctrinal issues. The only problem that this creates is that one generation is free to “adjust” the doctrinal positions of their forefathers, even those from the same ecclesiastical body. As we know, this tendency is one of the few that Protestantism has consistently demonstrated over the last 500 years.

“Luther probably did not begin to study Greek seriously until 1514….In 1516, when Luther began to use Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, he was still a novice; but as he matured through 1517 and 1518, his mastery of Greek and Hebrew became more apparent and with it, also, his understanding of the Bible. By 1520 Luther was developing into an able linguist……….As Luther thus matured into a Biblical Humanist, he rediscovered and recaptured the spirit of early Christianity. He was now capable of supplying exegetical interpretations to determine in what respects the Roman Church had departed from the faith of the Fathers…….He had begun to drift from the pale of the Roman Church as early as 1506, but he did not realize the full extent of his departure until the Leipzig Debate in 1519.” Schwiebert, pg. 281-2

Part two to follow

 

[Topper17]

Part two:

This cannot be “comforting” to Protestants, who have pretty much “bet the farm” on Luther’s SS+PI and Salvation by Faith Alone. Here we see what was basically a “rookie” Professor of Scripture who felt, even with his lack of “Professional experience”, it was within his right and duty to determine where the Church had “gone wrong”. What is even worse was that, according to Schwiebert, from 1506 until 1519, thirteen years, Luther was very little aware that he was drifting away from Catholic Teaching. Wasn’t Luther supposed to be a Catholic Theologian? Wasn’t He supposed to know what His own Church taught? Wasn’t he trained to be introspective enough to sense when he was straying off the “Reservation” doctrinally? It would seem that at the time, rather than learning the Catholic Faith like he was required to do, Luther was searching the Scriptures for verses which might be able to be construed as supporting his Heretical beliefs, which were gradually building within him.

Given the facts, how are we supposed to feel about Luther’s “abilities” as a Christian Theologian? How can anyone believe that Luther “found” a truth in Scripture (SS+PI) that nobody had found in the previous 1500 years, especially when we understand how deeply he personally needed to find them? What is very clear, because Protestantism is the living proof, is that anyone can find almost “anything” in Scripture and then claim that what THEY “discovered” is God’s Absolute Truth. That being the case, isn’t it logical to question whether this is exactly what Luther did also?

One of the aspects of the false Legend that Protestantism has built, out of necessity, around Luther is, that he really “knew His Bible”. As usual, when we look a little below the surface, we see a different picture emerge. At the time he wrote the Ninety-Five Theses, Luther had lectured on only 5 books of the Bible; Psalms, Genesis, Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. In fact, by the time of his death in 1546, he had still lectured on only 13 of the Books of the Bible. Given His youth and inexperience in 1517, how reasonable is it that Protestantism places such an incredible faith on Luther’s “abilities” to “discover” doctrines in Scripture which had never been “found” there before, not to mention the “authority” to lead 1/3rd of Christianity back to the right course?

“In the meantime in the same year (1519) I had become again to lecture on the Psalter, believing that with my classroom experience in lecturing on the Psalms and the Letters of Paul to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews, I was better prepared.” Martin Luther, Schwiebert, pg. 285

Here we see Luther Himself claiming that, in 1519, he was now “better prepared” to provide “correct” understandings of Scripture. Yet this date, 1519, was two years after he had begun the process which would ultimately mean the “replacement” of several dozen doctrines with ones that were “better”, meaning “more Scriptural” of course. In other words, in 1517, when Luther had already begun to reject Catholic Doctrine, he was, in his own words, not “well-prepared”. Maybe it’s just me, but if I am going to follow someone who is challenging dozens of established Christian doctrines, I would prefer that they be top notch Theologians and Scriptural experts (at the very least). Of course, the subsequent history of Protestantism has shown that one need not have much at all in the way of ‘qualifications’ to start your own doctrinally independent denomination.

Jon, some of the above are facts, some are the written opinions of a Lutheran Scholar and author of one of the best available biographies of Luther. Some of the above are my personal perspectives on those facts and opinions, but I would suggest that it all ‘hangs together’ extremely well as a whole and that it should be seriously considered rather than automatically dismissed. If there is a different way to view Luther’s ‘qualifications’ to lead a doctrinal revolt, I would love to hear it.

May God Continue to Bless You Jon, Topper

Tomorrow I will hopefully be in a position to respond to your last two posts.

 

[JonNC]

=joe371;11949410]Hey Jon.

Free will…
CCC 817…
Yeah, I suppose Monday-morning quarterbacking really serves no purpose. We were not there so it’s really not fair for anyone today to suggest how things should have gone.

Hi Joe,
I think its ok to express a belief on how we think things should have gone, so long as we recognize the facts you state here. We were not there. We do not know all of the inter-relationships of the time, etc. Its complicated.

I came to believe that authority, within the Christian sphere, was, and continues to be derived from Jesus via apostolic succession, within the church He founded. Seems to be the most logical conclusions to draw i.e.the HS was sent to the fledgling church leaders on Pentecost, and continued to preserved truth via their successors and so on, and so on. Of course it took me quite awhile to commit to that idea.

I generally agree. I reject the notion that the Spirit has abandoned the Church, or that He abandoned the Church until 1517. I continue to believe that the Spirit works through His Church, scattered and divided though it may be, to guide us into all truth.

I also believe that God uses other ecclesial communities as means of salvation:

“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” 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.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation

I have always considered this a bold statement be the Catholic Church, considering some of the vitriol that the CC has endured through the centuries from protestant communions, even mine, and in contrast to some CC statements of the past. Much of the ecumenical movement credit belongs to the CC.
It gives me much hope for the future of His Church,regardless of how divided it is at present. The gates of Hell will not prevail.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Part two:

This cannot be “comforting” to Protestants, who have pretty much “bet the farm” on Luther’s SS+PI and Salvation by Faith Alone. Here we see what was basically a “rookie” Professor of Scripture who felt, even with his lack of “Professional experience”, it was within his right and duty to determine where the Church had “gone wrong”. What is even worse was that, according to Schwiebert, from 1506 until 1519, thirteen years, Luther was very little aware that he was drifting away from Catholic Teaching. Wasn’t Luther supposed to be a Catholic Theologian? Wasn’t He supposed to know what His own Church taught? Wasn’t he trained to be introspective enough to sense when he was straying off the “Reservation” doctrinally? It would seem that at the time, rather than learning the Catholic Faith like he was required to do, Luther was searching the Scriptures for verses which might be able to be construed as supporting his Heretical beliefs, which were gradually building within him.

Given the facts, how are we supposed to feel about Luther’s “abilities” as a Christian Theologian? How can anyone believe that Luther “found” a truth in Scripture (SS+PI) that nobody had found in the previous 1500 years, especially when we understand how deeply he personally needed to find them? What is very clear, because Protestantism is the living proof, is that anyone can find almost “anything” in Scripture and then claim that what THEY “discovered” is God’s Absolute Truth. That being the case, isn’t it logical to question whether this is exactly what Luther did also?

One of the aspects of the false Legend that Protestantism has built, out of necessity, around Luther is, that he really “knew His Bible”. As usual, when we look a little below the surface, we see a different picture emerge. At the time he wrote the Ninety-Five Theses, Luther had lectured on only 5 books of the Bible; Psalms, Genesis, Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. In fact, by the time of his death in 1546, he had still lectured on only 13 of the Books of the Bible. Given His youth and inexperience in 1517, how reasonable is it that Protestantism places such an incredible faith on Luther’s “abilities” to “discover” doctrines in Scripture which had never been “found” there before, not to mention the “authority” to lead 1/3rd of Christianity back to the right course?

“In the meantime in the same year (1519) I had become again to lecture on the Psalter, believing that with my classroom experience in lecturing on the Psalms and the Letters of Paul to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews, I was better prepared.” Martin Luther, Schwiebert, pg. 285

Here we see Luther Himself claiming that, in 1519, he was now “better prepared” to provide “correct” understandings of Scripture. Yet this date, 1519, was two years after he had begun the process which would ultimately mean the “replacement” of several dozen doctrines with ones that were “better”, meaning “more Scriptural” of course. In other words, in 1517, when Luther had already begun to reject Catholic Doctrine, he was, in his own words, not “well-prepared”. Maybe it’s just me, but if I am going to follow someone who is challenging dozens of established Christian doctrines, I would prefer that they be top notch Theologians and Scriptural experts (at the very least). Of course, the subsequent history of Protestantism has shown that one need not have much at all in the way of ‘qualifications’ to start your own doctrinally independent denomination.

Jon, some of the above are facts, some are the written opinions of a Lutheran Scholar and author of one of the best available biographies of Luther. Some of the above are my personal perspectives on those facts and opinions, but I would suggest that it all ‘hangs together’ extremely well as a whole and that it should be seriously considered rather than automatically dismissed. If there is a different way to view Luther’s ‘qualifications’ to lead a doctrinal revolt, I would love to hear it.

May God Continue to Bless You Jon, Topper

Tomorrow I will hopefully be in a position to respond to your last two posts.

Honestly,
Thank you for sharing Dr. Schweibert’s views, and your interpretation of them. Its an interesting POV.

Jon