Follow up on SS

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Don’t mind truth just the intent (way beyond balancing a “legend” that most folks here are already beyond) .

The intent is what I have a problem with also ben. You say that most people are ‘beyond’ the "legend’ which I take to mean that you are aware that Protestantism developed a false legend. But you are all ‘beyond’ it? Does that mean that everyone here now reading along already knows all of the various scholars who are being quoted. Wow! That’s pretty impressive. But it would also mean that everyone is pretty darned selfish in not sharing what they have learned.

Actually I would guess that the majority of the people here who read along but never post, don’t know all that much about these things. Would you like them to be kept unaware of these various aspects of Luther’s career?

When I say I have a problem with the ‘intent’ what I mean is exactly what you mean. If it is true that you don’t mind the truth about Luther coming out then maybe you could suggest a ‘style’ which could be used which would get the same information out there but without offending anyone.

BTW, if you already know about all of this stuff, how about if you post your impression, as a Lutheran, in defense of Luther’s recommendations on the Jews. Maybe you could start with his pre-95 lectures and writings, work your way through the 1523 treatise that everyone talks about so much. Then work through the late 20s and through Luther’;s writings on the Jews of the 30s, culminating with the three horrendous screeds of the mid 40s. I think that would prove your point that people already know this stuff.

Anyway, one thing you should know. If the defenders of Luther didn’t make it so difficult to talk about these issues, you might experience a more ecumenical discussion. But since it is virtually impossible to have an honest and open discussion about these things, it sort of is what it is. If Protestants would like the discussion to have a different character, I’m all for that. We can all get along and have that open discussion. The important things about Luther need to be said one way or another. We Catholics whose Church was damaged by Luther - we get to have our say, just like the Jews should get their say about Luther. We get to have our opinions and facts heard.

BTW all of the things that I post, I post them because I have readily available backup information from reputable sources that can be in a short period of time justify and verify my statements.

Any any rate Ben, May God Continue to Bless You, Topper

 

[steido01]

St. Paul tells us that we are to rejoice in our sufferings, but the Internet is a thoroughly depressing place and one can only withstand so much ignorance. I’m taking a good, long vacation from CAF. May God grant you all peace in Christ Jesus.

 

[benhur]

Oh that’s ridiculous. There is no comparison at all
between St. Teresa of Avila and Martin Luther haha.

Actually “never read about a saint that I didn’t like” yet I am convinced all humans are frail, even bent, quite lacking somewhere yet we are clothed by His grace, even Theresa.

For one thing Luther would have to clean up his mouth
with lye.

Yes, reminds me of the somewhat carnal yet good hearted friar (tuck ?) in the robin hood series, not afraid to drink a bit or knock somebody on the head. Luther was a man/friar/teacher of his Catholic time/culture. Ignatius had plenty to clean up with the church’s ministers.

Nevertheless, even though he’s the last person Protestants
want to talk about and with good reason

? Not really, per my experience

he remains probably the king of busting Christian unity

Unity yes but "christian unity’’, not the kind that deserved preserving; again think the reforming that was actually done in the CC.

and so
down through the centuries tons and tons of books and
research have gone into Luther. A couple pages on CAF
shouldn’t cause anyone to feel victimized if they
are at all intellectually honest.

Right, so do we really need balance by presenting "truth’’ with malintent comments ? Don’t think we are victimized here . More like, really, can we move on and see a bigger picture ? Is it really relevant to wanting to be Catholic or Protestant ?

Now Luther was the father of the reformation.

Yes and no. Sometimes folks need a boogey man to avoid other rational thought to discern “His” story. Luther was the crest of a wave a long time forming.

YOU
might find that a godly holy thing but Catholics don’t

I know. I am sorry. Reminds me of how Jews today do not want to hear about Jesus the Messiah from us, quite a stumbling block, a sore spot.

What good did he do?

Still stumbling ?
.

He forced the Church to clarify and define
neglected areas of theology and doctrine in order
to actively defend it. That’s a very very good thing-

See, what don’t kill you makes you stronger ?

Due to Luther more than anyone else we see the
development of freedom of religion especially
in this country. That’s a good thing.

See you are answering your own querry from above . Thank you, your thought manner is easy to take… Actually this is where the name "protestant " came from -protesting the lack of freedom under the old christian “unity”. Still took centuries where more than one church was allowed in the same town.

And so
lack of necessary safeguards previously provided
by the RC is a BAD thing.

You can not safeguard everything. Cain and Abel split. You had schisms and splits and cults way before Luther. another boogey man.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,

The intent is what I have a problem with also ben. You say that most people are ‘beyond’ the "legend’ which I take to mean that you are aware that Protestantism developed a false legend. But you are all ‘beyond’ it? Does that mean that everyone here now reading along already knows all of the various scholars who are being quoted. Wow! That’s pretty impressive. But it would also mean that everyone is pretty darned selfish in not sharing what they have learned.

Actually I would guess that the majority of the people here who read along but never post, don’t know all that much about these things. Would you like them to be kept unaware of these various aspects of Luther’s career?

When I say I have a problem with the ‘intent’ what I mean is exactly what you mean. If it is true that you don’t mind the truth about Luther coming out then maybe you could suggest a ‘style’ which could be used which would get the same information out there but without offending anyone.

BTW, if you already know about all of this stuff, how about if you post your impression, as a Lutheran, in defense of Luther’s recommendations on the Jews. Maybe you could start with his pre-95 lectures and writings, work your way through the 1523 treatise that everyone talks about so much. Then work through the late 20s and through Luther’;s writings on the Jews of the 30s, culminating with the three horrendous screeds of the mid 40s. I think that would prove your point that people already know this stuff.

Anyway, one thing you should know. If the defenders of Luther didn’t make it so difficult to talk about these issues, you might experience a more ecumenical discussion. But since it is virtually impossible to have an honest and open discussion about these things, it sort of is what it is. If Protestants would like the discussion to have a different character, I’m all for that. We can all get along and have that open discussion. The important things about Luther need to be said one way or another. We Catholics whose Church was damaged by Luther - we get to have our say, just like the Jews should get their say about Luther. We get to have our opinions and facts heard.

BTW all of the things that I post, I post them because I have readily available backup information from reputable sources that can be in a short period of time justify and verify my statements.

Any any rate Ben, May God Continue to Bless You, Topper

Thank you. Actually would have to reread posts , otherwise sorry if I spoke wrongly of you . I just know some present the stuff as a disqualifier for the end results. Can you stand it that your truth’s do not change our picture ? Actually our wacky history goes way back. Back to a perfect Adam screwing up yet…and you want me to worry about a not so perfect, even heavily flawed man Luther ? If grace has to cover a perfect man how much more a fallen man ? Shall we talk of wacky forefathers, like the twelve sons of Jacob, I mean the real "truth " of them ? Salvation was still of the Jews, as Jesus said. By grace the bad and ugly did not derail the good, and the covenant accomplished it’s end.

 

[marywarfield]

? Not really, per my experience Unity yes but "christian unity’’, not the kind that deserved preserving; again think the reforming that was actually done in the Church.

yes please share with us Catholics exactly WHAT was
reformed Benhur? We hear this a lot- the Protestants
reformed the Catholic Church. Please enlighten us as to
HOW? We are dying to know.
As far as we can see it stopped the sales of
indulgences. Anything else?

 

[marywarfield]

Benhur-
yes please share with us Catholics exactly WHAT was
reformed Benhur? We hear this a lot- the Protestants
reformed the Catholic Church. Please enlighten us as to
HOW? We are dying to know.
As far as we can see it stopped the sales of
indulgences. What reforms took place in the Roman
Catholic Church as a result of Luther and Protestants?
Anything else?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thread pruned.
Stay on the topic of the OP
Observe the rules for inter-religious dialogue and post with charity.

 

[Topper17]

Thanks to Eric for pushing the reset button. Back to the OP:

Everyone agrees that doctrinal disputes, when they arise, cannot be resolved via sola scriptura i.e. scripture alone; that idea simply does not work, but rather divides. Is there another option to consider, when attempting to resolve doctrinal disputes, other than the idea that God left the world with a a teaching office guided by God, in terms of all truth being available to all generations until Jesus’ return: John 16:13 and John 14:16?

I think that my favorite Protestant Theologian Alister McGrath offers some interesting comments about the subject of Sola Scriptura and its impact on resolving doctrinal disputes.
**
“The difficulty for Protestantism was that it was found to possess no higher authority that can declare on or the other (opinions) to be in the right. ** If Scripture is the supreme rule of faith, no interpretative authority can be place above Scripture…… The problem here is that heresy is ultimately a teaching judged unacceptable by the entire church, the term is not properly applicable to either Calvinism or Arminiansm, which represent divisions within one constituency of Protestantism – namely, the Reformed church. One can speak of heresy arising within Protestantism – for example the revival of Arianism in seventeenth and eighteenth century Anglicanism. Yet in that case, ideas that the entire church regarded as heretical made their reappearance.** The nature of Protestantism is such that it is very difficult to use the term “heresy” to refer to divergent schools of thought within that movement, and limited to that movement, unless they reproduce ideas that the church as a whole had already agreed to be orthodox.** We find here a set of competing Protestant orthodoxies, each with its own grounding in the Bible, its own internal understanding of the internal dynamics of faith, and its own parameters of adjudication as to what is acceptable and what is not.” Alister McGrath, “A History of Defending the Truth”, pg. 215-6

“The problems that Protestantism faced here were famously set out by John Dryden (1631 – 1700) in his satirical poem ‘Religio Laici’ (A Layperson’s Religion) (1682). Dryden here argued that the great Protestant emphasis on the Bible merely led to the proliferation of heresy, due to the absence of any universally acknowledged, authoritative interpreter. The attitude toward biblical interpretation found within Protestantism, Dryden argues, not merely leaves it powerless to resist heresy, but actually encourages the emergence of heresy, through Protestantism’s naïve idea that ordinary Christians will be led, inerrantly and inevitably, to orthodox as they browse the scriptural pages. The text of Scripture was open to all; but what of the rule by which it was to be interpreted? **Protestants agreed on and respected a common authority, but they had no shared notion of a meta-authority. **Dryden invites us to imagine an orthodox Protestant convinced that the Bible clearly teaches the divinity of Christ, yet disturbingly confronted with another Protestant who interprets the same passage purely in terms of Christ’s humanity – the Socinian heresy, which emerged in the sixteenth century and held that Christ was a human devoid of divine identity.” McGrath, “Heresy, a History of Defending the Truth”, pg. 52

“The early Reformation was characterized by the** optimistic belief that it was possible to establish exactly what the Bible said on everything of importance and make this the basis for a reformed Christianity.**” McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 161

As we know, that optimistic belief turned out to be completely refuted by the fact of the doctrinal diversity of those who advocated that belief.

McGrath goes on to state:

**“It is one of the ironies of the Lutheran Reformation that a movement which laid stress upon the importance of Scripture should subsequently deny it less educated members direct access to that same Scripture, for fear that they might misinterpret it (in other words, reach a different interpretations from that of the magisterial reformers)………The direct interpretation of Scripture was thus effectively reserved for a small, privileged group of people. To put it crudely, it became a question of whether you looked to the pope, to Luther or to Calvin as an interpreter of Scripture. ** The principal of the ‘clarity of Scripture appears to have been quietly marginalized, in the light of the use made of the Bible by the more radical elements of the Reformation. Similarly, the idea that everyone had the right and the ability to interpret Scripture faithfully became the sole possession of the radicals.” McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 165

This is exactly the point that I have been making all along. The principals that Luther used to start the Reformation, SS+PI, did not work in the real world. He had to backtrack towards the “Catholic model”. Because Protestantism has no central authority it has no capability to refute beliefs which are outside the mainstream (whatever that mainstream might be according to the individual). This cannot be said of the Catholic Church. While it is true as proven by 2000 years of Christian history, people have and will challenge the authority of the Catholic Church, but those who do so ‘successfully’, very quickly fall into internal disunity. The further they have drifted from the teachings of the Mother Church, the more rapid the process of doctrinal dissension.

God Bless, Topper

 

[Topper17]

In the OP, Joe stated that Sola Scriptura cannot resolve doctrinal disputes, that it ‘does not work, but rather divides’. I agree and hopefully, the following will at least partially explain why.

Directly to Joe’s point, if everybody agrees that doctrinal disputes cannot be resolved via SS, then doesn’t it follow that everyone also agrees that SS cannot heal existing doctrinal divisions? In fact, doesn’t it follow that SS actually LEADS TO doctrinal dissension?

Of course, as we have seen, some SS people say “Our ‘use’ of SS does not cause dissension.” Ironically, even that kind of statement is divisive within Protestantism. After all, for one Protestant denomination to make that claim they are also claiming that those ‘other’ SS denominations DON’T ‘use’ SS properly. So, even the ‘use’ of SS is divisive. Every SS ‘group’ believes that they interpret Scripture better than the rest. As we know though, while some are more blunt about making that claim than others, all denominations essentially hold the belief that they ‘do it’ best.

**Is there ANY way possible that SS could be anything other than divisive? I think not. I doubt if anyone here disagrees. **

Once Luther wrested the authority to teach and to interpret away from it’s rightful home, the Church, there was no way that he was going to be able to keep it out of the hands of other people, who would (in his view but not theirs) misuse it and in the process, misuse Scripture.

Of course it didn’t help that for the first 5-7 years of his reformation, Luther taught that all men could correctly interpret the Bible. People took him at his word and did so, much to his later irritation.

It is true of course that modern day Confessional Lutherans do not believe in Private Interpretation – but that isn’t the point. Luther did and he taught that it was a Christian concept.

Of course a lot of (SS) people believe that SS DOES ‘work’. They believe that it works for them, but not so well for those ‘other people’, who don’t ‘do’ SS correctly. The competing and conflicting claims of: “no, WE are the ones that ‘do’ SS properly” should be all the evidence we need to judge the legitimacy of SS.

The fact it that once the ‘authority’ to teach and interpret had been misappropriated, there was NO WAY for the new ‘possessor(s) of that authority were going to be able to keep it out of the hands of those who would (according to them) misuse it.

What honestly baffles me that how Luther could have thought that PI was an acceptable or Christian concept. After all, the Fathers were extremely unified on the dangers and evils of Private Interpretation.

"But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error." St. Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, I:37 (A.D. 362).

"To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency." St. Basil, Epistle To the Canonicae, 52:1 (A.D. 370).

Interestingly, here we have a 4th century Father saying that people should follow the **prior **Fathers and speaking to the ‘self-sufficiency’ of holding to one’s own opinion in opposition. Clearly these Fathers understood the dangers of Private Interpretation.

Why didn’t Luther?

 

[Topper17]

In the last post we reviewed the writings of two Fathers (St. Athanasius and St. Basil) on ‘misinterpretation, according to their private sense’, and the false ‘authority of one’s own opinion’.

Next we have St. Ephraem, who 1150 years prior to Luther, also condemned those who would dissent from the teaching of the Church in which ‘perfect truth perfects’.

"While (the sects) mutually refute and condemn each other, it has happened to truth as to Gideon; that is, while** they fight against each other, and fall under wounds mutually inflicted, they crown her. All the heretics acknowledge that there is a true Scripture. Had they all falsely believed that none existed, some one might reply that such Scripture was unknown to them. But now that have themselves taken away the force of such plea, from the fact that they have mutilated the very Scriptures**. For** they have corrupted the sacred copies; and words which ought to have but one interpretation,** they have wrested to strange significations. Whilst, when one of them attempts this, and cuts off a member of his own body, the rest demand and claim back the severed limb…It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fullness (or, the whole) of the two Testaments." St. Ephraem, Adv. Haeres (ante A.D. 373).

Here we notice that these sects which Emphram is writing about ‘mutually refute and condemn each other’.

The Greatest of all Fathers was of course St. Augustine:

“**For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, **and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted. And so, dearly beloved, ought we very cautiously to hear those things for the understanding of which we are but little ones, and that, too, with pious heart and with trembling, as it is written, holding this rule of soundness, that we rejoice as in food in that which we have been able to understand, according to the faith with which we are imbued…” Augustine, On the Gospel of John, Homily XVIII:1 (A.D. 416).

We need to remember that it was at Leipzig that John Eck accused Luther of relying on his own interpretation of Scriptures.

“He charged Luther with the typical attitude of the Bohemian schematics (Hussites) toward the Scriptures. They, too, had claimed to better understand the Bible better than the Pope, the councils, and all the doctors of the universities, even though the Holy Spirit guided these authorities of the Christian Church. Luther’s position, he charged, swept away all authority of councils, popes, and juristic faculties, and, in fact, made the whole of Canon Law worthless.” Lutheran Professor of History E. G. Schweibert, “Luther and His Times”, pg. 409

This was early in Luther’s ‘reformation’ (1519). Depending on who you believe, Luther didn’t backtrack away from Private Interpretation as being a right of ALL until about 1525. This means that in those 6 years, Luther ignored the very clear warnings of Eck (and many, many others), only to in 1525 finally realize that their warnings had been accurate. During those 6 years Christianity became doomed to having the unity of a significant portion (<30%) of Christianity destroyed.

We know of course that Luther hated the Catholic Church with a passion. That hatred had the impact of, at least among his followers, the devaluing of Tradition.

“We know,….that** the Reformers and their descendants may not disclaim all responsibility for the erosion of the Christian tradition during the centuries since the Reformation.** This erosion was accompanied by a devaluation of history, which, as one Eastern Orthodox theologian has observed, ‘may be regarded as a** logical consequence of the reduced conception of the church, which was so characteristic of certain trends of the Reformation**.” (Then Lutheran) Pelilkan, “Obedient Rebels”, pg. 174

We should note (again) that Pelikan was probably the greatest Lutheran Theologian of the last century, and also that he did not die in the Lutheran communion.

When the Authority of the Church and Tradition are replaced by Sola Scriptura and the Private Interpretation of individuals, and the manufactured ‘traditions’ of their various later day denominations, the die was cast. Having denied the single earthly authority, there was no alternative but doctrinal dissension, to the point where today nobody knows how many doctrinally independent Protestant denominations there are.

Without the single earthly authority, the only thing that could logically happen would be exactly what has happened to Protestantism. While some might contend that they actually DO adhere to tradition, what they really mean is a ‘tradition’ that they have developed.

 

[steido01]

We need to remember that it was at Leipzig that John Eck accused Luther of relying on his own interpretation of Scriptures.

“He charged Luther with the typical attitude of the Bohemian schematics (Hussites) toward the Scriptures. They, too, had claimed to better understand the Bible better than the Pope, the councils, and all the doctors of the universities, even though the Holy Spirit guided these authorities of the Christian Church. Luther’s position, he charged, swept away all authority of councils, popes, and juristic faculties, and, in fact, made the whole of Canon Law worthless.” Lutheran Professor of History E. G. Schweibert, “Luther and His Times”, pg. 409

Eck accused Luther of a great many things. The early Christians were also accused of cannibalism, gross immorality and atheism. I don’t see how a Lutheran scholar acknowledging the charges against us is news. Please post a source where Luther himself “admits” to endorsing Sola Scriptura aside from the church, or Personal Interpretation in any capacity.

This was early in Luther’s ‘reformation’ (1519). Depending on who you believe, Luther didn’t backtrack away from Private Interpretation as being a right of ALL until about 1525.

Or he never endorsed it in the first place?

This means that in those 6 years, Luther ignored the very clear warnings of Eck (and many, many others), only to in 1525 finally realize that their warnings had been accurate. During those 6 years Christianity became doomed to having the unity of a significant portion (<30%) of Christianity destroyed.

Doomed, eh? Destroyed, huh? Hmm… I’m of the opinion that the Gates of Hell will never prevail against Her.

We know of course that Luther hated the Catholic Church with a passion. That hatred had the impact of, at least among his followers, the devaluing of Tradition.

“We know,….that** the Reformers and their descendants may not disclaim all responsibility for the erosion of the Christian tradition during the centuries since the Reformation.** This erosion was accompanied by a devaluation of history, which, as one Eastern Orthodox theologian has observed, ‘may be regarded as a logical consequence of the reduced conception of the church, which was so characteristic of certain trends of the Reformation.” (Then Lutheran) Pelilkan, “Obedient Rebels”, pg. 174

No, Topper. You do not “know” that Luther “hated” the Roman Catholic Church. Why do you use such hyperbolic, inappropriate and, frankly, slanderous words to describe those who simply disagree with you? It makes dialogue with you…unpleasant. I earnestly ask this question because you are here to answer it. I’d ask Luther why he sometimes did the same (perhaps the earthy tone of his time played a part), but he’s dead. So instead of you putting words into Luther’s mouth, let’s have you put your words into your own. Why do you use these sort of polemics in ‘ecumenical’ conversation?

Now to the point, Luther hated abuses. He hated dirt-poor Germans being taken advantage of by the rich, Italian Medici’s. But he loved the church - that’s precisely why he tried to reform it. No Christian man is willing to lose his life for that which he hates. Pelikan, even in his last days as a non-Lutheran, would not have disagreed.

And I can’t help but note that your quoting of Pelikan’s seems to have twisted his intended meaning. In the first sentence, he simply notes that many protestants agree with your communion:

But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame

In the second sentence, Pelikan simply notes an Orthodox view of “certain trends of the Reformation,” which likely includes iconoclasts, etc. Of course Orthodoxy objects to “certain trends of the Reformation.” Lutherans do, too.

We should note (again) that Pelikan was probably the greatest Lutheran Theologian of the last century, and also that he did not die in the Lutheran communion.

Nor did he die in yours. In fact, his opposition to Papal Supremacy stayed with him to the end. Curious, that. I wonder what could Pelikan have possibly considered the Rule and Norm for doctrine to be? I wonder if it was similar to what was discussed at the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogues:

1. Regarding the relation of scripture and Tradition, for centuries there seemed to have been a deep difference between Orthodox and Lutheran teaching. Orthodox hear with satisfaction the affirmation of the Lutheran theologians that the formula “sola scriptura” was always intended to point to God’s revelation, God’s saving act through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore to the holy Tradition of the church, as expressed in this paper, against human traditions that darken the authentic teaching in the church.

Continued…

 

[steido01]

Continued…

When the Authority of the Church and Tradition are replaced by Sola Scriptura and the Private Interpretation of individuals, and the manufactured ‘traditions’ of their various later day denominations, the die was cast.

Private Interpretation has no place in Lutheranism, so I can only assume that you’re talking to other Christians. They’ll have to answer for themselves.

Having denied the single earthly authority, there was no alternative but doctrinal dissension…

The Orthodox, to whom Pelikan converted, do not subscribe to a “single [human] earthly authority.” What do you make of them?

 

[Topper17]

Those who bear his name today have rejected Luther’s early teaching on Sola Scriptura and the right of the individual to (correctly) interpret Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (SS+PI). We should see this as additional evidence that Luther was wrong in his prosecution of his ‘reformation’. If Lutherans refute the teachings about ‘authority’ that Luther ‘used’ to refute the authority of the Church, then he MUST have been wrong.

As we have learned, it was during those fateful years before 1525 that Luther taught SS+PI. After that he began to more and more replace the Private Interpretation of all with his own personal authority. For anyone interested in the details of this ‘transformation’, Lutheran Professor Robert Kolb has written an excellent book on Luther’s Authority – “Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”.

Western Christendom would be much, much different if Luther started out in 1517 teaching what he eventually came to believe and teach.

"Luther was indeed one of ‘the Reformers,’ whose proposals triggered lasting schism in the Western Church. Whether he would have pressed his convictions in quite the same way had he been able to look further into the future, we cannot know.” Lutheran Professor Robert W. Jenson, in “Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, pg. 272

Wow! That’s quite an admission from a Lutheran Scholar. It seems to be far more than can be admitted here. Luther himself recognized the problems associated with his ‘reforming’ agenda, but not until too late.

“As internal liberty varies (other things equal) with external security,** Protestantism, during its safe period, indulged in the sectarian fragmentation that seemed inherent in the principles of private judgment and the supremacy of conscience.** Already in **1525, Luther wrote: ‘There are nowadays almost as many sects and creeds are there are heads.’ ** Melanchthon was kept busy moderating his master and finding ambiguous formulas for reconciling contradictory certitudes. Catholics gleefully pointed gleefully to the mutually recriminating Protestant factions, and predicted that freedom of interpretation and belief would lead to religious anarchy, moral disintegration and skepticism abominable to Protestants as well as Catholics.” Carroll, pg. 441

Just exactly how accurate were those predictions? The answer – extremely – but then they were only common sense.

Luther himself questioned whether he was doing the ‘right thing’, yet it seems very ‘unpopular’ in certain circles to question whether he was right today.

It certainly didn’t take long for Luther’s teaching on SS+PI to have a deadly effect on Christian unity.

“Since approximately 1522 Luther had also been confronted by Catholics of a new sort, who were no longer seeking to defend the claims and privileges of Rome primarily by means of canon law; they argued on the basis of Scripture and were honest and earnest when the advocated traditional forms of piety. It was from their ranks that the reproached stemmed: considering the testimony of so many generations, how can Luther purport to know better? Then there were the princes, knights, peasants, and officials who were abusing the Gospel (Luther’s) for their own purposes. What had once been the monopoly of the pope and curia was now being done by people everywhere under the guise of “Evangelical freedom”. ** Finally there was the attack from his own ranks: the followers of the Reformation fell out over the question of the Eucharist. It was all too much: ‘As if it were not enough that the pope, emperor, princes, bishop, and the whole world hated me: now my brothers are turning against me**.’” Oberman, pg. 317

Here we have additional evidence that within only a couple of years of Luther’s teaching of SS+PI, already he was being challenged doctrinally by ‘other Protestants’. All of this begs the question as to whether Luther was right or wrong to teach SS+PI. The question haunted Luther.

“**With how much pain and labor did I scarcely justify my conscience that I alone should proceed against the Pope, hold him for the Antichrist and the bishops for his apostles. How often did my heart punish me and reproach me with this strong argument: ‘Are you alone wise?’ Could all the others err and have erred for a long time. How if thou errest and leadest into error so many people who would be damned forever? **” Martin Luther, letter to the Augustinians in Wittenberg, Nov 25, 1521.

I don’t think anyone today would say that people could be damned forever for following Luther’s doctrinal teachings, but apparently he thought they possibly could be. Obviously the question as to whether he was right or wrong was much more important to him than it seems to have become today.

 

[steido01]

It seems I won’t receive a direct, public answer to my questions. That’s unfortunate.

 

[JonNC]

=steido01;12026662]Continued…

Private Interpretation has no place in Lutheranism, so I can only assume that you’re talking to other Christians. They’ll have to answer for themselves.

Hi Don,
If I may, would it be a correct clarification of your statement here to say that there is no place in Lutheranism for PI when speaking of doctrine. Lutherans do have the privilege of PI in matters not of doctrine. We even have a name for it: idiaphora.

The Orthodox, to whom Pelikan converted, do not subscribe to a “single [human] earthly authority.”

It seems, among confessional Lutherans, at least, that Orthodoxy is often the direction of those who convert, not Catholicism, in large measure for the reason you state.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

It seems I won’t receive a direct, public answer to my questions. That’s unfortunate.

And you know why.

 

[steido01]

Hi Don,
If I may, would it be a correct clarification of your statement here to say that there is no place in Lutheranism for PI when speaking of doctrine. Lutherans do have the privilege of PI in matters not of doctrine. We even have a name for it: idiaphora.

Absolutely, Jon. I was speaking in terms of Lutheran doctrine, and your point regarding “indifferent things” is important and should be made for the non-Lutherans on the forums. Thank you! Lutherans have a set freedom, confined to the teachings of the church, to accept or reject matters not clearly articulated through Scripture. For instance, the IC, PV and later Marian doctrines can be pious Lutheran belief, but they are not required belief for Salvation.

It seems, among confessional Lutherans, at least, that Orthodoxy is often the direction of those who convert, not Catholicism, in large measure for the reason you state.

Yep. It’s a stumbling block to me too. I’ve not read a convincing Roman Catholic resource to sway me Romeward so long as Eastward remains an option. If Rome considers the Orthodox to have valid orders, sacraments, etc. despite their aversion to papal supremacy, then why is the Orthodox means of determining doctrine considered so much more credible than the Lutheran means - a means which was practiced by some pre-Tridentine Catholics (if not so clearly explained) and, as shown in Lutheran-Orthodox relations, to be remarkably similar to the Orthodox way? Sometimes, the church on earth is silly.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Hi Don,
If I may, would it be a correct clarification of your statement here to say that there is no place in Lutheranism for PI when speaking of doctrine. Lutherans do have the privilege of PI in matters not of doctrine. We even have a name for it: idiaphora.
Jon

What you say Jon is true, but it ignores the fact that Lutheranism was founded on the Private Interpretations of one man - Martin Luther. It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways. It is logically inconsistent to accept Luther’s revolt against the Church as being legitimate, and also claim that Lutherans don’t have the right of PI on matters of doctrine. Luther certainly claimed that ‘right’. By your own ‘rule’ Luther had no right to PI on matters of doctrine, and as such, the Lutheran church was founded with a ‘foundation’ (a concept of authority) which is totally in opposition to (current) Lutheran principals.

This gets right back to the same old question.

I think that is pretty clear cut, but if you have a logical explanation I would be glad to entertain it.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[benjohnson]

I’m amazed to find some Catholics more fixated on Martin Luther than Lutherans.

In my opinion, it would seem that both groups should be fixated on the cross - for that is were we will reunite.

 

[JonNC]

I’m amazed to find some Catholics more fixated on Martin Luther than Lutherans.

In my opinion, it would seem that both groups should be fixated on the cross - for that is were we will reunite.

I agree, Ben.

Jon