Follow up on SS

[JonNC]

=steido01;12029064]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.

Exactly.

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.

I think papal supremacy is the main stumbling block for many Lutherans, who are either seeking to convert, or even those of us who would like to see more dramatic strides toward corporate unity.
And as we consider the means by which doctrine is determined, two thoughts:

1. ISTM that the difference in practice between Catholic and Lutheran has not to do with scripture, we agree on the central importance of scripture. One can read the Fathers to know that. The issue is the level of authority Tradition holds.
2. Some Catholics will charge the Reformers of practicing PI. I would reject that out of hand based on the constant referencing to the Fathers and the early Church within the confessions. But even if there is an element of truth to the charge, could not the same charge be leveled at Rome? The early Church looked to the councils, and an argument can be made that without unity with the other patriarchs, a truly ecumenical council cannot take place.
   Either way, the dispute regarding PI is, other than historically, and when discussing its practice in other communions, isn’t particularly relevant to Catholic-Lutheran dialogue, which, as Ben points out, seems far more focused on the cross.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

1. Some Catholics will charge the Reformers of practicing PI. I would reject that out of hand based on the constant referencing to the Fathers and the early Church within the confessions. But even if there is an element of truth to the charge, could not the same charge be leveled at Rome? The early Church looked to the councils, and an argument can be made that without unity with the other patriarchs, a truly ecumenical council cannot take place.

I think there might be a misunderstanding here. I have not, nor have I seen anyone here claim that modern day Lutherans, or that the Lutheran Confessions support Private Interpretation. It seems to me that we are very much in agreement on the matter. Neither Catholics nor Lutherans support Private Interpretation. I’m not sure though that we are in agreement as to why Private Interpretation is bad. I think it all comes down to a very simple and direct question:

Do you believe that PI is responsible or partially responsible for the current doctrinal disunity that exists within Western Christianity?

I look forward to your response.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12033950]Hi Jon,

I think there might be a misunderstanding here. I have not, nor have I seen anyone here claim that modern day Lutherans, or that the Lutheran Confessions support Private Interpretation. It seems to me that we are very much in agreement on the matter. Neither Catholics nor Lutherans support Private Interpretation. I’m not sure though that we are in agreement as to why Private Interpretation is bad.

Even though I have read Catholics saying this here at CAF over the years, it is good that we agree on this point.

I think it all comes down to a very simple and direct question:

Do you believe that PI is responsible or partially responsible for the current doctrinal disunity that exists within Western Christianity?

In part, yes.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Even though I have read Catholics saying this here at CAF over the years, it is good that we agree on this point.

In part, yes.

Jon

As long as we are agreeing on things, the below is something we can probably also agree on. It relates to a quote from Reformed Scholar Paul Tillich and it has to do with Private Interpretation and it’s results:

**“The situation is rather that the man who enjoys autonomy – however feeble and empty **it may be – has experienced something that he cannot easily surrender even if he wished to respond to the appeal of the Catholic Church.” Dr. Paul Tillich, “The Protestant Era (abridged)” (1948), pg. 194-5

I have always seen Tillich’s insights as all the more remarkable in that he wrote this amazing book 66 years ago, at a time when the evidence for his conclusions was not anywhere near as complete as it is today.

In this quote I see the reasoning as to why those who today practice PI, meaning the non-Confessional Protestants, are so much less prone to convert to ANY of the Confessional faiths (including RCC and Lutheran), than are Lutherans to convert to Catholicism.

It seems to me that once people get that ‘taste’ of PI, it is a very hard thing to give up and profess a Confessional version of the Faith. In other words, PI really appeals to the ego and the ego does not want to give it up.

If we look at it in terms of physics, it is like entropy, the natural order of things being inclined towards decay and moving towards disorder; in this case, as a result of original sin.

What I see Tillich saying is that the autonomy that man THINKS he enjoys because of PI, is ‘empty and feeble”, because it does NOT exist at all in God’s Eyes. However, the appeal of PI (to the ego) is such that it makes it very hard for the individual to consider the natural appeal of the Catholic Church (or other ‘dogmatic’ or Confessional faiths) which would provide more ‘doctrinal certainty’ (at least to the rational and logical person).

When I get back home I have another quote from Agius about how there are two different types of Churches, those who hold to PI and those who don’t.

While we have our differences, and they are not minor,I think we both battle against PI because “once you go PI, it ain’t easy to go back”, which is what I think Tillich is saying.

On another note, I think that the PI Christians are not exactly ‘overrepresented’ on sites like this - because PI Christians tend not to think that doctrine is as important as do “Dogmatics” and “Confessionals”. This is evidence of entropy of doctrinal importance. "Entropy’ - the vocabulary word of the day.

As a ‘fellow Confessional’ I would appreciate your thoughts on the Tillich quote.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12037187]
As long as we are agreeing on things, the below is something we can probably also agree on. It relates to a quote from Reformed Scholar Paul Tillich and it has to do with Private Interpretation and it’s results:

**“The situation is rather that the man who enjoys autonomy – however feeble and empty **it may be – has experienced something that he cannot easily surrender even if he wished to respond to the appeal of the Catholic Church.” Dr. Paul Tillich, “The Protestant Era (abridged)” (1948), pg. 194-5

I have always seen Tillich’s insights as all the more remarkable in that he wrote this amazing book 66 years ago, at a time when the evidence for his conclusions was not anywhere near as complete as it is today.
In this quote I see the reasoning as to why those who today practice PI, meaning the non-Confessional Protestants, are so much less prone to convert to ANY of the Confessional faiths (including RCC and Lutheran), than are Lutherans to convert to Catholicism.

It seems to me that once people get that ‘taste’ of PI, it is a very hard thing to give up and profess a Confessional version of the Faith. In other words, PI really appeals to the ego and the ego does not want to give it up.

Just speculating now:
I can generally understand the POV, and am inclined to agree, but I have also heard of those in less doctrinal/confessional communions leaving them, seeking and thirsting for the structure and catechetical support to one’s faith that is found in a communion such as yours or mine. So, I think it often depends on the individual.

From my own view, as a life-long Lutheran, I could not see myself in that kind of setting. I think Christ put the Church here to do these things for us, as part of its teaching authority. I am much more comfortable reading the Catholic Catechism, for example, than the writings of many of the American evangelicals. The fact that I value the sacraments so much may have something to do with it as well.

If we look at it in terms of physics, it is like entropy, the natural order of things being inclined towards decay and moving towards disorder; in this case, as a result of original sin.

On another note, I think that the PI Christians are not exactly ‘overrepresented’ on sites like this - because PI Christians tend not to think that doctrine is as important as do “Dogmatics” and “Confessionals”. This is evidence of entropy of doctrinal importance. "Entropy’ - the vocabulary word of the day.

Seeing it from their POV, they many not view it as entropy or decline. In fact, they may see what we do as the decline of Christianity. They may see our use of the ancient creeds as a decline away from scripture.
I also agree that they are often underrepresented here because, frankly, our language about faith is completely different. You (Catholics) and I (Lutherans) fuss about what the creeds and councils mean, how our doctrines differ, and they probably consider it all a waste of time and effort. “Doctrine divide”, and “No creed but Christ” (which are creeds in and of themselves). OTOH, I would much rather listen to EWTN or the Catholic Channel than Christian radio. Despite our differences, our language is the same.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Just speculating now:
I can generally understand the POV, and am inclined to agree, but I have also heard of those in less doctrinal/confessional communions leaving them, seeking and thirsting for the structure and catechetical support to one’s faith that is found in a communion such as yours or mine. So, I think it often depends on the individual.

From my own view, as a life-long Lutheran, I could not see myself in that kind of setting. I think Christ put the Church here to do these things for us, as part of its teaching authority. I am much more comfortable reading the Catholic Catechism, for example, than the writings of many of the American evangelicals. The fact that I value the sacraments so much may have something to do with it as well.

I agree and also think that it is hard for sacramental people to relate to non-sacramental people and vice-versa. Our concept of man in relationship with God is just so different.

Seeing it from their POV, they many not view it as entropy or decline. In fact, they may see what we do as the decline of Christianity.

s

From my perspective that would be hard to believe but I guess nothing surprises me anymore. (Topper says jadedly)

They may see our use of the ancient creeds as a decline away from scripture.
I also agree that they are often underrepresented here because, frankly, our language about faith is completely different. You (Catholics) and I (Lutherans) fuss about what the creeds and councils mean, how our doctrines differ, and they probably consider it all a waste of time and effort. “Doctrine divide”, and “No creed but Christ” (which are creeds in and of themselves). OTOH, I would much rather listen to EWTN or the Catholic Channel than Christian radio. Despite our differences, our language is the same.

Jon

Sad really, and really really sad. With the PIs, its like Christianity boiled down to its least common denominator and than barely being able to find one, seemingly disagreeing on more than is agreed upon.

One wonders how some of the 'less confessional" Lutheran groups managed to break away from the confessions. But what I think fascinates me more than anything is that Lutherans, at one point, and as a whole, struggled against that tendency towards entropy and doctrinal diffusion. It actually moved away from Private Interpretation and towards a written confessional model of authority.

This was a crucial move and one that I think was absolutely necessary for the survival of Lutheranism.

If Lutheranism had continued down the Private interpretation path, it certainly would not exist today, but would have disappeared into an uncountable number of insignificant doctrinally competing fragments.

Jon, how do you think Lutheranism was able to pull that off and basically ‘save itself’?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[benjohnson]

One wonders how some of the 'less confessional" Lutheran groups managed to break away from the confessions.

In my estimation, a sincere desire to appeal to society has lead them on this path.

 

[steido01]

In my estimation, a sincere desire to appeal to society has lead them on this path.

Same can be said for groups like ‘Catholics for Choice.’

It’s our common struggle.

 

[JonNC]

I agree and also think that it is hard for sacramental people to relate to non-sacramental people and vice-versa. Our concept of man in relationship with God is just so different.

s

From my perspective that would be hard to believe but I guess nothing surprises me anymore. (Topper says jadedly)

Sad really, and really really sad. With the PIs, its like Christianity boiled down to its least common denominator and than barely being able to find one, seemingly disagreeing on more than is agreed upon.

One wonders how some of the 'less confessional" Lutheran groups managed to break away from the confessions. But what I think fascinates me more than anything is that Lutherans, at one point, and as a whole, struggled against that tendency towards entropy and doctrinal diffusion. It actually moved away from Private Interpretation and towards a written confessional model of authority.

This was a crucial move and one that I think was absolutely necessary for the survival of Lutheranism.

If Lutheranism had continued down the Private interpretation path, it certainly would not exist today, but would have disappeared into an uncountable number of insignificant doctrinally competing fragments.

Jon, how do you think Lutheranism was able to pull that off and basically ‘save itself’?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Remember now that Augsburg was in 1530, just 13 years after the 95 Theses. Other than the Anabaptists, the Reformation churches, ISTM, all tend to be inclined to confessions, to one degree or another. That is significant I think in two ways, one being the example of “church” being the Catholic Church, second being the need to gain support of political leaders, stAtements of faith, such as the Augsburg Confession, were important.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Remember now that Augsburg was in 1530, just 13 years after the 95 Theses. Other than the Anabaptists, the Reformation churches, ISTM, all tend to be inclined to confessions, to one degree or another. That is significant I think in two ways, one being the example of “church” being the Catholic Church, second being the need to gain support of political leaders, stAtements of faith, such as the Augsburg Confession, were important.

Jon

Oh oh, the “P” word

Sadly there was a lot of that during those times…

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

In my estimation, a sincere desire to appeal to society has lead them on this path.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood here, but it seems to me that this is a very serious accusation. It seems that you think that those Lutherans who have become ‘less Confessional’ have done so, NOT because they think that that is what God wants, but in order to appeal to a society which does not value ‘Confessional values’ (whatever that might mean). In other words they are becoming 'less Confessional; KNOWING that it is the wrong thing to do.

I seriously doubt that you meant it exactly that way, so if not, then exactly what did you mean about them ‘appealing to society’?

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[benjohnson]

I seriously doubt that you meant it exactly that way, so if not, then exactly what did you mean about them ‘appealing to society’?

God Bless You Ben, Topper

I do think they’re motivated by what are good virtues - inclusiveness, tolerance and justice. and I’d like to let them off the hook with assuming that they have pure motivation, but I can’t quite - for they know they are changing the church.

The’ve come to view the church as an extension of society - where being a priest is just a ‘job’ and hence subject to societies expectations of non-discrimination. Where sexual activity is oriented around pleasure and what permutation you do matters not.

However, I generally think that the more historically aware of them know they are proclaiming a new Gospel. The reason I know they know is that their tout their novelty.

Non of them declare they they’re following an older interpretation. They know they’re agents for change.

 

[spina1953]

I agree and also think that it is hard for sacramental people to relate to non-sacramental people and vice-versa. Our concept of man in relationship with God is just so different.

s

From my perspective that would be hard to believe but I guess nothing surprises me anymore. (Topper says jadedly)

Sad really, and really really sad. With the PIs, its like Christianity boiled down to its least common denominator and than barely being able to find one, seemingly disagreeing on more than is agreed upon.

One wonders how some of the 'less confessional" Lutheran groups managed to break away from the confessions. But what I think fascinates me more than anything is that Lutherans, at one point, and as a whole, struggled against that tendency towards entropy and doctrinal diffusion. It actually moved away from Private Interpretation and towards a written confessional model of authority.

This was a crucial move and one that I think was absolutely necessary for the survival of Lutheranism.

If Lutheranism had continued down the Private interpretation path, it certainly would not exist today, but would have disappeared into an uncountable number of insignificant doctrinally competing fragments.

Jon, how do you think Lutheranism was able to pull that off and basically ‘save itself’?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Hi Topper: It seems to me that PI is not really practiced by main line Protestants but more by many of the Protestant denominations that over time broke away from the Church of England, like the Puritans and others over the centuries after the Reformation, which seems to me led to SS ad PI. This seems more so by fringe Protestants for want of a better phase, those groups that seems to pop up everywhere. Cults have also used this indoctrinating their believers which is sad as they use Christianity and Scripture to push their own distorted beliefs. This can be seen with white Supremists groups that fill others with hatred for others with different Christian belief’s and understanding an also non-Christians. This is what PI and SS does with those who for their own distorted reasons try and get others to believe their twisted ideas. This is the real problem not main line Protestants who do not subscribe to those type of thinking or believing. At least it seems at way to me.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Remember now that Augsburg was in 1530, just 13 years after the 95 Theses. Other than the Anabaptists, the Reformation churches, ISTM, all tend to be inclined to confessions, to one degree or another. That is significant I think in two ways, one being the example of “church” being the Catholic Church, second being the need to gain support of political leaders, stAtements of faith, such as the Augsburg Confession, were important.

Jon

I think we agree that Confessions and the adherence to those Confessions help to maintain unity, at least within that particular communion.

However, a communion cannot be considered by any stretch of the imagination to be ‘confessional’ prior to the writing of the first portion of what will eventually become their Confession. In fact, that communion cannot be considered to be ‘fully confessional’ until ALL of it’s confessions have been written. For Lutherans, this period of ‘becoming Confessional’ ran from (and correct me if I get the dates wrong) 1530 to 1577.

Prior to 1530, Lutheran cannot be considered by any stretch to be ‘confessional’, at all, and prior to 1577 cannot be considered to be ‘completely confessional’. After all, Lutherans obviously did not consider the Augsburg Confession to be an adequate depiction of the Lutheran faith in 1530, but rather felt the need to add many documents to it.

Be that as it may, the crucial period of time as it relates to the discussion of the various models of authority, is that 13 year period that you mentioned - 1517 to 1530, that time when Lutheranism was not in the slightest degree ‘confessional’.

Jon, during that period of time, what was the ‘model of authority’ within Lutheranism?

BTW, it should also be noted that just because the last of the Lutheran Confessions were written in the late 16th century, does not mean that they then became authoritative in the way that they are now.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

I do think they’re motivated by what are good virtues - inclusiveness, tolerance and justice. and I’d like to let them off the hook with assuming that they have pure motivation, but I can’t quite - for they know they are changing the church.

The’ve come to view the church as an extension of society - where being a priest is just a ‘job’ and hence subject to societies expectations of non-discrimination. Where sexual activity is oriented around pleasure and what permutation you do matters not.

However, I generally think that the more historically aware of them know they are proclaiming a new Gospel. The reason I know they know is that their tout their novelty.

Non of them declare they they’re following an older interpretation. They know they’re agents for change.

I guess I see where you are coming from. It is somewhat difficult to ‘let them off the hook’ as you put it, when they ‘know that they are changing the church’, and when ‘they know that they are proclaiming a new Gospel’, when they are proclaiming a ‘novelty’, when they admit that they are not ‘following an older interpretation’, and when they know that they are ‘agents for change’.

Would you be more accepting of their errors if they were simply mistaken in their belief that they were following the ‘older interpretations’?

I guess what I sense from your response is that, at least to some degree, you hold them responsible for their errors, because they DO know that what they are doing is ‘wrong’ but they are doing it anyway, and while they may have (mostly) pure motives, those pure motives are causing them to act against the will of God and in disobedience to the teachings of Scripture.

I think I understand your position pretty well, especially the part about those who are ‘historically aware’. It seems that you are placing more responsibility on those than on the others, the ones who don’t necessarily know that their beliefs are a novelty.

All that being said Ben, what do you think is the best way to reach them and show them that they are have gotten ‘off the beaten path’? Do you think that they will be able to be ‘corrected’ from Scripture, or do you think that they will be just as interested in correcting YOU from Scripture? Or, do you think that it would be more compelling to show them, with actual historical facts, that their beliefs are novel and are not in keeping with the doctrines of the past?

Do you think that Private Interpretation plays into this problem, and if so, how do you combat it?

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[Contarini]

I do think they’re motivated by what are good virtues - inclusiveness, tolerance and justice. and I’d like to let them off the hook with assuming that they have pure motivation, but I can’t quite - for they know they are changing the church.

The’ve come to view the church as an extension of society - where being a priest is just a ‘job’ and hence subject to societies expectations of non-discrimination. Where sexual activity is oriented around pleasure and what permutation you do matters not.

Ben, that just isn’t fair. They see themselves as proclaiming a counter-cultural Gospel of radical inclusion and grace. It would be similarly unfair for liberals to say that you and other conservatives view the Church as an extension of [traditional or “red-state”] society, where gay people are beaten up and discriminated against and religion is a way to get people to behave in orderly ways so as to be good cogs in the military-industrial complex. On each side that may be, in fact, what happens, but it isn’t what each side is trying to do.

However, I generally think that the more historically aware of them know they are proclaiming a new Gospel. The reason I know they know is that their tout their novelty.

Non of them declare they they’re following an older interpretation. They know they’re agents for change.

Right, although they do typically argue, following John Boswell, that the Church was once more tolerant of gays than it became in the second millennium. (Whether that interpretation is right or wrong is not the point–I think it’s mostly wrong but has some truth to it, but that’s not probably worth debating here.) Basically you’re right–liberals are happy to admit that their teaching is a change. But they point, with some legitimacy, to the fact that our attitudes on all sorts of things have changed.

I just played the organ this morning for a liberal congregation in Berea, Kentucky (Union Church). This congregation was formed (together with the nearby college) in the 19th century by abolitionists. Abolitionists were radicals who challenged accepted attitudes about slavery and had passages of the Bible that seemed to endorse slavery slung at their heads. The folks at this church see their advocacy of gay rights as being in direct continuity with that legacy. Most of us, they would say, agree that the abolitionists were right, even though they had to go against a literal reading of some parts of Scripture (“slaves, obey your masters”) and were seen at the time as champions of immorality and social chaos. Now we can see that in fact the abolitionists were being faithful to basic Scriptural principles and reading passages such as “slaves, obey your masters” in historical context.They see gay rights as the contemporary equivalent.

Note: I’m not arguing that they are right in doing so. I’m talking about the self-understanding of liberals, which you are not representing fairly.

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

Ben, that just isn’t fair. They see themselves as proclaiming a counter-cultural Gospel of radical inclusion and grace.

I’d be much more willing to accept that argument if society hadn’t already radically changed first.

Basically you’re right–liberals are happy to admit that their teaching is a change. But they point, with some legitimacy, to the fact that our attitudes on all sorts of things have changed.

Yes that’s my primary argument - the more aware of them are aware know they are changing the church and proclaiming a new-gospel.

Abolitionists were radicals who challenged accepted attitudes about slavery and had passages of the Bible that seemed to endorse slavery slung at their heads. The folks at this church see their advocacy of gay rights as being in direct continuity with that legacy.

My political party started as an abolitionist party (Republican) and I had family die for that cause.

The tying of gay civil rights with the abolitionists is fair - we should all enjoy civil rights.

But once that’s complete, the continuance of those intentions into the Christian church and then radically changing the Gospel is a disservice to the very people they’re trying to bring closer God as once you change the Gospel, it’s becomes hard to trust.

I’ve been close to two churches - and the ‘liberal’ church made all sorts of lip service to loving gay people but there were none in the pews. My ‘conservative’ church has several gay people in the pews - we focus on the Gospel and not on our individual sins except in private.

Note: I’m not arguing that they are right in doing so. I’m talking about the self-understanding of liberals, which you are not representing fairly.

Edwin

I could agree with you that their motivations were entirely pure if they didn’t know that they were changing the Gospel.

But frankly, most of them know they’re changing God’s word - even going so far as to develop Bibles with more ‘inclusive’ language.

I don’t entirely doubt their sincerity - they have the correct instincts on drawing all peoples closer to God.

But I can’t quite let them off the hook for (some of them) knowingly assuming that their ways are better than God’s ways.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper: It seems to me that PI is not really practiced by main line Protestants but more by many of the Protestant denominations that over time broke away from the Church of England, like the Puritans and others over the centuries after the Reformation, which seems to me led to SS ad PI. This seems more so by fringe Protestants for want of a better phase, those groups that seems to pop up everywhere. Cults have also used this indoctrinating their believers which is sad as they use Christianity and Scripture to push their own distorted beliefs. This can be seen with white Supremists groups that fill others with hatred for others with different Christian belief’s and understanding an also non-Christians. This is what PI and SS does with those who for their own distorted reasons try and get others to believe their twisted ideas. This is the real problem not main line Protestants who do not subscribe to those type of thinking or believing. At least it seems at way to me.

I agree. Confessional Protestants do not practice PI, that is until they decide to join the non-Confessional Protestants, which of course did not exist until the Reformation. It seems that Confessional Protestants are trying to hold the line doctrinally, but unfortunately, the origins of the Reformation are rooted in Private Interpretation. Reformed Scholar Oberman:

“In 1521 Luther had not been willing to recant before the emperor in Worms without factual refutation, but now his tone was even more strident, leaving no opportunity for a counterargument: “This is what the Scriptures teach…and so do I. Here I can yield to no one.” He goes on even more pointedly: “Whoever teaches otherwise denies Christ and faith.” So whoever contradicts the Reformer here rejects him totally. How inconceivably bold it was of Luther to venture such an assured, conclusive judgment on a problem the Greek philosophers and scholastic theologians before him – and many others after him – had tried in vain to solve. Who has ever succeeded in overcoming the basic conflict between God’s omnipotence and man’s freedom without opening an even greater abyss?** Luther’s answer is short but not immediately clear: the testimony of the Holy Scriptures is his legitimation. **

**For us in the twentieth century, his answer cannot be convincing, because application of the Reformation principal of sola scriptura, the Scriptures alone, has not brought the certainty he anticipated. **It has in fact been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretation that seem to render any dependence on the clarity of the Scriptures. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries post-Reformation Protestantism tried out many variants of “fundamentalism” to counter the trend, often declaring the letter of the Scriptures sacrosanct. But even desperate rescue missions cannot breath new life into a motto that was once so persuasive: as God truly became incarnate in Jesus, so His spirit became inerrant truth in the Holy Scriptures.” Oberman, pg 220-1

In spite of the constant claims that Luther is NOT “responsible” for the massively confused “landscape” that is Protestantism, Oberman (Reformed), makes it very clear that he is. The “certainty” that Luther held, which is also demonstrated by many Protestants, is a “certainty” that is not realistic. According to Oberman, that certainty does not exist.

Oberman makes it very clear. Luther is responsible for Sola Scriptura, and Sola Scriptura is responsible for a ‘multiplicity of explanations’.

I seriously doubt if anyone wants to speak to this Reformed Scholar quote, so Spina, I have a question I would like to ask you:

Do you think that Oberman is on the mark here or is it something much more ‘general’, meaning other than Luther which is responsible for the introduction of SS into Western Christianity?

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[spina1953]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

I agree. Confessional Protestants do not practice PI, that is until they decide to join the non-Confessional Protestants, which of course did not exist until the Reformation. It seems that Confessional Protestants are trying to hold the line doctrinally, but unfortunately, the origins of the Reformation are rooted in Private Interpretation. Reformed Scholar Oberman:

“In 1521 Luther had not been willing to recant before the emperor in Worms without factual refutation, but now his tone was even more strident, leaving no opportunity for a counterargument: “This is what the Scriptures teach…and so do I. Here I can yield to no one.” He goes on even more pointedly: “Whoever teaches otherwise denies Christ and faith.” So whoever contradicts the Reformer here rejects him totally. How inconceivably bold it was of Luther to venture such an assured, conclusive judgment on a problem the Greek philosophers and scholastic theologians before him – and many others after him – had tried in vain to solve. Who has ever succeeded in overcoming the basic conflict between God’s omnipotence and man’s freedom without opening an even greater abyss?** Luther’s answer is short but not immediately clear: the testimony of the Holy Scriptures is his legitimation. **

**For us in the twentieth century, his answer cannot be convincing, because application of the Reformation principal of sola scriptura, the Scriptures alone, has not brought the certainty he anticipated. **It has in fact been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretation that seem to render any dependence on the clarity of the Scriptures. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries post-Reformation Protestantism tried out many variants of “fundamentalism” to counter the trend, often declaring the letter of the Scriptures sacrosanct. But even desperate rescue missions cannot breath new life into a motto that was once so persuasive: as God truly became incarnate in Jesus, so His spirit became inerrant truth in the Holy Scriptures.” Oberman, pg 220-1

In spite of the constant claims that Luther is NOT “responsible” for the massively confused “landscape” that is Protestantism, Oberman (Reformed), makes it very clear that he is. The “certainty” that Luther held, which is also demonstrated by many Protestants, is a “certainty” that is not realistic. According to Oberman, that certainty does not exist.

Oberman makes it very clear. Luther is responsible for Sola Scriptura, and Sola Scriptura is responsible for a ‘multiplicity of explanations’.

I seriously doubt if anyone wants to speak to this Reformed Scholar quote, so Spina, I have a question I would like to ask you:

Do you think that Oberman is on the mark here or is it something much more ‘general’, meaning other than Luther which is responsible for the introduction of SS into Western Christianity?

God Bless You Spina, Topper

Hi Topper" I would like to also point out if I may that one of the many reasons as to why Luther and other Reformers were successful was due to nationalism. It was at this time that people were beginning to recognize themselves, identifying themselves in a nationalistic manor as opposed to being a part of the Holy Roman Empire. Also the various regional and city princes were looking for ways in which they could upset papal power in which they believed was threatening their own persona power.

So when Luther began to take on the Church, many of the various princes of the cities and regions saw an opportunity use Luther as a means by which they could break the power of the Church, otherwise Luther would not have been successful. This led to other reformers who saw that they to could break away from the Church with the approval of heir princes and in the case of England the King. Luther then, became a tool of he princes using Luther as a way and a means to break the power of the Church over them and increase their own power over the region and its people. One of the agreements if I remember correctly was that the princes could decide what religious beliefs the people were to have, Some decided on Catholicism while others decided that Lutheran would be the religion of the people. In time some of the regions went back to Catholicism while others stayed Lutheran.

 

[benjohnson]

Topper, these recent discussions with you have ben a joy.

Would you be more accepting of their errors if they were simply mistaken in their belief that they were following the ‘older interpretations’?

I’d certainly be more understanding, but I couldn’t accept their errors.

All that being said Ben, what do you think is the best way to reach them and show them that they are have gotten ‘off the beaten path’?

I don’t think we could effectively change their minds, but we could show them that we’re not at all hostile to God’s sinners. The best wat to reach them would be to renew our invitation for all of God’s sinners - that they could fine new life with Christ.

Do you think that they will be able to be ‘corrected’ from Scripture, or do you think that they will be just as interested in correcting YOU from Scripture? Or, do you think that it would be more compelling to show them, with actual historical facts, that their beliefs are novel and are not in keeping with the doctrines of the past?

Do you think that Private Interpretation plays into this problem, and if so, how do you combat it?

I don’t think this is just a Private Interpretation problem - but a larger problem of not binding the will to Christ.

Even presented with facts and correct interpretations, we would be confronted with a mind already made up to follow itself.

We see this in Lutheran circles - where the Confessions are ready and available, but people chose to ignore them.

And we see this in Catholic circles - where the Magisterium is clear, but the people pick and chose what to accept.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you too.