E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
**You blatantly mislead and offend. I am asking the forum moderators to caution you! **
- Status
T
Topper17
Guest
There is no intent to mislead or offend. If you are offended, I am sorry. But I would also like to know what it is that you consider to be misleading. Could you be specific? If anything I have said is factually incorrect, I would be happy to be corrected.
God Bless You EV, Topper
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Topper,
I have some very strong Lutheran tendencies (I like beer and I am disgruntled at times
).In fact, one of my favorite theologians (That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says) is a Lutheran Pastor - Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
In his dissertation Sanctorum Communio, Bonhoeffer writes:
I think we err when we look at percentages or the size of the denomination. In fact, we are to value every single individual, regardless of denomination or size of membership.
I value a lot of what our LCMS brothers have to say because they stand close to us on many things. They wrote some things in the heat of the moment and so did we. Do I think they are right? No (sorry guys, I have to punch it in
).Do all of them practice the same things? No. But neither do we to an extent, really. We just have an authority to hold everyone accountable. And we are more consistent. But we have liberal groups and we have conservative groups, just like they do. But, again, we do have an authority.
Looking at what Bonhoeffer said above, I can’t help but think of our own great saints that cared so much about others.
As for the Sola Scriptura… No, I think they are Prima Scriptura but they don’t know it yet.
T
Topper17
Guest
GotchaTopper,
I have some very strong Lutheran tendencies (I like beer and I am disgruntled at times
I agree – a real man of God in an extremely tough era. Eric Metaxas’s biography is excellent.
Of course we are to value each individual, but can also lead to inequities. As an example, the “right of the individual to personally interpret Scripture” has – well – not turned out all that well. In fact the sizes of the various communions would be important if influence at a hoped for Ecumenical Council would be proportional to denomination size – and how could it not be?
As I have said here many times, the thing I appreciate about Lutherans is that they think doctrine is important. Those groups who are more like “I’m ok, you’re ok,” are not so much my cup of tea. Lutherans, like Luther think that doctrine is worth fighting for. I get that.I value a lot of what our LCMS brothers have to say because they stand close to us on many things. They wrote some things in the heat of the moment and so did we. Do I think they are right? No (sorry guys, I have to punch it in
Do all of them practice the same things? No. But neither do we to an extent, really. We just have an authority to hold everyone accountable. And we are more consistent. But we have liberal groups and we have conservative groups, just like they do. But, again, we do have an authority.
It’s too bad that Lutherans don’t have saints because he would definitely be one.
I know, I don’t think any Protestant denominations are really Sola Scriptura. They ALL ‘add something’. In Luther’s case and in later Lutheranism, what was added was, in this rough order, Luther, Luther’s writings, the Confessons, and of course Lutehrs writings still. With all of this there was and is a tremendous opportunity to conflicting interpretations.As for the Sola Scriptura… No, I think they are Prima Scriptura but they don’t know it yet.
God Bless You, Isaiah, Topper
S
steido01
Guest
You ask how you offend. This is how. Lutherans do not, and never have, granted any “right of the individual to personally interpret Scripture.” We have no more right to do this than you; we are bound to our Communions’ teachings. It’s one thing to disagree, as Jose and Jon demonstrate with great charity. It is another to mischaracterize another’s belief.
Then why not believe us when we explain our doctrine? Why attempt to tell us (wrongly!) what we believe?
Another blatant lie. The Saints Triumphant are praying for us constantly, and our Confessions state as much. We commemorate them throughout the church year: http://www.lcms.org/page.aspx?pid=435#.UxLNlV2kt08.mailto
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Return to the topic of the OP above
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
General note:
Hot Topic for the week of 3/3.
Please remain on topic.
Hot Topic for the week of 3/3.
Please remain on topic.
A
Adamski
Guest
Pretty straight forward their is a 1500+ year gap before a Protestant church started or sola scriptoria was believed heck sola scriptoria is impossible from 33ad until 95ad because the last book of the New Testament east written until 95 ad
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Adam,
Thanks for hitting the 'Reset Button). Hopefully we can stay on task now.
“Lutherans do not, and never have, granted any ‘right of the individual to personally interpret Scripture.’”
That statement is false. Where did this doctrine supposedly come from if not from the #1 Lutheran, Martin Luther?
“Two of the great legacies of the Reformation were the principal of private interpretation and the translation of the Bible into the vernacular. The two principals go hand in hand and were accomplished only after great controversy and persecution. Scores of persons paid with their lives by being burned at the stake (particularly in England) for daring to translate the bible into the vernacular. One of Luther’s greatest achievements was a translation of the Bible into German so that any literate person could read it for himself.
It was Luther himself who brought the issue of private interpretation of the Bible into sharp focus in the sixteenth century. Hidden beneath the famous response of the Reformer to the ecclesiastical and imperial authorities at the Diet of Worms was the implicit principal of private interpretation.
When asked to recant of his writings, Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by Sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.” Notice that Luther said “unless I am convinced…….” In earlier debates at Leipzig and Augsburg, Luther had dared to presume to interpret Scripture contrary to interpretations rendered by Popes and by church councils. That he would be so presumptuous led to the repeated charge of arrogance by church officials. Luther did not take these charges lightly but agonized over them. He believed that he could be wrong but maintained that the Pope and councils could also err. For him only one source of truth was free from error. He said, “The Scriptures never err.” Thus, unless the leaders of the church could convince him of his error, he felt duty-bound to follow what his own conscience was convinced Scripture taught. With this controversy the principal of private interpretation was born and baptized with fire.” R.C. Sproul, (Protestant Theologian) “Knowing Scripture”, pg. 33-4
“When through his translation Luther placed the Bible into the hands of every Christian, he was convinced that the principal of private judgment is correct.” Henry Linderman, (Lutheran Ph.D.), “Martin Luther, Man of God”, pg 46.
Luther, when he first rebelled against the Church, firmly believed in Private Interpretation, but then, after he had seen the “results”, (results that he had been warned against), meaning that other people were using it to come to VERY different conclusions (after his excommunication), he gradually retraced his steps, but not back to believing in the Church as being authoritative, but believing in himself as being ultimately authoritative. Rather than believing in Church Councils and Bishops of Rome as having the authority to Teach God’s Word, he came to believe that he was the one who did.
Luther’s doctrine of Private Interpretation was a HUGE dislocation in Christian teaching. The early Church Fathers knew better, and so did Luther’s Catholic contemporaries.
God Bless You Adam, Topper
Thanks for hitting the 'Reset Button). Hopefully we can stay on task now.
It’s not just Sola Scriptura, but even worse, the ‘doctrine’ of the ‘right of the individual to (correctly) interpret Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That of course was never taught as a Christian doctrine in the first 1500 years of Christianity. It as been stated here on this thread that:
“Lutherans do not, and never have, granted any ‘right of the individual to personally interpret Scripture.’”
That statement is false. Where did this doctrine supposedly come from if not from the #1 Lutheran, Martin Luther?
“Two of the great legacies of the Reformation were the principal of private interpretation and the translation of the Bible into the vernacular. The two principals go hand in hand and were accomplished only after great controversy and persecution. Scores of persons paid with their lives by being burned at the stake (particularly in England) for daring to translate the bible into the vernacular. One of Luther’s greatest achievements was a translation of the Bible into German so that any literate person could read it for himself.
It was Luther himself who brought the issue of private interpretation of the Bible into sharp focus in the sixteenth century. Hidden beneath the famous response of the Reformer to the ecclesiastical and imperial authorities at the Diet of Worms was the implicit principal of private interpretation.
When asked to recant of his writings, Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by Sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.” Notice that Luther said “unless I am convinced…….” In earlier debates at Leipzig and Augsburg, Luther had dared to presume to interpret Scripture contrary to interpretations rendered by Popes and by church councils. That he would be so presumptuous led to the repeated charge of arrogance by church officials. Luther did not take these charges lightly but agonized over them. He believed that he could be wrong but maintained that the Pope and councils could also err. For him only one source of truth was free from error. He said, “The Scriptures never err.” Thus, unless the leaders of the church could convince him of his error, he felt duty-bound to follow what his own conscience was convinced Scripture taught. With this controversy the principal of private interpretation was born and baptized with fire.” R.C. Sproul, (Protestant Theologian) “Knowing Scripture”, pg. 33-4
“When through his translation Luther placed the Bible into the hands of every Christian, he was convinced that the principal of private judgment is correct.” Henry Linderman, (Lutheran Ph.D.), “Martin Luther, Man of God”, pg 46.
Luther, when he first rebelled against the Church, firmly believed in Private Interpretation, but then, after he had seen the “results”, (results that he had been warned against), meaning that other people were using it to come to VERY different conclusions (after his excommunication), he gradually retraced his steps, but not back to believing in the Church as being authoritative, but believing in himself as being ultimately authoritative. Rather than believing in Church Councils and Bishops of Rome as having the authority to Teach God’s Word, he came to believe that he was the one who did.
Luther’s doctrine of Private Interpretation was a HUGE dislocation in Christian teaching. The early Church Fathers knew better, and so did Luther’s Catholic contemporaries.
God Bless You Adam, Topper
B
benjohnson
Guest
If you consider Sola Scriptura to be “me and my bible,” then I’d agree.
Of course, being Lutheran, that’s not our definition regardless of the long-winded attemps of one particular poster here.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
On the topic of Scripture and Tradition the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue make it quite clear what the position is between both Communions
S
steido01
Guest
:sad_yes:
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Ben,
I respect your definition and in a way it is what frustrates me so much - such an important concept should not have many definitions.
Still, a particular definition does not negate the fact that the concept was absent for 1,500 years.
A
Adamski
Guest
Yes, I really wish we could get a ex or current me and my bible American baptist/ non denominational person. Because talking to conservative Lutherans really the gap is small and I do understand they recognize tradition to an extent
B
benjohnson
Guest
I understand… the entire idea should be unnecessary with Scripture and Tradition complementing each other and not ever in tension.
In a way ‘Sola Scripture’ reminds me of ‘Transubstantiation’ - both concepts were codified in response to bad doctrine or practice.
D
dronald
Guest
Hey; how’s it goin?
S
Stilldreamn
Guest
We have a comfy foxhole over here if you need it.
B
Buddyroe
Guest
OK here goes:
Central to protestant theology (almost all denominations) is sola scriptura (SS), the principal that the Bible is not only the basis for Christian faith but also the guide to Christian living (providing comfort, rules, devotions). Bishops, priests, pastors, teachers, missionaries are all subordinate to the Bible. SS recognizes the essential role the early (even Catholic) Church performed in not just compiling SS but preserving it as well. We have in addition to SS the records of communication of the early Church fathers to better understand how they did this and what their thoughts were. Since God inspired (verbal plenary) the authorship likewise the recoding and preservation comes from God (authority of Father, Jesus ‘The Word’, and the Holy Ghost). The Bible speaks for itself:
2 Timothy 3:16–3:17: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works
Once codified SS became axiomatic and no longer open to change. What remains is for any reader to properly understand what God has delivered which is no small task. To that end we are all responsible to employ good hermeneutics and it is a good idea to employ it daily so as to not weaken the skill. While there are many schools of hermeneutical thought, the basics should employ:
- Always have the verse read out (exegesis) its own meaning, the opposite reading in (eisegesis) is not permissible.
- Text must be understood in full context, often single words or even verses are not enough.
- Search for added context using complimentary passages e.g. the synoptic gospels and OT quotes made in NT.
- Research the original language and culture of the text, usually Koine Greek or Aramaic.
Learn how the people lived and how their culture influenced their thoughts and actions.
Our own culture is important to us but using it to judge ancient culture is a serious pitfall, very similar to eisegesis. - Understand that the Bible is not just rules and doctrines but also history and devotion.
T
teresa_lamb
Guest
I just watched a show (previously recorded from EWTN) that says…Although many believe that the first vernacular translation of the Bible was Luther’s German translation, or perhaps the King James version in English, the truth of the matter is that there were some 200 Catholic Bible Editions in the vernacular before the first Protestant version ever appeared! There were 21 in German alone, when Martin Luther published his version in 1522…
I always thought Luther was the first to translate the bible in German…guess I was wrong.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
In regards to 2 Tim 3:16, I replied on another thread:
Let’s look at that entire paragraph:
2 Tim 3:10 Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Ico′nium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and[a] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,* 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
**
Paul says:
*]You have observed my teaching.
*]**Continue **in what you have learned.
*]**Knowing **from **whom **you learned.
It then says:
Scriptures are profitable. **Not **the **sole **and **single **authority, not that it is exclusive, but that they are **profitable **to maintain teaching, learning — and more importantly: from whom you learned!
So, who teaches Scriptures in a wrong way should be **avoided **and this bad teacher destroys any profitability that the Scriptures offer.
And how do you know from **whom **you should learn?
1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Paul clearly understands where to go for the truth. Alas, we should as well. And the Church is one, not many.*
- Status