How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

[Darryl_B]

When a man loves a woman, sometimes he might just go and mow her lawn, cut her hedge, cook her breakfast in bed, run her a bath and place bubbles therein, buy her chocolates, surround her with flowers. He might even climb the steps to her doorway so he can knock on the door and have her answer.

So why do you have to be so flamin bland.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

when I said that to @ReadTheBible I was talking about all of his anti Catholic rhetoric he has been printing.

Take note I have defended nothing @ReadTheBible has said. I don’t defend anti-Catholic rhetoric anymore than I appreciate anti-Luther rhetoric.

Speaking of which:

And it’s a bit rich Jon, for Luther to pick and choose which scripture he will follow and which scripture he won’t when he personally demoted 7 OT scriptural books to non scripture status in his bible, and had huge problems and almost removing Hebrews, and James, (calling it an epistle of straw) Jude, and Revelations, saying John couldn’t have written it.

Proof, please, that his transition omitted any other these.

I said he demoted 7 scriptural books to non scripture status. In effect he removed 7 canonical books from scripture.

As in

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” KJV quoting Luther

IOW he demoted these 7 canonical books to apocryphal ( ≠ scripture ) status
1 & 2 Maccabees
Tobit
Sirach
Wisdom
Baruch
Judith

 

[JonNC]

I said he demoted 7 scriptural books to non scripture status. In effect he removed 7 canonical books from scripture.

As in

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” KJV quoting Luther

IOW he demoted these 7 canonical books to apocryphal ( ≠ scripture ) status
1 & 2 Maccabees
Tobit
Sirach
Wisdom
Baruch
Judith

Which, as you know, was an opinion held by others, but you choose only to bash Luther for.
So, please do not complain about the clear anti-Catholic rhetoric you see from others.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

And you said you didn’t trust nor use 3rd party sources for information

That’s not what I said at all. I said in our discussion about biblical scripture I only used scripture as my source not external sites as you did.

You discounted the Catholic Church that has been here for 2000 yrs.

Unlike you who can’t claim apostolic lineage, I OTOH, can apply what Paul said

2 Thes 2:15
Therefore , brothers, stand firm στήκετε and hold to the traditions παραδόσεις were taught, either by our message (oral word) λόγου statement or by our letter. epistle ἐπιστολῆς

Note: stand firm and hold to BOTH oral and written traditions, Neither tradition is to be taken "alone"

It is NOT by letter alone. Not by word of mouth alone. It’s both are to be held to. And that lineage talked about comes through apostolic succession.

Do you understand that point? Scripture alone was one of Luther’s rallying cries. Along with his faith alone teaching, which is contradicted by James HERE Earning James the title epistle of straw by Luther.

YOU espouse both those alones.

ReadTheBible:

Defining the word catholic, and using a independent source, is far different than you using 3rd party sources which are established, owned, or ran by Catholicism itself. I’m sure you can see the difference.

Hopefully you see what I mean now when I quote from Catholic Church sources. It’s what Paul teaches

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I said he demoted 7 scriptural books to non scripture status. In effect he removed 7 canonical books from scripture.

As in

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” KJV quoting Luther

IOW he demoted these 7 canonical books to apocryphal ( ≠ scripture ) status
1 & 2 Maccabees
Tobit
Sirach
Wisdom
Baruch
Judith

Which, as you know, was an opinion held by others, but you choose only to bash Luther for.
So, please do not complain about the clear anti-Catholic rhetoric you see from others.

It was more than Luther’s opinion. I quoted him. And He did what he espoused. That is NOT rhetoric. And since one of those books came up in praying for the dead with another poster on this thread, it is more than appropriate to show that person some history of why he is wrong as well.

 

[JonNC]

It was more than Luther’s opinion. I quoted him. And He did what he espoused. That is NOT rhetoric.

It is rhetorical when you apply a double standard. Others held the same view, and yet you do not apply the same condemnation.

And since one of those books came up in praying for the dead with another poster on this thread, it is more than appropriate to show that person some history of why he is wrong as well.

Luther did not condemn prayers for the dead. I, too, believe he was wrong in his evaluation of the DC’s.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It was more than Luther’s opinion. I quoted him. And He did what he espoused. That is NOT rhetoric.

It is rhetorical when you apply a double standard. Others held the same view, and yet you do not apply the same condemnation.

I addressed accurately both Jerome and Cajetan. Where is the hypocrisy

And since one of those books came up in praying for the dead with another poster on this thread, it is more than appropriate to show that person some history of why he is wrong as well.

JonNC:

Luther did not condemn prayers for the dead. I, too, believe he was wrong in his evaluation of the DC’s.

Did Luther accept purgatory? Seems I read he rejected it. Thus If someone is in heaven no prayers are needed. If a soul is in hell prayers do no good. Prayers for the dead help a soul if in purgatory.

 

[JonNC]

d Luther accept purgatory? Seems I read he rejected it. Thus If someone is in heaven no prayers are needed. If a soul is in hell prayers do no good. Prayers for the dead help a soul if in purgatory.

Luther rejected the corrupt practices that developed around Purgatory.
Cr. Ratzinger/Pope Benedict describes Purgatory as “momentary “.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...ous/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

I find it instructive to read what theologians say, instead of apologists in both sides, who are often mired in oneupmanship and occasionally just outright dislike.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

d Luther accept purgatory? Seems I read he rejected it. Thus If someone is in heaven no prayers are needed. If a soul is in hell prayers do no good. Prayers for the dead help a soul if in purgatory.

Luther rejected the corrupt practices that developed around Purgatory.
Cr. Ratzinger/Pope Benedict describes Purgatory as “momentary “.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...ous/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

I find it instructive to read what theologians say, instead of apologists in both sides, who are often mired in oneupmanship and occasionally just outright dislike.

Don’t read too much into “momentary”.

The transforming ‘moment’ of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning …

This takes place outside of time where there is no time. If Peter can use the analogy of a “day” to God is like a thousand years, HERE then you can see what a moment is to God.

 

[JonNC]

I addressed accurately both Jerome and Cajetan. Where is the hypocrisy

I didn’t say hypocrisy. I said double standard.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I addressed accurately both Jerome and Cajetan. Where is the hypocrisy

I didn’t say hypocrisy. I said double standard.

OK. then where is the double standard?

 

[JonNC]

Don’t read too much into “momentary”.

The transforming ‘moment’ of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning …

Exactly, hence the appropriate nature of prayers for the dead, even if one doesn’t abide by the old idea that Purgatory last a certain amount of time, shortened by the prayers of loved ones and indulgences

This takes place outside of time where there is no time. If Peter can use the analogy of a “day” to God is like a thousand years, HERE then you can see what a moment is to God.

Proving my point above.

But that isn’t the point. Linking Luther ‘s view of 2Macc, much less the other six books, to a perceived questioning of prayers for the dead is, again, factually false.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Don’t read too much into “momentary”.

The transforming ‘moment’ of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning …

Exactly, hence the appropriate nature of prayers for the dead, even if one doesn’t abide by the old idea that Purgatory last a certain amount of time, shortened by the prayers of loved ones and indulgences

This takes place outside of time where there is no time. If Peter can use the analogy of a “day” to God is like a thousand years, HERE then you can see what a moment is to God.

Proving my point above.

But that isn’t the point. Linking Luther ‘s view of 2Macc, much less the other six books, to a perceived questioning of prayers for the dead is, again, factually false.

You wiggled out of answering the points being asked.

Did Luther believe in purgatory or not? If he didn’t, then why would he believe in praying for the dead? I’m asking you an EX Lutheran, did Luther believe in purgatory?

Purgatory has never been a complicated understanding, regardless of how “some” might portray it.

AND

the one I was talking to, didn’t have 2 Macc in his bible. A consequence of Luther.

 

[JonNC]

You wiggled out of answering the points being asked.

Did Luther believe in purgatory or not? If he didn’t, then why would he believe in praying for the dead? I’m asking you as an EX Lutheran, did Luther believe in purgatory?

I didn’t wiggle out of anything. I said Luther’s view of Purgatory was influenced by the corrupt practices that surrounded it.
He said so.

1. The most explicit discussion of purgatory in the Confessions comes in the 1537 Smalcald Articles, II, 2, which addressed the mass as sacrifice. Besides being itself a violation of the Gospel, the mass as sacrifice “has produced many noxious maggots and the excrement of various idolatries” (§11), the first of which is purgatory. Purgatory, “with all its pomp, requiem Masses, and transactions, is to be regarded as an apparition of the devil for it obscures the chief article…” (§12). Behind Luther’s typically extreme language, however, a more nuanced understanding is elaborated. “Concerning the dead we have received neither command nor instruction. For these reasons, it may be best to abandon it [ derhalben man es mocht wohl lassen** ], even if it were neither error nor idolatry” (§12). In a revised version of the article, Luther added a discussion of the authority of Augustine claimed for the doctrine. “When they have given up their purgatorial ‘Mass fairs’ (something Augustine never dreamed of), then we will discuss with them whether St. Augustine’s word, lacking support from Scripture, may be tolerated and whether the dead may be commemorated at the sacrament. It will not do to formulate articles of faith on the basis of the holy Fathers’ works or words” (§14f). The existence of purgatory is not dogmatically denied. Rather, 1) the existence of purgatory is not taught by Scripture and thus cannot be binding doctrine, and 2) belief in purgatory is now hopelessly bound up with unacceptable practices. A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations.

Highlight is mine.

Purgatory has never been a complicated understanding, regardless of how “some” might portray it.

Purgatory is not, but the issues surrounding it are. Expressed as modern theologians do, it does not do the Gospel harm, in my view. The linked document describes quite a convergence of views.

the one I was talking to, didn’t have 2 Macc in his bible. A consequence of Luther.

Gotcha. Luther included 2Macc so it makes senator blame Luther for those who don’t.

 

[steve-b]

You wiggled out of answering the points being asked.

Did Luther believe in purgatory or not? If he didn’t, then why would he believe in praying for the dead? I’m asking you as an EX Lutheran, did Luther believe in purgatory?

JonNC:

I didn’t wiggle out of anything. I said Luther’s view of Purgatory was influenced by the corrupt practices that surrounded it.
He said so.

1. The most explicit discussion of purgatory in the Confessions comes in the 1537 Smalcald Articles, II, 2, which addressed the mass as sacrifice. Besides being itself a violation of the Gospel, the mass as sacrifice “has produced many noxious maggots and the excrement of various idolatries” (§11), the first of which is purgatory. Purgatory, “with all its pomp, requiem Masses, and transactions, is to be regarded as an apparition of the devil for it obscures the chief article…” (§12). Behind Luther’s typically extreme language, however, a more nuanced understanding is elaborated. “Concerning the dead we have received neither command nor instruction. For these reasons, it may be best to abandon it [ derhalben man es mocht wohl lassen** ], even if it were neither error nor idolatry” (§12). In a revised version of the article, Luther added a discussion of the authority of Augustine claimed for the doctrine. “When they have given up their purgatorial ‘Mass fairs’ (something Augustine never dreamed of), then we will discuss with them whether St. Augustine’s word, lacking support from Scripture, may be tolerated and whether the dead may be commemorated at the sacrament. It will not do to formulate articles of faith on the basis of the holy Fathers’ works or words” (§14f). The existence of purgatory is not dogmatically denied. Rather, 1) the existence of purgatory is not taught by Scripture and thus cannot be binding doctrine, and 2) belief in purgatory is now hopelessly bound up with unacceptable practices. A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations.

Highlight is mine.

IOW he didn’t believe in it. Because he thought scripture didn’t teach it

So

Since Luther invented scripture alone, as HIS sole source of truth,

And Paul contradicted that belief

2 Thes 2:15
Therefore , brothers, stand firm στήκετε and hold to the traditions παραδόσεις were taught, either by our message (oral word) λόγου statement or by our letter. epistle ἐπιστολῆς

So Neither oral NOR written tradition is to be taken "alone"

We are to hold to, and stand firm to… BOTH.

AND

Then his faith alone , contradicted James HERE Earning James the title epistle of straw by Luther.

It’s interesting, using Scripture alone, it contradicts both his rallying cries sola scriptura, and sola fide.

 

[hope]

Luther rejected the corrupt practices that developed around Purgatory.

Would you please give more information on what corrupt practices there were. I thought that the only one was the supposed selling of indulgences. A practice which was mostly misunderstood. An indulgence was gained by donating money. The donation was considered a charity. It was that not the money itself that gained the indulgence. Such a practice could indeed lead to misuse and misunderstanding. A little like donations today reduce our taxes. I would hope that people donate not because there is a tax break but a genuine desire to support the Church. I think that is what is was like in that time. They did not donate for the right intention. I did not know that there were other abuses that was of concern. The fact that there are still misconceptions is not surprising as the way it is taught in school is not accurate. The teachers often have their own prejudice and those who write the text books do not understand. To my knowledge,l no one tries to correct their misstatements.

 

[JonNC]

IOW he didn’t believe in it. Because he thought scripture didn’t teach it

Not what he said, is it. He said it cannot be held as an article of faith, based on the words of the Fathers. Catholics teach exactly the same thing.

2 Thes 2:15
Therefore , brothers, stand firm στήκετε and hold to the traditions παραδόσεις were taught, either by our message (oral word) λόγου statement or by our letter. epistle ἐπιστολῆς

You are clearly misinterpreting Catholic teaching here, ISTM. Are you proclaiming the words of the Fathers as equal to scripture?

Then his faith alone , contradicted James HERE Earning James the title epistle of straw by Luther.

It’s interesting, using Scripture alone, it contradicts both his rallying cries sola scriptura, and sola fide.

Only in your misinterpretation.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Luther rejected the corrupt practices that developed around Purgatory.

Would you please give more information on what corrupt practices there were. I thought that the only one was the supposed selling of indulgences. A practice which was mostly misunderstood. An indulgence was gained by donating money. The donation was considered a charity. It was that not the money itself that gained the indulgence. Such a practice could indeed lead to misuse and misunderstanding. A little like donations today reduce our taxes. I would hope that people donate not because there is a tax break but a genuine desire to support the Church. I think that is what is was like in that time. They did not donate for the right intention. I did not know that there were other abuses that was of concern. The fact that there are still misconceptions is not surprising as the way it is taught in school is not accurate. The teachers often have their own prejudice and those who write the text books do not understand. To my knowledge,l no one tries to correct their misstatements.

I previously provided a link to a joint Lutheran/Catholic document on the topic.

 

[JonNC]

Then his faith alone , contradicted James HERE Earning James the title epistle of straw by Luther.

Here again, you misquote/ misrepresent Luther. It is becoming a consistency on your part.

 

[steve-b]

IOW he didn’t believe in it. Because he thought scripture didn’t teach it

JonNC:

Not what he said, is it. He said it cannot be held as an article of faith, based on the words of the Fathers. Catholics teach exactly the same thing.

Purgatory is doctrine.

2 Thes 2:15
Therefore , brothers, stand firm στήκετε and hold to the traditions παραδόσεις were taught, either by our message (oral word) λόγου statement or by our letter. epistle ἐπιστολῆς

JonNC:

You are clearly misinterpreting Catholic teaching here, ISTM. Are you proclaiming the words of the Fathers as equal to scripture?

No. If you look at what the Church teaches, as articles of faith, and sources of authority, It is Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching Magisterium of the Church.

Historically speaking, there was no “bible” for almost 400 yrs. And even at that, it’s NOT like bibles were siting there to be handed out to everybody who wanted one.

Then his faith alone , contradicted James HERE Earning James the title epistle of straw by Luther.

It’s interesting, using Scripture alone, it contradicts both his rallying cries sola scriptura, and sola fide.

JonNC:

Only in your misinterpretation.

as far as I know, unless you know differently, Luther maintained his errors without changing, till the end,. Meaning , all that got him excommunicated, in 1521, remained with him till death.