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

[hope]

@JohnNC I did scan that document. I did not see a discussion on abuses just general reference that there were abuses but not enumerated.

If steve-b is misrepresenting Luther, he is not the only one to do so. Warren Carroll has said many of the same things. It is my understanding that Luther added the words faith alone to scripture and that he wanted James removed because it contradicted that addition. Carroll also said that the problem with Luther was that he was scrupulous. I loaned his book out and the person lost it so I can’t check my accuracy. I do enjoy your post as I do steve-b’s.

 

[steve-b]

@JohnNC I did scan that document. I did not see a discussion on abuses just general reference that there were abuses but not enumerated.

If steve-b is misrepresenting Luther, he is not the only one to do so. Warren Carroll has said many of the same things. It is my understanding that Luther added the words faith alone to scripture and that he wanted James removed because it contradicted that addition.

True HERE

BY Faith alone does appear legitimately in scripture. The problem for Luther, NOT is in front of it

 

[JonNC]

Purgatory is doctrine.

For those in communion with the pope.

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.

I am. You are promoting your own interpretation of that, it appears.

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.

Nonsense. There was scripture as early as the time of Moses.

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.

Except that you misrepresented his views. This is something you do on a regular basis. It is as uncharitable as this who misrepresent Catholic teaching, Steve.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Purgatory is doctrine.

For those in communion with the pope.

Of course. And Good point.

And to your point. Those NOT in union with Peter aren’t in Our Lord’s Church. They also don’t follow Jesus prayer

Jn 17:20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

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.

JonNC:

I am. You are promoting your own interpretation of that, it appears.

It appears you have no answer

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.

JonNC:

Nonsense. There was scripture as early as the time of Moses.

I said “bible”.

And as an aside,

Do you honestly think every body in the OT and NT before the printing press, walked around with a pile of scrolls?

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.

JonNC:

Except that you misrepresented his views. This is something you do on a regular basis. It is as uncharitable as this who misrepresent Catholic teaching, Steve.

He was excommunicated. I gave you a list of his errors in a Church doc and his excommunication doc.

• his own writings all properly referenced . No misrepresentation at all.

 

[JonNC]

@JohnNC I did scan that document. I did not see a discussion on abuses just general reference that there were abuses but not enumerated.

Jon without the “h”. It is no big deal except I won’t get a notification of your post.
It’s there.

If steve-b is misrepresenting Luther, he is not the only one to do so. Warren Carroll has said many of the same things. It is my understanding that Luther added the words faith alone to scripture and that he wanted James removed because it contradicted that addition. Carroll also said that the problem with Luther was that he was scrupulous. I loaned his book out and the person lost it so I can’t check my accuracy. I do enjoy your post as I do steve-b’s.

Luther’s clearly explains his reasons for the way he translated Romans 3:28.
In part:

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [ klar und gewaltiglich ], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.
In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add allein in order that nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words " kein money" do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a completely clear German expression.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther01.html

As for Luther wanting to remove James, I often hear that, but have never seen a quote where he says this. He did include it. His commentary on it starts with praise for it.
Finally, I’ve said over and over that I do not completely agree with Luther’s evaluations of certain books. I’m allowed to, just like all Catholics were prior to Trent. So my involvement in these threads is to counter misrepresentions and misunderstandings

I love Steve. He is a steadfast defender of the faith of Catholicism in communion with the pope. I highly respect and admire him.

 

[JonNC]

And to your point. Those NOT in union with Peter aren’t in Our Lord’s Church. They also don’t follow Jesus prayer

All of us are in communion with all of the apostles.

 

[hope]

Jon without the “h”. It is no big deal except I won’t get a notification of your post.
It’s there.

So sorry trying to type with grandchildren underfoot is a challenge. Something strange also happened as I replied to your post and a message popped up asking what thread I was responding to.

Luther’s clearly explains his reasons for the way he translated Romans 3:28.
thank you the use of papist does reveal much about him. His reasoning transferred to the English bible?

It was my understanding that he included James because there was such a backlash against his wanting not to include it. I am glad for your participation. I love how you are respectful and your knowledge.

 

[hope]

I agree with you. I believe that this is the Church;s position although I think it is called an imperfect communion. ?

 

[JonNC]

It was my understanding that he included James because there was such a backlash against his wanting not to include it. I am glad for your participation. I love how you are respectful and your knowledge.

I’ve never seen any evidence of such. I’ve heard it a lot, but he did translate the NT essentially by himself and in hiding as I recall. I’m not sure how others may have influenced him in hiding.

https://www.luther.de/en/wartburg.html

 

[hope]

I have found other websites stating quotes from Luther saying it is “epistle of straw” without documentation. If I ever find such I will post it. Thanks

 

[JonNC]

I have found other websites stating quotes from Luther saying it is “epistle of straw” without documentation. If I ever find such I will post it. Thanks

Here is the actual quote:

“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.”

Luther is making a comparison based on his theological belief, often called his “theology of the cross”.
James drives the law, in Luther’s view There is nothing wrong with that, and Luther acknowledges that at the beginning of his commentary on the book.
One can see from the context of the comment, Luther is not talking about whether or not James should be in the Bible. He is comparing which books teach the Gospel in his view.

So, again, I still have not seen evidence that Luther wanted to throw St James out of the Bible.

 

[JonNC]

I agree with you. I believe that this is the Church;s position although I think it is called an imperfect communion. ?

I am very respectful of the Vatican view, even when I disagree.

 

[JonNC]

I said “bible”.

And as an aside,

Do you honestly think every body in the OT and NT before the printing press, walked around with a pile of scrolls?

What is the Bible but a collection of scripture?
Of course not. People went to the temple where scripture was read. Later, they went to mass where scripture was read. In many places icons and stained glass helped teach the scripture.

He was excommunicated. I gave you a list of his errors in a Church doc and his excommunication doc.

• his own writings all properly referenced . No misrepresentation at all.

I pointed out a number of errors on your part , starting with your attempt to link another poster’s belief in a symbolic presence only in the Eucharist to Luther.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

And to your point. Those NOT in union with Peter aren’t in Our Lord’s Church. They also don’t follow Jesus prayer

All of us are in communion with all of the apostles.

Jon,

That idea ignores the massive separation that exists among the separated from the apostolic faith, but as you point out, it is an idea in vogue among the separated… What comes to mind, are the terms indifferentism / relativism / latitudinarianism

Such as the idea that

Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.

 

[steve-b]

I pointed out a number of errors on your part , starting with your attempt to link another poster’s belief in a symbolic presence only in the Eucharist to Luther.

All of Protestantism uses Luther’s main “alones” in their exegesis… The other poster was using those alones as well, for his argument, probably not realizing it doesn’t come from scripture, it came from Luther.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

That idea ignores the massive separation that exists among the separated from the apostolic faith, but as you point out, it is an idea in vogue among the separated… What comes to mind, are the terms indifferentism / relativism / latitudinarianism

No, it doesn’t. It recognizes the existence of one True Church while recognizing the sinful differences between its members-all of them. No triumphalism involved. No indifferentism because it is not a statement that claims this is an okay situation, nor dies it claim all views are valid.

Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.

There is no such thing as Protestantism. So, no, this is incorrect. I don’t believe Calvinism, for example, is “the same true Christian religion “ anymore than you do. That doesn’t deny they are Christians. As to their salvation, theirs, just like yours and mine, are determined by God.

 

[JonNC]

All of Protestantism uses Luther’s main “alones” in their exegesis… The other poster was using those alones as well, for his argument, probably not realizing it doesn’t come from scripture, it came from Luther.

Define who you mean by Protestant. Are Anglicans? Some of them do and some don’t.
What do individual communions mean by the “solas”? If they mean something different than the Evangelical Catholics of whom Luther was a part, then no, it is not the same.
So, be specific: identify which communions practice the principle of sola scriptura in the same way Lutheranism does, and please provide sources. Same with sola Fide.
If you can’t, then please stop the polemics.

 

[steve-b]

So, again, I still have not seen evidence that Luther wanted to throw St James out of the Bible.

Re: Luther and the Book of James

Excerpt Luther’s (preface) to James and Jude, showing his attitude

“Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.”

From: American edition of Luther’s Works, vol 35 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), pp. 395-399 .

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jon,

That idea ignores the massive separation that exists among the separated from the apostolic faith, but as you point out, it is an idea in vogue among the separated… What comes to mind, are the terms indifferentism / relativism / latitudinarianism

No, it doesn’t. It recognizes the existence of one True Church while recognizing the sinful differences between its members-all of them. No triumphalism involved. No indifferentism because it is not a statement that claims this is an okay situation, nor dies it claim all views are valid.

Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.

There is no such thing as Protestantism. So, no, this is incorrect. I don’t believe Calvinism, for example, is “the same true Christian religion “ anymore than you do. That doesn’t deny they are Christians. As to their salvation, theirs, just like yours and mine, are determined by God.

This ignores the reality of known truth, and those who fall into schism, heresy, etc etc.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

So, again, I still have not seen evidence that Luther wanted to throw St James out of the Bible.

Re: Luther and the Book of James

Excerpt Luther’s (preface) to James and Jude, showing his attitude

“Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.”

From: American edition of Luther’s Works, vol 35 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), pp. 395-399 .

Among the chief books. Again, he is speaking comparatively. Again, Luther’s theology focuses on grace, on the cross.
He finishes by saying he would not prevent others from valuing it highly.
Only someone with an axe to grind against Luther would misinterpret this into him not wanting to include it.