Acts 5:29. Rejecting Church doctrine that is not in accord with what Christ handed down is not a rejection of the authority of Christ, but upholding Christ’s authority rather than man’s authority.…and therefore, they rejected the authority which was identified by Christ. You can claim “abuse of authority”, but there’s no way to escape “rejection of authority given by Christ”.
Now that’s hubris! You’re saying that the Reformers rejected the successor of Peter, who had a proxy of authority from Christ himself, and decided that they, as men, knew God’s will better than he?Gorgias:
Acts 5:29. Rejecting Church doctrine that is not in accord with what Christ handed down is not a rejection of the authority of Christ, but upholding Christ’s authority rather than man’s authority.…and therefore, they rejected the authority which was identified by Christ. You can claim “abuse of authority”, but there’s no way to escape “rejection of authority given by Christ”.
Yeah, Luther was actually a trained theologian. Leo X was not. Luther performed exegesis of the relevant texts, Leo refused to engage the scriptures in his response. Of the two of them, it was Luther who was actually passing down what the apostles had handed down to the Church with regard to justification by faith. So yeah, I am comfortable with that answer.Now that’s hubris! You’re saying that the Reformers rejected the successor of Peter, who had a proxy of authority from Christ himself , and decided that they, as men, knew God’s will better than he?
Good luck with that one.
Leo X was actually part of the magisterium. Luther was not.
Luther provided an exegesis that contradicted the settled doctrine of the Church whom he promised to serve and obey. And refused to stand down when asked to do so.
Except that… it wasn’t. It was novel, and it contradicted 1500 years of teaching.
Rebellion against the Church that Christ founded and to whom He granted authority? OK… if you’re good with that…
Must have learned quite a bit when he was an archbishop at 8 years old because his last name happened to be Medici. So much theology. Theology all over the place with that guy.
General claims mean nothing. What specifically are you referring to?
Again, general claims meaning nothing. Which doctrine, and what scriptures demonstrate that what he taught was different than what the apostles handed down?
The entire debate of the Reformation is whether the Church of the Middle Ages was indeed the Church that Christ founded. There are lots of doctrinal reasons one might argue that it was not. A priori presupposition isn’t holding any weight on this point either. Luther never rebelled against the Church, he pointed back to the scriptures that the Church might reform errant doctrine. In the age of scholasticism where philosophy overtook the theology handed down in scripture, this was a gift to the Church.
The topic of the discussion wasn’t “theology” but “rejection of authority.” Why the red herring, then?
Salvation by faith alone.
The very criterion of “Scripture as the sole arbiter” itself is proof of the divergence from Church teaching.
…that is, until the Church told him to “stand down”, and he refused.
Because the rejection of authority was the red herring. It was only introduced to avoid discussing the doctrinal and practical issues of justification, simony, indulgences, and other corruptions of doctrine and practice.
Justification by faith alone is scriptural.
Lists of people who were told to stand down who refused to do so because it contradicted God’s word: Elijah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Christ, Peter, John, Athanasius. Acts 5 is actually a thing.
So, let’s look at it in context: a single clergyman stands up and says “you must reform, based on my authority”, and when he’s told to stand down, what’s his response? “I’m outta here.” That’s not a red herring – it’s a historical fact. An uncomfortable one, to be sure, but a fact nevertheless.
Right. That’s why Christ over and again asserts that one’s actions are what are judged by God for salvation.
“Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation” by Martin Luther:
New theology, made up wholecloth by Luther.
Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521
Are you sure about that?
Mt 28:18-20.
Which of these abandoned God and formed their own church? Are you really suggesting that Luther had the same authority as Jesus?
He didn’t say I’m outta here. The Pope refused to address things such as simony, corruption, and doctrinal error. Luther didn’t leave the Church, the Ex Surge Domine was written by the Pope cementing the doctrinal errors that Luther was attempting to reform into the corpus doctrinae of the Church, doctrine that was never handed down by Christ or the apostles.
You are judged by your works to your damnation. You are justified by faith.
Which called on the German nobility to refuse to send tithes to Rome where they were squandered. With regard to the vocation of priest, if you read 1 Timothy, you would see that the ministry was always a vocation (an office one was called to for the purpose of fulfilling a responsibility to the Church). That isn’t new. It’s scriptural. And as your own communion confirms, any Christian may baptize, and may be reconciled to his brother. That too isn’t new at all.
Feel free to post the rest of the letter.
Yep.
Yep. Luther never rejected the responsibility of the clergy to proclaim the law and the gospel to his people. He said the proclamation of that gospel is normed by the scriptures that codified what the apostles taught. Christ never gave the apostles the right to innovate new doctrine that conflicts with what he handed down to them.
None. Neither did Luther. Luther taught scriptural doctrine and rightly administered the sacraments. Wherever the word is rightly proclaimed and the sacraments rightly administered, you have the Church.
Not in the way Luther asserts it here, though.
But not “absolve”. That’s a ministry reserved to the ordained. So yeah… “new”.
Feel free to Google it, just as I did.
Moving the goalposts. Your claim was that Christ himself asserted that “Scripture in fact does trump tradition.” Note that we’re talking about “Sacred Tradition” here, which is defined as Apostolic Teaching. Please show me where Christ said that Scripture trumps Apostolic Teaching.
You realize that this, too, is novel theology, especially in the context of what you consider to be “rightly” done (in contradiction to what the Church proclaims on the subject)?I know I am budding in here but I would like to know where Christ defined Apostolic Teaching in the first place? Or if that is an issue how I asked the question, what did He say about it?
Butt in all you want! It’s a discussion board, after all!!!
Just a quick comment
Name a doctrine or dogma you are thinking of
To your previous point about being made by humans AND being unbiblical
AND
if you think you can refute it, then the floor is yours to make the attempt.
I see you want to ignore all the points in the previous post. I don’t blame you. You can’t answer them.
The Catholic Church was THERE. You weren’t. Remember THAT.
You also missed the part in that passage where James was discussing faith in relation to one’s neighbor, not justification before God, per verses 15-16.
There are 2 types of works described. Good works and works of the law.steve-b:
You also missed the part in that passage where James was discussing faith in relation to one’s neighbor, not justification before God, per verses 15-16.
But since you brought it up:
“Because by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight (God’s); for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe…For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”
Or if that wasn’t clear:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
Carry on.
Which Paul uses interchangeably throughout the first three chapters of Romans because he is addressing both Gentile and Jew. Notice that you are condemned both by works and works of the law in the Chapters 1 and 2 up through the first half of Chapter 3, and you are not justified by them in the second part of Chapter 3. You are justified by faith apart from works. The only time Paul brings in works in this entire section speaking about faith’s power to justify by grace is to say you AREN’T justified by works.