Is Sola Scriptura a failure or a success?

[steido01]

Check this and get back to me.

That’s the sort of anti-Lutheran site I was speaking about, yes.

The author there does not consider the context, like I pointed out earlier in this thread. Nor does he acknowledge that Luther’s personal views toward James, which changed toward the positive later in life, had no bearing whatsoever on how other Lutherans approached the book. James is easily reconciled with the rest of Scripture and the doctrine of Faith Alone.

 

[AugustTherese]

James is easily reconciled with … the doctrine of Faith Alone.

Please, I am all ears (digitally)!

 

[steido01]

No, that is the Apostolic understanding that WE humbly accept. Of course, “The Orthodox would beg to differ”; any schismatic “would beg to differ” just has any heretic “would beg to differ” regarding councils that are protested and rejected by them. That’s not simply a coincidence, I can assure you.

Keep calling everyone else a heretic and a schismatic. The converts will continue to pour in. Romocentric triumphalism makes for great evangelism.

There were plenty of Theologians, Fathers, and Doctors that constructively disagreed on the canon before Carthage, Rome, and Hippo; but, when the Catholic Church promulgates the canon, us lowly Catholics humbly accept what the Church binds, and looses for that matter.

And your canon wasn’t exclusively required under threat of anathema until Trent. That’s not a debatable point! That your pre-edited post called Erasmus and Cardinal Catejan “obscure” demonstrates your utter lack of historical understanding. Read a little more than polemics and anti-Lutheran sites, and you’ll find history to be considerably more complex.

You know, the “context” argument might work on naive and unsuspecting persons. However, it’s just an old and broken record that merely attempts to justify and excuse heretical errors, with all due respect, that followers are simply too incorrigible to admit when they’re wrong. No offense to you and your beliefs

Please show respect, and stop using these phrases. They’re insultingly insincere.

[M]any of [Luther’s] works are very, very “self-contradictory” and plain bipolar, so to speak.

This is just getting sad.

And, while I personally take no offense at being called a “Papist”, I find it ironic how you claim Luther as having been “ecumenical” when he explicitly referred to Catholics using that term (Papist); it would be analogous to me, for instance, referring to you as a ‘prot’, ‘fundie’, or ‘bible banger’ - how ecumenical would that be?

Have I used any such language? Have I called someone here ‘schismatic’ or ‘heretical?’ In Luther’s time, the word ‘Papist’ was as (un)offensive as ‘Lutheran.’ They were merely words to indicate a party. One has been adopted by today’s group, while the other has taken on more negative connotations. Both factions claim to be the true Catholic Church.

The deuteros were read in Mass for over a 1,000 years prior to Luther. Disputed at times, yes ,but no major disputes post Jerome.

To suggest they were not canonical during that period is historic revisionism of it’s own.

Stop right there, and don’t twist my words. I never said they “were not canonical.” I said that individuals within the church had freedom to dispute their canonicity, and many did. Few “major disputes” ever occurred from this because few considered it a matter worth arguing about. Christians had the freedom to determine it, and all thought the books were useful, even if not all agreed they were Scripture. That didn’t change until Trent mandated which books had to be considered Scripture.

Praising and holding a canonical book as “good” seemed to be a pretext that you used to, again, attempt to justify and excuse Luther when he in fact wanted nothing to do with the Epistle of Saint James. Context?

Are you trolling me? These are literally the exact same quotes I just gave context to in post #19. Are you even reading my posts?

 

[steido01]

Please, I am all ears (digitally)!

I don’t suspect you’ll read these with an open or fair mind, but for the benefit of any lurkers:

lutherantheologystudygroup.blogspot.com/2011/09/reconciling-james-and-paul-on-good.html

lutherantheologystudygroup.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-lutheran-reformers-handled-book-of.html

 

[James248]

That’s the sort of anti-Lutheran site I was speaking about, yes.

The author there does not consider the context, like I pointed out earlier in this thread. Nor does he acknowledge that Luther’s personal views toward James, which changed toward the positive later in life, had no bearing whatsoever on how other Lutherans approached the book. James is easily reconciled with the rest of Scripture and the doctrine of Faith Alone.

How so? James clearly states: “See how a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

 

[steido01]

Every now and then, the same tired anti-Lutheran polemics worm their way back to CAF. It’s at those times that I usually take a vacation from the site. Peace out, y’all. I’ll check back after the site rebuild.

 

[AugustTherese]

Keep calling everyone else a heretic and a schismatic. The converts will continue to pour in. Romocentric triumphalism makes for great evangelism.

Did I personally call someone a heretic or schismatic?

And your canon wasn’t exclusively required under threat of anathema until Trent. That’s not a debatable point! That your pre-edited post called Erasmus and Cardinal Catejan “obscure” demonstrates your utter lack of historical understanding. Read a little more than polemics and anti-Lutheran sites, and you’ll find history to be considerably more complex.

Right, because no one attempted to question the authenticity of the canon post-Carthage-Rome-Hippo up until Luther. Implying that a conciliar definition of the canon isn’t binding until an “anathema” is promulgated is comparable to stating that the Dogma of the Trinity wasn’t binding until Nicaea. Also, always resorting to the whole “polemic” and “anti-Lutheran sites” is getting old; stop trying to pretend like I am a naive Catholic that knows nothing about Church history. Instead of retorting with the exact same antics, why do you not attempt to actually prove me wrong with what your claims suggest?

Have I used any such language? Have I called someone here ‘schismatic’ or ‘heretical?’ In Luther’s time, the word ‘Papist’ was as (un)offensive as ‘Lutheran.’ They were merely words to indicate a party. One has been adopted by today’s group, while the other has taken on more negative connotations. Both factions claim to be the true Catholic Church.

Right, because the terms ‘Catholic’ and/or ‘Christian’ would not suffice; did ‘anti-Christ’ have some ulterior motive or misunderstood ecumenical context that my ignorant mind cannot grasp?

That didn’t change until Trent mandated which books had to be considered Scripture.

I’m sorry, but that is just plain false. I provided you with conciliar proof of “which books had to be considered Scripture”. Just because you protest the legitimacy of those mentioned councils does not inherently undermine their authenticity.

 

[AugustTherese]

Every now and then, the same tired anti-Lutheran polemics worm their way back to CAF. It’s at those times that I usually take a vacation from the site. Peace out, y’all. I’ll check back after the site rebuild.

Not to speak for everyone, but we Catholics love Lutherans. There is much common ground between us. However, when you blog on CAF trying to presuppose that every Catholic that discourses with you is nothing but an ignorant fool who knows absolutely nothing about Church history and our own councils, what do you expect?!

Peace and love to you, Don!

 

[spina1953]

St. James and St. Paul were speaking about two very different things to two different audiences. St. Paul was saying that works under the law of Moses did not save which the converted Pharicees were teaching that Gentiles had to be circumcised and follow the laws of Moses. St. James was saying that Faith alone will not save but that good works were a part of faith. Converted Pharicees in Jerusalem were teaching that one did not need to do any good works only just have faith.

St. James was pointing out that faith alone will not save but neither just doing good works. If one has faith then good works follow… Luther misunderstood this which is why he believed St. James was only talking about good works; that good works save which he believed wrong and St. Paul had it right. But the fact remains that both St. Paul and St. James were speaking of two different issues. Faith and good works go together.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Stop right there, and don’t twist my words. I never said they “were not canonical.” I said that individuals within the church had freedom to dispute their canonicity, and many did. Few “major disputes” ever occurred from this because few considered it a matter worth arguing about. Christians had the freedom to determine it, and all thought the books were useful, even if not all agreed they were Scripture. That didn’t change until Trent mandated which books had to be considered Scripture.
?

In your description. it looks like you are saying that prior to Trent, everyone could just decide for themselves what was canonical/scriptural and what was not.

Not the case, if it was read at Mass then it was canonical. And “Christians” were always under the authority of the Church. So for over a 1000 years they were lead to believe they were scripture.

But yes, opinions of clergy who were not fond of the Deuteros were allowed and at times voiced. This is true.

 

[James248]

You can’t say salvation by faith without including works.

Jesus told the penitent woman, “Your faith has saved you.” What did she do? She went and anointed Jesus’ feet.

Jesus told the leper, “Your faith has saved you.” What did he do? He turned back and ran to Him and fell at His feet.

My point: You can’t have faith apart from works.

This is my issue with Protestant theology. The works of the law don’t justify; but one must respond to God’s grace in faith. Faith is a response to God.

 

[Peter_J]

Do Catholics still believe people ought to be burned alive and do they believe that doing so is not against the will of the Spirit?

“Any use of religion to support violence is an abuse of religion”

• Pope John Paul II.

 

[Peter_J]

Do Catholics still believe people ought to be burned alive and do they believe that doing so is not against the will of the Spirit? Of course not,** it’s a different Catholic denomination now**.

I have to disagree with the part that I highlighted.

Consider: when Abraham Lincoln became president of the United States, was he president of a new country that hadn’t existed before? No, it was the United States before and after, but with a man at the top who respected human life.

 

[James248]

I have to disagree with the part that I highlighted.

Consider: when Abraham Lincoln became president of the United States, was he president of a new country that hadn’t existed before? No, it was the United States before and after, but with a man at the top who respected human life.

Also didn’t Protestant authorities do the EXACT SAME THING?

 

[Peter_J]

Also didn’t Protestant authorities do the EXACT SAME THING?

Well exact same thing seems like an oversimplification, but certainly they used to be far less tolerant. Christians in general have definitely rethought their views in that regard.