Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper: I agree with your post #111. One of the questions is where Luther get his to interpret Scripture in the manor that he did? It seems to me that Luther believed that in receiving his Doctorate in Theology gave his the right and authority to do so. When the CC refused to accept Luther’s interpretations of Scripture as well as his teaching and theologies, questioning them, Luther was up in arms dismissing any arguments that opposed his thinking.

It is true that Luther believed that his Doctorate gave him the authority to teach EVERYBODY. Nobody was allowed to disagree with him? That would require that his education be SO MUCH better than that of everybody else that they had NO authority to teach, compared to him.

The fact is that he got his Doctorate at the University of Wittenberg, by far the least distinguished university in all of Europe. In fact, UW didn’t even have a library until the year that Luther received his Doctorate. In that year the UW library was founded with 50 books. In addition, the professors were not exactly the greatest.
**
“His (Luther’s) claim, of course, was only to be authoritative in interpreting scripture;** he did not say that he had special revelation. Yet it is still an assertion worth pondering. Mark U. Edwards has suggested that** before 1522 Luther never presented himself as anything other than a doctor of theology expounding scripture. Afterward Luther saw himself increasingly as a prophet raised by God in a special time.” **Richard Marius, Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999, pg. 329

Luther’s “authority”, at least in his own mind, was grounded in the sheer overwhelming nature of his religious experiences. He believed that because those experiences were so overpowering, they could only have come from God, and since they came from God, then the results of those experiences, meaning his personal beliefs, must also be from God. Because God had “chosen” Him as the “recipient” of these horrific terrors, it meant to Luther that God had also chosen Him to correct all of the wrongs in the Church. With that as his “justification, Luther felt that it was perfectly within his purview to demand that everyone accept his Scriptural Interpretations and his doctrinal beliefs.

Was Luther really a “prophet raised by God”? By his actions and from the way that he treated his opponents, it certainly seems that HE believed He was. Do any modern day Protestants claim that he was? If not, how do they explain his tremendous certainty that he was “right”? Not very well as we have seen.

**“It had not been his “will or intention” to elevate his own private theological concerns to the status of doctrinal issues affecting the entire church, and he long professed the conviction that what he had “discovered” was something that the best theologians of the church must have known all along. ****The eventual realization that such was not the case precipitated his theology into the public forum of the church, both through the condemnations of his teaching and through the incorporation of those teachings and through the incorporation of those teachings into official confessional statements during and after his own lifetime.” **Pelikan (at the time a Lutheran), (1300-1700), pg 127

As we can see from one of the (at the time) Lutheran experts, Luther actually believed that what he had “discovered” had been previously discovered by the Church. That was not the case. What Luther “discovered”, meaning Salvation by Faith Alone in this case, had NEVER been taught or even considered by Any of the Church Fathers. The fact that Luther believed otherwise only proves that he was not at all well trained as a Theologian and especially not in the Fathers of the Church or in Church history. The fact is that Luther was very poorly qualified to ‘reform’ the doctrines of the Church.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Jon,

Thanks for your response.

How on Earth would I be able to know “specifically and exactly” what Luther would or would not have done, not having known him, not having lived in his era?

I think that you have made a valid point. We can’t know ‘specifically and exactly’ what Luther would have done. However, that is why we are exploring the nature of the man and his teachings – so we can make an informed judgment as to what we THINK he would have done.

I just have a general sense that both he and the leaders of the Catholic Church, all of them men who cared about the faith, regardless of their differences, would have considered their actions with perhaps greater care had they been aware of the impact it would have on the future. We can sit here 500 years later and claim we know what they might have done, “specifically and exactly”, and it would all be no more than speculation.

Understood. On the other hand, you know the history of the early Reformation, and you know it well enough to have drawn some conclusions. You say that the Catholic Church ‘would have considered their actions with perhaps greater care if they had been aware’…………………

You must have something specific in mind Jon. Certainly you have developed some opinions on what the Church did wrong in dealing with Luther after the 95 Theses. What do YOU think the Catholic Church should have done differently. Yes, I am asking for something specific. If you don’t know of something specific that you think the Church should have done, then the statement should not have been made.

Again, I will point to the issue of the Sacraments and suggest that we can flesh this out by using the example of the Sacraments.

To help flesh this question out, and so that it doesn’t get ‘overly general’, let’s look at the specific issue of the number of Sacraments. The Church held to 7 and Luther vacillated between 2 and 3. Should the Church have negotiated with Luther on the number of Sacraments? Do you think Luther would have been satisfied if the Church had agreed to reduce them down to 6? What about 5? How about 4?

On this specific issue Jon, what do you think the Church should have done to ‘change their approach’ as you put it?

Now, multiply this times by at least 4 dozen, and specifically and exactly Jon, what do you think the Church should have done differently? How much do you think the Church should have had to ‘give up’ to satisfy Martin Luther?

Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Tomy,

Just a comment.

Luther had nothing on John Knox in terms of anti-pope invective,from what I have heard. Most of us Presbyterians took out the part about the pope being Anti-Christ in 1933 from the Westminster Confession of Faith.

I find this to be extremely hopeful. If the Westminster Confession could be altered to eliminate the references to the Pope as the AntiChrist, that means that the Lutherans could to the same thing. That is EXACTLY what they need to do. It would be a HUGE move towards reunion and would demonstrate incredible good will. Rather than just stating that the text doesn’t mean what it very clearly does, actually changing it, officially, would make a tremendous difference. As you have seen here on this thread, not one Catholic is ‘buying it’, and since we are the ones being offended, our perception does count. Well – at least to us it does.

God Bless You Tomy, Topper

 

[hn160]

Jon,

Thanks for your response.

I think that you have made a valid point. We can’t know ‘specifically and exactly’ what Luther would have done. However, that is why we are exploring the nature of the man and his teachings – so we can make an informed judgment as to what we THINK he would have done.

Understood. On the other hand, you know the history of the early Reformation, and you know it well enough to have drawn some conclusions. You say that the Catholic Church ‘would have considered their actions with perhaps greater care if they had been aware’…………………

You must have something specific in mind Jon. Certainly you have developed some opinions on what the Church did wrong in dealing with Luther after the 95 Theses. What do YOU think the Catholic Church should have done differently. Yes, I am asking for something specific. If you don’t know of something specific that you think the Church should have done, then the statement should not have been made.

Again, I will point to the issue of the Sacraments and suggest that we can flesh this out by using the example of the Sacraments.

To help flesh this question out, and so that it doesn’t get ‘overly general’, let’s look at the specific issue of the number of Sacraments. The Church held to 7 and Luther vacillated between 2 and 3. Should the Church have negotiated with Luther on the number of Sacraments? Do you think Luther would have been satisfied if the Church had agreed to reduce them down to 6? What about 5? How about 4?

On this specific issue Jon, what do you think the Church should have done to ‘change their approach’ as you put it?

Now, multiply this times by at least 4 dozen, and specifically and exactly Jon, what do you think the Church should have done differently? How much do you think the Church should have had to ‘give up’ to satisfy Martin Luther?

Topper

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

1 In Article XIII, the adversaries approve our statement that the Sacraments are not just marks of profession among people, as some imagine. Rather, they are signs and testimonies of God’s will toward us. Through them God moves hearts to believe. 2 But here they ask us to count seven Sacraments. We hold that the matters and ceremonies instituted in the Scriptures, whatever the number, should not be neglected. Neither do we believe it to be of any consequence. However, for teaching purposes, different people do count differently, provided they still rightly keep the matters handed down in Scripture. The ancients also did not count in the same way.
3 If we call Sacraments “rites that have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added,” it is easy to decide what are true Sacraments. For rites instituted by human beings will not be called true Sacraments. For human authority cannot promise grace. Therefore, signs set up without God’s command are not sure signs of grace, even though signs perhaps instruct the unlearned or admonish about something. 4 Therefore, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution (which is the Sacrament of Repentance) are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God’s command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. When we are baptized, when we eat the Lord’s body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us for Christ’s sake. 5 At the same time, by the Word and by the rite, God moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, “Faith comes from hearing” (Romans 10:17). But just as the Word enters the ear in order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and of the rite is the same. It has been well said by Augustine that a Sacrament is a visible Word, because the rite is received by the eyes and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, illustrating the same thing as the Word. The result of both is the same."
We consider that the Lutheran Church has three sacraments - confession and Absolution, Baptism, and Holy Communion. The others that Roman Catholic Church has would be considered as Rites. Useful but not necessary for Salvation.

 

[hn160]

Hi pab,

There is no doubt that the way that we are seeing the Confessions represented here is in opposition to the actual text. Lutheran Professor James Kittelson offers the following analysis, which I think deals with the reality of the Confessions.

“Luther and Modern Church History”, by James Kittelson, Lutheran Professor of Church History, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN, all quotes from pages 259-60, in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”,

**“There are at least two respects in which this subject (Luther and modern church history) can easily conceal more than it elucidates. The more obvious of these is the all too-tempting impetus to ascribe to Luther everything in contemporary Christianity of which the author approves. This tendency is most obvious in the pictures of Luther that derive from German Protestants and Lutherans in particular………” **

Here Kittleson describes a form of what I call the “Legend of Luther”.

Kittleson continues:

"From the perspective of** those who seek the most precise and unvarnished truth about Luther possible, the currently most guilty party on this score is the ecumenical movement** as it has been pursued in many quarters since Vatican II. Those among them who seek the formal reuniting of separated churches and at the same time carry the label “Lutheran” are particularly prone to seek in him elements that might be used to service their agenda of contemporary institutional ecumenism**……One group (which is very prone to ‘find the good’ in Luther), North Americans all, pursue one version or another of the argument that in his heart of hearts Luther wanted to reform the Church of Rome and deeply regretted the division that nonetheless followed and remains characteristic to this day. Roughly speaking, this party, which calls itself ‘evangelical catholics’, divides into two groups.”**

It is worth noting that Kittelson does not refer to these two groups as ‘Evangelical Catholics’ with a capitol ‘C’. The one group according to Kittelson “is very prone to ‘find the good’ in Luther.” Interestingly, Kittelson says that this is strictly a North American phenomenon, which means that it is not a larger Lutheran phenomenon.

**“One seeks accommodations between evangelical and Roman Catholic teaching on the central subjects of justification, faith, grace, and the like, while the other gives up on the core of Luther’s theology and turns directly to his (allegedly) undeveloped understanding of ‘the church’ as both spiritual and this-worldly reality.” **Kittelson

I have always said that one of the things I appreciate about Lutherans is that they are extremely doctrinal, meaning that they understand the importance of doctrine, and are willing to defend what they believe against what they ‘know’ to be wrong. However, Kittleson states that the two different types of ‘Lutheran Evangelical Catholics’ are much more willing to cave in on doctrinal matters in hopes of reaching accommodation with Rome. The one group is willing to back down on even justification, while the other is willing to redefine (at least for Lutherans) the definition of ‘the church’ as being more in line with a Catholic understanding.

“Some of course take both avenues toward their goal, which is, quite simply, full reunion with the Church of Rome. In each case, the historical record blocks their path of seeking support from Luther for their fondest undertaking, unless they falsify, distort, or minimize it.” ****James M. Kittelson, Lutheran Professor of Church History, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN, in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, pg. 260

This last passage from Kittelson is the money quote (as if the first few weren’t). He admits that the history of Lutheranism itself is an obstacle to reunion with Rome. In fact Luther himself is an impediment to the unity desired by ‘Evangelical Catholics’, that is, ‘unless they falsify, distort, or minimize it’. I would suggest that the Lutheran Confessions are part of the ‘historical record’ which reduces the possibility of reunification.

I think that Kittelson deals with the issue as it is, and not as he wishes it to be.

Topper

You are quoting from authors that are in the liberal ELCA, they would love to get an agreement with Rome for joint communion. Confessional Lutherans would never cave to get a document that says we can agree to disagree.

 

[hn160]

I think it would be very interesting if more Lutherans AND more Catholics knew that this stuff is part of current Lutheran beliefs. :sad_yes:

Confessional Lutherans know what is in their Book of Concord, the Luteran Confessions. All Lutheran Pastors in the LC-MS subscribe fully to the Confessions but pastors in The ELCA can opt out or subscribe in as far as. Our Confession are in full agreement with Scripture.

 

[MaryT777]

Oh, I think many thoughtful Lutherans recognize the sins of the Reformers, and more so, the current sins on our side that continue and maintain the disunity.

Jon

Is there a document that notes and recognizes the above statement you make that the there were sins in the past and currently that you can link to that the LCMS as well agrees with?

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

Normatively necessary, but not absolutely necessary. Follow the link I gave to read the full article for a complete explanation.

Hi Randy,
If one reads Unam sanctam, one finds no such equivocation, and using the “Topper method”, which is to ignore what members of the communion, including official documents say, one can only conclude that, according to the Catholic Church, no Christian who has not been in communion with the pope is in, or will be in Purgatory or Heaven.

The bull says:

“Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature** it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff**” (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).

There are “but’s” or “unless’s”. Pope Boniface VIII is clear in his meaning. Even the bishops and metropolitans of the great patriarchates of the East since 1054, do not escape Pope Boniface VIII’s declaration. In fact, the 1302 date of Unam sanctam indicates it was directed at Orthodoxy, at least in part, but certainly not at Lutherans. However, now, we fit into that category of unequivocal condemnation, regardless of grace, regardless of Christ, regardless of Baptism, the other sacraments, faith, or indeed even works.

James Akin states:

This doctrine is extraordinarily controversial. Some Catholic extremists claim (contrary to further Church teaching, including a further infallible definition) that this means everyone who is not a full-fledged, professing Catholic is damned.

Under the “Topper method”, “further infallible definition” cannot redefine what has already been stated so (apparently) clearly. One can only use the document itself, and writings from that era, to “flesh out” its true meaning.

Akin further says;

Non-Catholics find the claim offensive, sectarian, and anti-Christian in sentiment.

Yep, and Catholics who are (rightfully) offended by the charge made against the office of the papacy should be aware of this.

Most Catholics who are aware of the definition find it embarrassing, especially in today’s ecumenical age, and many try to ignore or dismiss it, though even liberal Catholic theologians admit it is a genuine doctrinal definition and must in some sense be true.

Even Catholic liberals accept it.

And to the contrary in no Lutheran document will you find the statement that every single Catholic in communion with the pope is condemned.

Jon

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Is there a document that notes and recognizes the above statement you make that the there were sins in the past and currently that you can link to that the LCMS as well agrees with?

Mary.

As an example:

Luther’s anti-Semitism
Q: What is the Missouri Synod’s response to the anti-Semitic statements made by Luther?
A: While The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod holds Martin Luther in high esteem for his bold proclamation and clear articulation of the teachings of Scripture, it deeply regrets and deplores statements made by Luther which express a negative and hostile attitude toward the Jews. In light of the many positive and caring statements concerning the Jews made by Luther throughout his lifetime, it would not be fair on the basis of these few regrettable (and uncharacteristic) negative statements, to characterize the reformer as “a rabid anti-Semite.” The LCMS, however, does not seek to “excuse” these statements of Luther, but denounces them (without denouncing Luther’s theology). In 1983, the Synod adopted an official resolution addressing these statements of Luther and making clear its own position
on anti-Semitism. The text of this resolution reads as follows:
WHEREAS, Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are a continuing problem in our world; and
WHEREAS, Some of Luther’s intemperate remarks about the Jews are often cited in this connection; and
WHEREAS, It is widely but falsely assumed that Luther’s personal writings and opinions have some official status among us (thus, sometimes implying the responsibility of contemporary Lutheranism for those statements, if not complicity in them); but also
WHEREAS, It is plain from scripture that the Gospel must be proclaimed to all people–that is, to Jews also, no more and no less than to others (Matt. 28:18-20); and
WHEREAS, This Scriptural mandate is sometimes confused with anti-Semitism; therefore be it
Resolved, That we condemn any and all discrimination against others on account of race or religion or any coercion on that account and pledge ourselves to work and witness against such sins; and be it further
Resolved, That we reaffirm that the bases of our doctrine and practice are the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions and not Luther, as such; and be it further
Resolved, That while, on the one hand, we are deeply indebted to Luther for his rediscovery and enunciation of the Gospel, on the other hand, we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther’s negative statements about the Jewish people, and, by the same token, we deplore the use today of such sentiments by Luther to incite anti-Christian and/or anti-Lutheran sentiment; and be it further
Resolved, That in our teaching and preaching we take care not to confuse the religion of the Old Testament (often labeled “Yahwism”) with the subsequent Judaism, nor misleadingly speak about “Jews” in the Old Testament (“Israelites” or “Hebrews” being much more accurate terms), lest we obscure the basic claim of the New Testament and of the Gospel to being in substantial continuity with the Old Testament and that the fulfillment of the ancient promises came in Jesus Christ; and be it further
Resolved, That we avoid the recurring pitfall of recrimination (as illustrated by the remarks of Luther and many of the early church fathers) against those who do not respond positively to our evangelistic efforts; and be it finally
Resolved, That, in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther’s final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: “We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord” (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p.
195).

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

Thanks for your response.

I think that you have made a valid point. We can’t know ‘specifically and exactly’ what Luther would have done. However, that is why we are exploring the nature of the man and his teachings – so we can make an informed judgment as to what we THINK he would have done.

Understood. On the other hand, you know the history of the early Reformation, and you know it well enough to have drawn some conclusions. You say that the Catholic Church ‘would have considered their actions with perhaps greater care if they had been aware’…………………

You must have something specific in mind Jon. Certainly you have developed some opinions on what the Church did wrong in dealing with Luther after the 95 Theses. What do YOU think the Catholic Church should have done differently. Yes, I am asking for something specific. If you don’t know of something specific that you think the Church should have done, then the statement should not have been made.

Again, I will point to the issue of the Sacraments and suggest that we can flesh this out by using the example of the Sacraments.

To help flesh this question out, and so that it doesn’t get ‘overly general’, let’s look at the specific issue of the number of Sacraments. The Church held to 7 and Luther vacillated between 2 and 3. Should the Church have negotiated with Luther on the number of Sacraments? Do you think Luther would have been satisfied if the Church had agreed to reduce them down to 6? What about 5? How about 4?

On this specific issue Jon, what do you think the Church should have done to ‘change their approach’ as you put it?

Now, multiply this times by at least 4 dozen, and specifically and exactly Jon, what do you think the Church should have done differently? How much do you think the Church should have had to ‘give up’ to satisfy Martin Luther?

Topper

Hi Topper,

First, please kindly respond to my question regarding Unam sanctam.

Thanks,

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

CAF Lutheran dialog …

Interesting phrase. I’m torn between wanting to commit it to memory, and wanting to forget it with all my might.

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Randy,
If one reads Unam sanctam, one finds no such equivocation, and using the “Topper method”, which is to ignore what members of the communion, including official documents say, one can only conclude that, according to the Catholic Church, no Christian who has not been in communion with the pope is in, or will be in Purgatory or Heaven.

The bull says:

“Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature** it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff**” (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).

There are “but’s” or “unless’s”. Pope Boniface VIII is clear in his meaning. Even the bishops and metropolitans of the great patriarchates of the East since 1054, do not escape Pope Boniface VIII’s declaration. In fact, the 1302 date of Unam sanctam indicates it was directed at Orthodoxy, at least in part, but certainly not at Lutherans. However, now, we fit into that category of unequivocal condemnation, regardless of grace, regardless of Christ, regardless of Baptism, the other sacraments, faith, or indeed even works.

James Akin states:

Under the “Topper method”, “further infallible definition” cannot redefine what has already been stated so (apparently) clearly. One can only use the document itself, and writings from that era, to “flesh out” its true meaning.

Akin further says;

Yep, and Catholics who are (rightfully) offended by the charge made against the office of the papacy should be aware of this.

Even Catholic liberals accept it.

And to the contrary in no Lutheran document will you find the statement that every single Catholic in communion with the pope is condemned.

Jon

Jon

The “Topper method” I have never heard of this before. Is this part of the LCMS way to interpret things or is it off topic, rude and against forum rules?
Mary.

 

[pablope]

Confessional Lutherans know what is in their Book of Concord, the Luteran Confessions. All Lutheran Pastors in the LC-MS subscribe fully to the Confessions but pastors in The ELCA can opt out or subscribe in as far as. Our Confession are in full agreement with Scripture.

And this includes referring to the pope/papacy as anti-Christ or the anti-Christ referred to in the Bible?

 

[benjohnson]

And this includes referring to the pope/papacy as anti-Christ or the anti-Christ referred to in the Bible?

In the context of your question, and Topper’s quotes, you probably need to ask a quatenus Lutheran.

If you’re asking confessional Lutherans, the difficult and lamentable answer has already been given in this thread.

…

I too would like the Unam Sanctam question answered… the silence is rather curious.

 

[steido01]

I too would like the Unam Sanctam question answered… the silence is rather curious.

That’s three posters asking now.

Maybe he’ll also clarify his conflicted views on Melanchthon.

 

[benjohnson]

The “Topper method” I have never heard of this before…

Speaking only for myself it seems Topper17 applies a certain stringency to some Lutheran documents and authors that is not constantly maintained. Nor will he (apparently) apply that same standard to documents from his own communion concerning Unam Sanctam.

Here’s a more base example, he expects us to take some bombastic Lutheran quotes literally, but when I made a heartfelt appreciation of recent Popes, he resorted to mocking instead of being consistently literal.

I’m not sure what this indicates, but hopefully there is some sort of method or logic that dictates when Topper17 is either literal or dismissive.

 

[rinnie]

If Luther could have foreseen clearly what has happened to western Christianity over the past 500 years, would Luther have said and done the things that history records of him?

If you had been Luther, would you have followed the same course he took?

Why or why not?

I would in One way.

If I had the power to find a way to acknowledge the sins committed by humans in the Church and did not agree, and could stop it, I would.

But my HUGE difference is this, I would always make it known, it is not the CHURCH I am attacking but the abuse of human authority I am attacking.

I would never try to change the teachings of Christ, and feel I HAD the power of the Holy Spirit to teach and change what the Apostles taught.

 

[MaryT777]

Speaking only for myself it seems Topper17 applies a certain stringency to some Lutheran documents and authors that is not constantly maintained. Nor will he (apparently) apply that same standard to documents from his own communion concerning Unam Sanctam.

Here’s a more base example, he expects us to take some bombastic Lutheran quotes literally, but when I made a heartfelt appreciation of recent Popes, he resorted to mocking instead of being consistently literal.

I’m not sure what this indicates, but hopefully there is some sort of method or logic that dictates when Topper17 is either literal or dismissive.

Forum rules dictate that you discuss the topic and not the poster.

Mary,

 

[JonNC]

The “Topper method” I have never heard of this before. Is this part of the LCMS way to interpret things or is it off topic, rude and against forum rules?
Mary.

Hi Mary,
I am clearly referring to the method used by Topper17 in his discussion of the Lutheran charge regarding the office of the papacy. We often reference here the methods, of how people post, IN REGARDS to the topic at hand. Consistent with the topic at hand, I have compared the methods of how Topper evaluates our confessions on that issue, to how that method can be used to discuss* Unam sanctam*, which even James Akin states is offensive to non-Catholics.

There has been no rudeness or disrespect here, except perhaps that which was directed to Ben. And as for violating forum rules, I have always trusted Eric to handle that task with consistency and fairness.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: I agree with your post #158. Looking back at Luther’s writings, there is no doubt that Luther in his very own words made it known that he was the authority concerning the interpretation of Scripture, and that his interpretations were the only correct view to hold. It seems also that Luther did not heed the warning that the path he was taking was going to led to a divergence of interpretations of Scripture. All Luther’s revolt against the CC was to cause others to revolt with their particular Scriptural interpretations to the extent that over time more and more denominations with differing Christian beliefs. The Bible really then appears to be the one and only Authority one was to obey, yet, in reality it becomes the person authority in deciding how Scripture is to be interpreted; that is what is says and what it means.

One can see this in how many different denominational churches make the claim to be Bible versed or Bible based each having their own particular interpretations of what the Bible says and means. All one has to do is to take Jesus as one’s personal savior and one is saved, there’s nothing more one needs to do. This what the reformation has done over time. There really is not unity other than not being part of the CC and her teachings.

It seems to me that over the span of time, those who broke away from the CC fragmented into more and more differing denominations. On top of that, many of the religious denominations splintered off due to disagreements in doctrine or interpretation of Scripture. So then, how is one to really know what to believe when seemingly each denomination has its own teachings that vary from one denomination to another? Not an easy question to answer since each claim to have and hold the truth, so how does one decide which one is the real Church? Not an easy question either with so many apparently thousands of denominations competing against each other. This then it seems to me to be the real legacy of Martin Luther, a disunity of Christian belief and understanding.