Luther was right

[mark_a]

Friend(s); if you believe that an institution must interpret Scripture for you; then you prove yourselves useless because you are too lazy to study and understand what the word of Lord is and in essence you deny the gospel of Christ through your own laziness. If you trust in God, then you must trust that He will keep His promises and lead you, Himself, to all truth concerning the Trinity and the message of salvation. If you trust in an institution to do this for you; then IMO you prove yourselves as “natural persons” and cannot understand because the love of the Father is not in you.

Thank you for your opinion.

But honestly, your approach is such a turn-off. I would never try to spread faith with the method you use. Its putrid.

 

[JonNC]

Friend(s); if you believe that an institution must interpret Scripture for you; then you prove yourselves useless because you are too lazy to study and understand what the word of Lord is and in essence you deny the gospel of Christ through your own laziness. If you trust in God, then you must trust that He will keep His promises and lead you, Himself, to all truth concerning the Trinity and the message of salvation. If you trust in an institution to do this for you; then IMO you prove yourselves as “natural persons” and cannot understand because the love of the Father is not in you.

This is as ineffective in bringing people together as some of the comments by Catholic triumphalists here. It borders on insulting.
That said, please tell what you think of this quote:

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

Would your description above apply to the writer here?

Jon

Oh, btw, the writer is Martin Chemnitz, an important second generation Lutheran.

 

[rinnie]

:Hi Jon while I agree many things that they did as far as indulgneces etc did were indeed misleading to the Church, The big difference I see is teaching’s though.

Many Popes like I said made mistakes, etc, Heck Priest’s do today also. They like the Apostles who also made mistakes have sins.

But what I think the big difference is the books and the bible. Luther wanted to do more then disagree with disciplines of the Church. Luther wanted to take parts of the word of God out of the bible. Many will disagree with me on this, but what would be his motive to move them in the first place. That was wrong.

Now while I agree the Popes of earlier days may have had many sins, Luther was no saint. Actually his lifestyle was much worse. Its kinda like pot meet kettle I agree.

But its the teaching’s Jon that I have trouble with. He knew the teaching’s he learned them and understood the Church’s teaching’s quite well. But he changed words etc to fit into his Ideals.

But the point is the Scripture and the meaning of that scripture can and never will change. And that is the most important job of the Pope and Bishops to makes sure we learn the same teaching today as yesterday. And we have that promise from God that the CC will have that true teaching and will never stray from that.

We don’t unfortunately have the promise from God that they will never fall from Grace. It would be a heck of alot easier thats for sure.

But we must remember also the Apostles had the same gift of the HS and they still sinned also. But they still taught the true word of God. Thats the real thing. We all gotta learn what the true word is. And the devil works so hard to get us to fight, argue to get away from that one and ONLY important fact.

And that fact being what does scripture say, and what is God saying and now that we know it how are we going to live our lives to obey it. Thats the important thing, and the hard part. God Bless you Jon and keep You!

 

[Bill_Pick]

Just because you say it is not there; millions of people disagree with you. It is easily identified from Scripture; not only that, but the rest of the sola’s are easily identifiable, but you must be able to understand the whole of Scripture to see the truth. Therefore, we stop here for that reason.

Tanner, Please tell me how we can have SS with out a bible…

The first Christian did not have a complete and the Bible it self we tell the Church is the Pillar of Truth and NOT the Bible.

 

[JonNC]

=rinnie;5557294]:Hi Jon while I agree many things that they did as far as indulgneces etc did were indeed misleading to the Church, The big difference I see is teaching’s though.

Hi rinnie,
I think it is the teachings now that matter, not in the sense that the Catholic Church has changed. I willing to explore to possibility that our teachings can be expressed in ways where we can agree, much like the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification did.

But what I think the big difference is the books and the bible. Luther wanted to do more then disagree with disciplines of the Church. Luther wanted to take parts of the word of God out of the bible. Many will disagree with me on this, but what would be his motive to move them in the first place. That was wrong.

This issue is dicussed pretty regularly here at CAF. My general feelings about Luther and the canon are well described by James Swan here:
ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

Now while I agree the Popes of earlier days may have had many sins, Luther was no saint. Actually his lifestyle was much worse. Its kinda like pot meet kettle I agree.

No argument.

But its the teaching’s Jon that I have trouble with. He knew the teaching’s he learned them and understood the Church’s teaching’s quite well. But he changed words etc to fit into his Ideals.

I think, in the beginning, he felt that the teachings he learned were not rightly being taught by the Church, which prompted the 95 Theses.

But the point is the Scripture and the meaning of that scripture can and never will change. And that is the most important job of the Pope and Bishops to makes sure we learn the same teaching today as yesterday. And we have that promise from God that the CC will have that true teaching and will never stray from that.

I am careful not to say the CC taught false doctrine, but allowed false doctrine to be taught, and abuses to prevail at that time. While I do believe the CC has errors from our perspective, I still think our differences can be ended with the help of the Holy Spirit.

But we must remember also the Apostles had the same gift of the HS and they still sinned also. But they still taught the true word of God. Thats the real thing. We all gotta learn what the true word is. And the devil works so hard to get us to fight, argue to get away from that one and ONLY important fact.

And that fact being what does scripture say, and what is God saying and now that we know it how are we going to live our lives to obey it. Thats the important thing, and the hard part.

Jon

 

[Hisalone]

And the way you started this thread was to point out their shortcomings, without taking responsibility for your own.

You claim Luther? Then claim the real presence, salvific infant baptism, confession and Absolution, free will of the regenerate, the ability to lose one’s justification, the basic marion doctrines. If you can’t, then stop invoking him to start baiting threads.

Jon

Not correct.
I started this thread by posting 2 links without comment.
I have no problem discussing Luthers shortcomings.
I claim Luthers Solas.
This thread wasnt about baiting what it was about is to place The Refoemation in historical context.
Get over yourself. There are real differences that cannot be bridged the working of Christ.

 

[wmscott]

Luthers courage saved hundreds of millions from false doctrines.

Why did Luther want to remove inspired books from the New Testament?

 

[Hisalone]

Why did Luther want to remove inspired books from the New Testament?

Did he remove them?

 

[wmscott]

I was thinking the same thing… But to be fair, Luther was right about a lot, except where his beliefs contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church on doctrines and morals. As a Catholic I have great respect for Luther’s attempt to reform the corruption he saw in the Church of his day. Where I think he went awry was in attempting to dispose of the doctrines that he believed gave rise to some of the errors. That effort of reform by throwing the baby out with the bath water was much more detrimental that I believe he ever thought it would be. I think Luther must be very upset about the fractured nature of the Church today.

Peace,
Robert

I agree, however, I think what is not being discussed is that it was the sinners within the Church that need to be reformed; not the Church itself.

 

[Graubo3]

Tanner, Please tell me how we can have SS with out a bible…

Hey Bill,

That is a very interesting request you have made of Tanner. I hope that I am able to get back here for the answer.

Peace, Graubo

 

[Benjamin8o8]

The more relevant question is: Who is given authority to interpret scripture?

Obviously the Catholics because Catholics wrote the whole New Testement.

 

[wmscott]

Did he remove them?

No, however he was heading that way so that he could justify his belief in faith alone and other issues. He wanted to exclude the book of James from the Bible and I think Hebrews.

But this does not answer my question I posed to you.

 

[JonNC]

Not correct.
I started this thread by posting 2 links without comment.
I have no problem discussing Luthers shortcomings.
I claim Luthers Solas.
This thread wasnt about baiting what it was about is to place The Refoemation in historical context.
Get over yourself. There are real differences that cannot be bridged the working of Christ.

You post on a Catholic Forum a thread with the title, “Luther Was Right”, and you don’t think that provocative?
What is your view on Real Presence, Baptism, Confession, etc. Was Luther right?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

No, however he was heading that way so that he could justify his belief in faith alone and other issues. He wanted to exclude the book of James from the Bible and I think Hebrews.

Luther was not the first to challenge James, Hebrews, and Revelations. Your applying a motive would need documentation. Where did Luther say he wanted to get rid of them so that he could judtify his belief in faith alone?

Jon

EDIT: Lost in the polemics back and forth is the fact that Luther changed his thinking about all three books. His comment (in the preface) about James being a book of straw when compared to Paul’s letters appeared in his first copy of the NT, but was thereafter removed. Luther preached from these books later in life.

 

[Radical]

Hey, JonNC…how’s life?

Luther…end of Chiritian unity? 1054 was the first break in Christian unity. Tough to lay that one on Luther.

Please allow me to nit-pick…just a bit. As I hang around this place I have come to the realization that there exists here this popular notion of the existence of extreme unity prior to 1054. I would suggest that such was not the case. For example Donatist churches existed alongside non-Donatist churches for a couple hundred years…separate b/c of their attitude with respect to the lapsed (and related matters). Same could be said for the Novatian churches. Two other splits would involve the Nestorians and the Pelagians (not to mention the Arians). I would also suggest that until the Roman bishop acquired the political power to enforce its spiritual claims it was unable to achieve (in the west) this extreme unity that is assumed to have always existed. Not surprisingly this extreme unity lasted roughly from the time that the bishop of Rome (together with its eastern counterparts) acquired the political power to create it and then until the bishop of Rome lost the political power to maintain it…least that is MHO.

 

[JonNC]

Hey, JonNC…how’s life?

Please allow me to nit-pick…just a bit. As I hang around this place I have come to the realization that there exists here this popular notion of the existence of extreme unity prior to 1054. I would suggest that such was not the case. For example Donatist churches existed alongside non-Donatist churches for a couple hundred years…separate b/c of their attitude with respect to the lapsed (and related matters). Same could be said for the Novatian churches. Two other splits would involve the Nestorians and the Pelagians (not to mention the Arians). I would also suggest that until the Roman bishop acquired the political power to enforce its spiritual claims it was unable to achieve (in the west) this extreme unity that is assumed to have always existed. Not surprisingly this extreme unity lasted roughly from the time that the bishop of Rome (together with its eastern counterparts) acquired the political power to create it and then until the bishop of Rome lost the political power to maintain it…least that is MHO.

Life is great! “This is the day the Lord has made…”
Nit-pick away

Jon

 

[josie_L]

This is as ineffective in bringing people together as some of the comments by Catholic triumphalists here. It borders on insulting.
That said, please tell what you think of this quote:

Would your description above apply to the writer here?

Jon

Oh, btw, the writer is Martin Chemnitz, an important second generation Lutheran.

Jon I commend you for your diplomacy but sometimes you just got to say it as it is (so people understand where to draw the line), i.e., it is insulting to call people lazy.

p.s. No one is going to think less if you do.

 

[josie_L]

And the way you started this thread was to point out their shortcomings, without taking responsibility for your own.

You claim Luther? Then claim the real presence, salvific infant baptism, confession and Absolution, free will of the regenerate, the ability to lose one’s justification, the basic marion doctrines. If you can’t, then stop invoking him to start baiting threads.

Jon

I agree.

 

[JonNC]

=josie L;5557764]Jon I commend you for your diplomacy but sometimes you just got to say it as it is (so people understand where to draw the line), i.e., it is insulting to call people lazy.

First, thank you.
What you say is true, but I hope folks will give me a little room to wiggle out when I foot-in-mouth, so I try to do the same.

p.s. No one is going to think less if you do.

I hope that isn’t because they couldn’t if they wanted to. :bighanky:

Jon

 

[rinnie]

Hi rinnie,
I think it is the teachings now that matter, not in the sense that the Catholic Church has changed. I willing to explore to possibility that our teachings can be expressed in ways where we can agree, much like the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification did.

This issue is dicussed pretty regularly here at CAF. My general feelings about Luther and the canon are well described by James Swan here:
ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

No argument.

I think, in the beginning, he felt that the teachings he learned were not rightly being taught by the Church, which prompted the 95 Theses.

I am careful not to say the CC taught false doctrine, but allowed false doctrine to be taught, and abuses to prevail at that time. While I do believe the CC has errors from our perspective, I still think our differences can be ended with the help of the Holy Spirit.



Jon

Hi Jon as always a joy talking to you. I do believe we both pretty much agree on most points. While we do have our differences I too agree that they will be overcome in time.

And I agree its the HS that will indeed make that happen

I think sometimes we all forget that there is only one God. And it is through him with him and in him in unity with the HS that this will all happen. And it will happen but in his time not ours. Lets hope we can be here to see it. God Bless Jon.