Non-Catholics: Was Luther led by the Spirit?

[SemperJase]

Do you non-catholics (specifically non-Lutherans) believe that Martin Luther was led by the Spirit in his biblical interpretation?

Please tell us what denomination you are in your reply.

 

[Angainor]

SemperJase:

Do you non-catholics (specifically non-Lutherans) believe that Martin Luther was led by the Spirit in his biblical interpretation?

Please tell us what denomination you are in your reply.

No.

Lutheran Missouri Synod.

 

[Fredricks]

Do not know. Respectfully, do not care. Why would I? I am not a Lutheran. I know enough about him to know I disagree with some of what he said. The reformation would have occured without Martin Luther. Things were unraveling all around.
Does anyone really think Mary Baker Eddy or Joseph Smith would have stayed Catholic? It was inevitable.

 

[Thal59]

How many people “profess” to be guided by the spirit?

Luther’s “revelations” led to schism, civil wars, and massive bloodshed.

Doesn’t sound spirit guided to me.

Thal59

 

[Nicene]

Fredricks:

Do not know. Respectfully, do not care. Why would I? I am not a Lutheran. I know enough about him to know I disagree with some of what he said. The reformation would have occured without Martin Luther. Things were unraveling all around.
Does anyone really think Mary Baker Eddy or Joseph Smith would have stayed Catholic? It was inevitable.

Just a couple of comments. The reformation was largly due to “the age of enlightenment” which IMHO wasn’t very enlightening. It was a time of individualism. However the greivances against the church were real in some respects, yet very much blown out of proportion by modern protestants. Indulgences for example: Did they occur within the clergy? Yep some did. Were they church teaching? Nope.

As far as Mary Baker Eddy Joseph Smith and we can probably toss Ellen white in there. They weren’t catholic, they were protestants, Smith and White were Methodist, Eddy had a puritan backgraound.

No only were they not catholic they weren’t of the reformation period, but from the 1800’s. They were of what could be described as the reformation against the protestants, but either way they were a product of protestantism.

They were products of individualism, visions and Sola Scriptura. As well as the pentecostal/charismatic (some evangelicals today) movement, which in many sectors I can’t personally call christians. There is just something terribly wrong with describing oneself as a God, little God or a Messiah and having the temerity to say that Christ took your place on the cross as though you were supposed to be crusified instead (as though you could atone for mans sins - which further demonstrates the God/ego quality.)

Those we can safely lay at our protestant brothers doorstep, not the other way around.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Fredricks]

Nicene:

Just a couple of comments. The reformation was largly due to “the age of enlightenment” which IMHO wasn’t very enlightening. It was a time of individualism. However the greivances against the church were real in some respects, yet very much blown out of proportion by modern protestants. Indulgences for example: Did they occur within the clergy? Yep some did. Were they church teaching? Nope.

As far as Mary Baker Eddy Joseph Smith and we can probably toss Ellen white in there. They weren’t catholic, they were protestants, Smith and White were Methodist, Eddy had a puritan backgraound.

No only were they not catholic they weren’t of the reformation period, but from the 1800’s. They were of what could be described as the reformation against the protestants, but either way they were a product of protestantism.

They were products of individualism, visions and Sola Scriptura. Those we can safely lay at our protestant brothers doorstep, not the other way around.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

You are reading too much into this. All I am saying Luther, no Luther, inevitable. There were certain personalities that would have rebelled no matter what. I know my history, not the issue.
Indulgences:

*The Council of Trent (Sess, XXV, 3-4, Dec., 1563) declared: "Since the power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Christ, and since the Church from the earliest times has made use of this Divinely given power, the holy synod teaches and ordains that the use of indulgences, as most salutary to Christians and as approved by the authority of the councils, shall be retained in the Church; and it further pronounces anathema against those who either declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has the power to grant them (Enchridion, 989). It is therefore of faith (de fide) *

Am I missing something Nicene? Clarify please.

 

[Nicene]

Fredricks:

You are reading too much into this. All I am saying Luther, no Luther, inevitable. There were certain personalities that would have rebelled no matter what. I know my history, not the issue.
Indulgences:

*The Council of Trent (Sess, XXV, 3-4, Dec., 1563) declared: "Since the power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Christ, and since the Church from the earliest times has made use of this Divinely given power, the holy synod teaches and ordains that the use of indulgences, as most salutary to Christians and as approved by the authority of the councils, shall be retained in the Church; and it further pronounces anathema against those who either declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has the power to grant them (Enchridion, 989). It is therefore of faith (de fide) *

Am I missing something Nicene? Clarify please.

Apologies if you didn’t mean it that way, however the way you wrote that makes it appear as those folks all came from the catholic church and it was inevitable. Which they didn’t.

Again apologies if that is not what you intended.

(Indulgences next post)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Indulgences are still practiced. I think you have a misunderstanding of what some of the clergy were doing concerning them in Martin Luthers time. Some clergy, which was and is not church doctrine, were selling indulgences for cash. This is the gripe Martin Luther had.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Fredricks]

Nicene:

Apologies if you didn’t mean it that way, however the way you wrote that makes it appear as those folks all came from the catholic church and it was inevitable. Which they didn’t.

Again apologies if that is not what you intended.

(Indulgences next post)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Yeah I see what you mean. What i meant was IF there had only been Catholics they would not have stayed that way or a lot of other people as well. It was going to happen. But yes, I was unclear.

 

[Nicene]

Fredricks:

Yeah I see what you mean. What i meant was IF there had only been Catholics they would not have stayed that way or a lot of other people as well. It was going to happen. But yes, I was unclear.

True enough. However they weren’t the first and certinainly won’t be the last, even from within the church (recently faught 2 catholic supposed visionaries - one says Mary is God, the other the prophet Elijah of Rev and it’s the end of the world: had to coorespond with their bishops, to let them know of the heresy in their diocese)

They have occurred throughout history and will continue to do so. Christ told us it would happen, again referring to the parable of the sower(s), the tribulation the church must face in this age until Christ comes again, false prophets, false messiahs, etc.

However that is never a reason to leave the church. The church will always have those scandals. In ML’s day it was selling indulgences, in our current day it has been pedophile clergy (which contrary to popular belief isn’t isolated to the CC, in fact the numbers are about even percentage wise; Protestant/Catholic)

Again it is never a reason to leave the church, part of being in the church is protecting the church against those evils which will assail it from within. If we don’t have the tenacity to fight evil from within we aren’t much better than those who commit it, and in fact bear responsibility for it. (again James) Schism is sin. But when we read James what does he say about bringing brother who err back from sin? He wasn’t just talking about those who left the church, but obviously those within.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[SemperJase]

Fredricks:

Respectfully, do not care. Why would I? I am not a Lutheran.

You should care because Luther was the first to proclaim sola scriptura (and the other four solas).

I find it interesting that most protestants today do not agree with Luther’s doctrines. In fact, they consider his doctrines to not be Christian (e.g. ever virgninity of Mary, or the real presence) while not recognizing he held them.

Luther thought that people who did not agree with his interpretation were wrong.

The question is, if Luther started the movement toward sola scriptura, but was wrong in his interpretation, why do you think it is a valid doctrine?

Was he led by the Holy Spirit to sola scriptura, but not led correctly in interpretation?

 

[Fredricks]

SemperJase:

You should care because Luther was the first to proclaim sola scriptura (and the other four solas).

I find it interesting that most protestants today do not agree with Luther’s doctrines. In fact, they consider his doctrines to not be Christian (e.g. ever virgninity of Mary, or the real presence) while not recognizing he held them.

Luther thought that people who did not agree with his interpretation were wrong.

The question is, if Luther started the movement toward sola scriptura, but was wrong in his interpretation, why do you think it is a valid doctrine?

Was he led by the Holy Spirit to sola scriptura, but not led correctly in interpretation?

I disagree with your presupposition. I have posted on here about Sola Scripture before. I used the Bible and some early church fathers. You would have to look around but I think the belief is actually 4000 years old, not 500. I believe the Jews final authority to be Torah, even before we had the NT. It is a rather lengthy conversation but because I do not agree that Luther is the source of our belief, he is not important to me.

 

[Nicene]

Fredricks:

I disagree with your presupposition. I have posted on here about Sola Scripture before. I used the Bible and some early church fathers. You would have to look around but I think the belief is actually 4000 years old, not 500. I believe the Jews final authority to be Torah, even before we had the NT. It is a rather lengthy conversation but because I do not agree that Luther is the source of our belief, he is not important to me.

Yes the Jews did. But you are mistaken in what you think was acceptable to any particular Jew. For example, using the 3 in the bible: Pharisees, Saducees and Scribes did not all hold the same beliefs (some then and even today are athiest), nor the same books as scripture. Some believed in an earthy king being prophesied, some in resurrection while others did not, some accepted only the pentateuch (books of Moses), some the septuagent, some only hebrew writings, some a mixture of the above and the Tanach or various other writings (Resurrection of Moses et al.)

But regardless, they all missed it, via Sola Scriptura they missed what scripture was telling them. Jesus had to explain it to them. If Jesus came today, how many christians would actually believe him? I daresay very few. Like those before them they would be as Christ says in Jn 5:39, searching scripture because they think they have eternal life in them.

Who believed Jesus? The ignorant, the peasants, the poor, and so on, and they didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura. They were looking for something heavenly, something mystical and holy, something beyond the words. Everyone was looking for a Messiah, but the Sola Scripturists missed the boat, they thought carnally, to barrow from Paul. (And no, i don’t mean all protestants aren’t looking for the mystical or are carnal, but many are nonetheless)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Fredricks]

Nicene:

Yes the Jews did. But you are mistaken in what you think was acceptable to any particular Jew. For example, using the 3 in the bible: Pharisees, Saducees and Scribes did not all hold the same beliefs (some then and even today are athiest), nor the same books as scripture. Some believed in an earthy king being prophesied, some in resurrection while others did not, some accepted only the pentateuch (books of Moses), some the septuagent, some only hebrew writings, some a mixture of the above and the Tanach or various other writings (Resurrection of Moses et al.)

But regardless, they all missed it, via Sola Scriptura they missed what scripture was telling them. Jesus had to explain it to them. If Jesus came today, how many christians would actually believe him? I daresay very few. Like those before them they would be as Christ says in Jn 5:39, searching scripture because they think they have eternal life in them.

Who believed Jesus? The ignorant, the peasants, the poor, and so on, and they didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura. They were looking for something heavenly, something mystical and holy, something beyond the words. Everyone was looking for a Messiah, but the Sola Scripturists missed the boat, they thought carnally, to barrow from Paul. (And no, i don’t mean all protestants aren’t looking for the mystical or are carnal, but many are nonetheless)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

How many people understand truth does not reflect on the truth itself. Catholics have said, if there were only 10 left, Christ’s church would still be true.
Likewise, 3 Protestant denominations, 1 million, I do not care, his truth is his truth. His truth is not a denomination or an organization, although through his apostles, he does leave a local system of church government led by a plurality of people, not a single bishop in charge of one city(a later developing trend most everyone admits)
I cannot convince you but I clearly see what our blessed Lord referred to time and time and time again. His Holy word.
The inspired scriptures. When tradition is mentioned, it is past tense, referring to a time which clearly seems to be 30 AD to no later than 60 AD at the very latest. You guys want me to believe that Christ and the apostles taught on the things you say they did but I have only asked for proof. If you were a Protestant, you would as well. I know the Holy Bible is the word of God. I cannot accept any of your traditons without good evidence that they were faithfully passed for 2000 years.
I cannot access what was accepted TRADITION the first 200 years. Such a list does not exist.

When I quote early church fathers you guys agree with, they are considered part of TRADITION. When I quote things that support our contentions, I am told, well, they are fallible people and are not TRADITION. Do you see the problem. I do not know what is official tradition the first 200 years. I do have scripture.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

SemperJase:

You should care because Luther was the first to proclaim sola scriptura (and the other four solas).

At the risk of sounding dumb. I know of Sola Scriptura and Sola fides but what would be the other three solas?

 

[Nicene]

His truth is not a denomination or an organization, although through his apostles, he does leave a local system of church government led by a plurality of people, not a single bishop in charge of one city(a later developing trend most everyone admits)

As a sola scripturist I am surprised to see you argue against scripture when it is right there in scripture and comes directly from it. I am surprised to see you say the bishops weren’t in charge when that’s exactly what they were according to scripture.

(Self edited for charity)

Peace and God Bless
nicene

 

[Nicene]

Montie Claunch:

At the risk of sounding dumb. I know of Sola Scriptura and Sola fides but what would be the other three solas?

Sola Gratia
Sola Deus
Sola Christo

While they are still slogans and don’t go into depth, there is nothing inherantly wrong with them at all. Faith is a grace for example. Yet if you wanted to go to extremeism, taken each in isolation it could be argued that without Christ or without God there is no grace. However in essence the slogans are correct.

The church agrees with all 3 of them

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[SemperJase]

Fredricks:

I do not know what is official tradition the first 200 years. I do have scripture.

I have yet to see any evidence that sola scriptura was a christian doctrine prior to Luther. I used to think the same thing. “All I have scripture so that is what I will use.”

Then I realized that the Bible is incomplete. John tells us he did not record everything Jesus did. We know that First Corinthians is not Paul’s first letter to the church in Corinth because Paul himself says it in First Corinthians.

I used to rely on 2 Tim 3:16 that scripture is sufficient. Then I realized that the verse says “profitable”, not sufficient. Then I read 2 Tim 3:15 which tells us Paul was saying the Old Testament is still valuable for teaching. It was not about sola scriptura at all.

Then I read 1 Tim 3:15 which says the church is the pillar of truth, not scripture.

 

[Nicene]

SemperJase:

I have yet to see any evidence that sola scriptura was a christian doctrine prior to Luther. I used to think the same thing. “All I have scripture so that is what I will use.”

Then I realized that the Bible is incomplete. John tells us he did not record everything Jesus did. We know that First Corinthians is not Paul’s first letter to the church in Corinth because Paul himself says it in First Corinthians.

I used to rely on 2 Tim 3:16 that scripture is sufficient. Then I realized that the verse says “profitable”, not sufficient. Then I read 2 Tim 3:15 which tells us Paul was saying the Old Testament is still valuable for teaching. It was not about sola scriptura at all.

Then I read 1 Tim 3:15 which says the church is the pillar of truth, not scripture.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

When I quote early church fathers you guys agree with, they are considered part of TRADITION. When I quote things that support our contentions, I am told, well, they are fallible people and are not TRADITION. Do you see the problem. I do not know what is official tradition the first 200 years. I do have scripture.

The New Testament Canon wasn’t set for over 300 years! The Church preceded the New Testament. Don’t you see the problem with that?

What was happening in America in 1700? Gee… I guess that wasn’t really a long interval from Resurrection to Canon considering how little has happened in America in 300 years.