J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
I read the excerpt and he says it doesn’t have the value of Paul, namely his Paul.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
steido01
Guest
His reasoning for that is simple: the author of James was generally writing to established Christians about how a Christian ought to live. We might call a great deal of what James wrote Law. Paul, on the other hand, was writing about the good news of Christ - the Gospel. Now, what is more valuable to a Christian - the Law that we can never measure up to, or the Good News that Jesus Christ has died to forgive us? Obviously, Paul’s message is more central to our faith.I read the excerpt and he says it doesn’t have the value of Paul
Look, Luther’s message is a comparative one. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Saying “Joe Flacco isn’t a good quarterback” is false. He’s very good. But saying “Joe Flacco isn’t a good quarterback compared to Aaron Rodgers” is true. That’s what Luther is saying in his preface to the book.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
I don’t think that is necessarily true that the challenge of ecclesiastical authorities was the main error. Ecclesiastical authorities can and should be challenged especially if things are going awry.
Where the reformation went wrong was in the insistence that people can freely establish their own Church bodies. There is simply no limiting principle within Protestantism to stop this since the individual and the bible establishing what seems right in their eyes. They are the highest authority to which no man can challenge. I think however people can be authoritative over people at times like scripture can be authoritative over leaders in the hands of lay people at times.
Protestantism seemingly embraces one end of the spectrum but not the first.
Where the reformation went wrong was in the insistence that people can freely establish their own Church bodies. There is simply no limiting principle within Protestantism to stop this since the individual and the bible establishing what seems right in their eyes. They are the highest authority to which no man can challenge. I think however people can be authoritative over people at times like scripture can be authoritative over leaders in the hands of lay people at times.
Protestantism seemingly embraces one end of the spectrum but not the first.
He said it was his opinion. He had the Catholic liberty to his opinion. Erasmus had opinions, Jerome had opinions, Eusebius had opinions ( probably who Luther meant by “the ancients”).I read the excerpt and he says it doesn’t have the value of Paul, namely his Paul.
Jon
He often preached from James throughout his lifeHis reasoning for that is simple: the author of James was generally writing to established Christians about how a Christian ought to live. We might call a great deal of what James wrote Law. Paul, on the other hand, was writing about the good news of Christ - the Gospel. Now, what is more valuable to a Christian - the Law that we can never measure up to, or the Good News that Jesus Christ has died to forgive us? Obviously, Paul’s message is more central to our faith.
Look, Luther’s message is a comparative one. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Saying “Joe Flacco isn’t a good quarterback” is false. He’s very good. But saying “Joe Flacco isn’t a good quarterback compared to Aaron Rodgers” is true. That’s what Luther is saying in his preface to the book.
Jon
What is that major division?The belief in Sola Scriptura mixed with private interpretation has caused a major division between protestants.
Jon
M
Michael68
Guest
Sola Scriptura and private interpretationWhat is that major division?
Jon
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Jerome and Eusebius submitted to the Church. Luther did not.He said it was his opinion. He had the Catholic liberty to his opinion. Erasmus had opinions, Jerome had opinions, Eusebius had opinions ( probably who Luther meant by “the ancients”).
Jon
=Michael68;13996672
That doesn’t make sense. What is the major division between “Protestants”? You said, “The belief in Sola Scriptura mixed with private interpretation has caused a major division between protestants.”Sola Scriptura and private interpretation
Jon
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
We need the Law and the Gospel. Jesus didn’t come to abolish the Law. **He came to fulfill it! **We will all be judged on the basis of whether we lived a good life or not. Paul admits to that. Luther didn’t have the right to trash James just because it didn’t fit with his theology. Jesus has a law: the law of love. When a scribe told Him the greatest commandments were to love God and others what did He say? “Do this and you shall live.” Apparently a lot of Christians forget that phrase.His reasoning for that is simple: the author of James was generally writing to established Christians about how a Christian ought to live. We might call a great deal of what James wrote Law. Paul, on the other hand, was writing about the good news of Christ - the Gospel. Now, what is more valuable to a Christian - the Law that we can never measure up to, or the Good News that Jesus Christ has died to forgive us? Obviously, Paul’s message is more central to our faith.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Not all Protestants agree on sola scriptura. Anglo-Catholics certainly wouldn’t. And Methodist claim to profess prima scriptura, not sola scriptura. There literally is no common theology that all Protestants from all denominations could agree on with the exception of rejecting the Pope.The belief in Sola Scriptura mixed with private interpretation has caused a major division between protestants.
M
Michael68
Guest
I’m sorry, what don’t you understand?That doesn’t make sense. What is the major division between “Protestants”? You said, “The belief in Sola Scriptura mixed with private interpretation has caused a major division between protestants.”
Jon
So do LutheransWe need the Law and the Gospel. Jesus didn’t come to abolish the Law. He came to fulfill it. We will all be judged on the basis of whether we lived a good life or not. Paul admits to that.
Jon
You said, “The belief in Sola Scriptura mixed with private interpretation has caused a major division between protestants.”I’m sorry, what don’t you understand?
What is the major division between Protestants that sola scriptura mixed with private interpretation caused?
Jon
M
Michael68
Guest
It has caused major differences don’t you think? Some believe in a rapture, some don’t. Some have differences as to when this rapture occurs etc., etc. You know, division. All of this division is based on somebody thinking their intepretation is the only one.You said, “The belief in Sola Scriptura mixed with private interpretation has caused a major division between protestants.”
What is the major division between Protestants that sola scriptura mixed with private interpretation caused?
Jon
Oh, so you’re not talking about a major difference.It has caused major differences don’t you think? Some believe in a rapture, some don’t. Some have differences as to when this rapture occurs etc., etc. You know, division. All of this division is based on somebody thinking their intepretation is the only one.
Yes, there are differences between all Christian communions, and sometimes the means of hermeneutics can be part of the cause.
Jon
M
Michael68
Guest
I suppose that would depend on what you consider a major differenceOh, so you’re not talking about a major difference.
Yes, there are differences between all Christian communions, and sometimes the means of hermeneutics can be part of the cause.
Jon
W
Wannano
Guest
Thank you again for your submissions. In complete sincerity I wish to ask a question. If a Catholic is acting in direct defiance of Church authority, is that person committing a mortal sin?I see the use of such polemics as exactly what is condemned in *From Conflict to Communion. *
*233. How theologians presented their theological convictions in the battle for public opinion is quite another matter. In the sixteenth century, Catholics and Lutherans frequently not only misunderstood but also exaggerated and caricatured their opponents in order to make them look ridiculous. They repeatedly violated the eighth commandment, which prohibits bearing false witness against one’s neighbor. Even if the opponents were sometimes intellectually fair to one another, their willingness to hear the other and to take his concerns seriously was insufficient. The controversialists wanted to refute and overcome their opponents, often deliberately exacerbating conflicts rather than seeking solutions by looking for what they held in common. Prejudices and misunderstandings played a great role in the characterization of the other side. Oppositions were constructed and handed down to the next generation. Here both sides have every reason to regret and lament the way in which they conducted their debates. Both Lutherans and Catholics bear the guilt that needs to be openly confessed in the remembrance of the events of 500 years ago. *
Unfortunately, there yet remain controversialists. Such controversialists today who are Catholic are acting in direct defiance of Church authority.
I especially remark the wonderful work of the American bishops on the issue of dialogue. They have done truly great work and are to be commended.
Guess it would. Seems to me there are numerous, some prior to the 1500’s.I suppose that would depend on what you consider a major difference
Jon
A
alwayswill
Guest
Do Catholics agree in a rapture?, Do Catholics agree as to when this rapture occurs etc., etc.?It has caused major differences don’t you think? Some believe in a rapture, some don’t. Some have differences as to when this rapture occurs etc., etc. You know, division. All of this division is based on somebody thinking their intepretation is the only one.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.