M
Michael68
Guest
We believe in a type of rapture at the Second Coming at the end of time which St. Paul refers to in Thessolonians. A meeting in the air to escort our King to Earth
- Status
J
johnnyc176
Guest
That’s why it should be called a ‘revolution’ instead of ‘reformation’. As far as interpretation…you hear about how protestants are more knowledgable of Scripture than Catholics but the thing is… if protestants were more knowledgable of Scripture they would be Catholic.
They are taught to memorize Bible verses and that is a good endeavor but not if you are getting it wrong.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Martin Luther’s famous words at the Diet of Worms:
***“Unless I am convicted by scripture and by plain reason (I do not believe in the authority of either popes or councils by themselves, for it is plain that they have often erred and contradicted each other) in those scriptures that I have presented, for my conscience is captive to the Word of God, I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me, Amen.”*124
But of course if Luther himself could judge the meaning of Scripture without reference to the authoritative pronouncements of the Catholic Church, there was no good reason in principle why others could not do the same.
Indeed within Luther’s own lifetime a host of variant and contentious interpretations of Scripture arose not only between Catholics and Protestants, but between competing Protestant factions.
And although Luther and other early Reformers continued to cling to various elements of the Catholic tradition with respect to many areas of Scriptural exegesis, the principle by which they rejected certain other elements of the tradition, namely that of private judgment, provided a reasonable basis upon which others would drift much further away from Catholic tradition.
The net result of the hermeneutical trajectory set in motion by the principle of private judgment was the growing conviction that there simply was no privileged Tradition by which one’s own interpretation of Scripture must necessarily be formed or moderated.
… from The Shaping of Biblical Criticism: A Catholic Perspective on Historical Criticism.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Here’s an interesting comment on Luther’s politicization of the Bible.
Martin Luther is often characterized as the spark that set alight a religious reformation that would spread across Europe and change forever the face of Christianity in the West. Yet, beyond this famous characterization lies an individual deeply wedded to a nominalist philosophy; an advocate of a German national church led by secular authorities; a promoter of the use of temporal authorities to accomplish spiritual goals; and a sower of historical-critical interpretive seeds. These qualities occur within a man who would consistently re-shape his theology in response to external forces, all in a historical context of corruption in the Catholic Church and a rising sense of unique German identity separate from Rome.
Many are familiar with the story of Luther’s roadside decision to become a monk – less are familiar with his previous law training deeply immersed in the nominalism of William of Ockham, whom called the nominalist philosopher, “my master Occam,” “the greatest dialectician,” and his philosophy, “my own school… which I have absorbed completely.” This would have far reaching implications for his own theological thought.
It is particularly evident in Ockham’s rejection of the analogy of being, as Luther himself rejected the traditional fourfold meaning of scripture in favor of his dialectical mode of exegesis, as he placed law and gospel against one another.
Also deeply influential was Luther’s conception of the invisible church, which essentially privatized religious belief in such a dualistic fashion that it ultimately pitted the subjective realm of faith against the objective world in a form reminiscent of Averroism.
Once Luther became professor of theology at Wittenberg, we see his tendencies towards politicization emerge, teaching that, “it would be much safer if the temporal affairs also of the clergy were placed under the control of secular rulers.”
Like England, Germany was developing a deeper sense of nationalism that chafed under papal authority, particularly the large monies flowing out of Germany to Rome; much popular literature circulating in Germany at the time, sometimes apocalyptic in nature, anticipated a German church separate from Rome and guided by a political ruler. This immediate context explains to some degree the intense German reaction to the papal indulgences sold throughout the Holy Roman Empire, and that provided the catalyst for Luther’s call for reform.
In 1520, Luther appealed to the German nobility in a tract that urged the rejection of papal authority and called for the German nobility to step in to effect dramatic religious change.
In language notably similar to that of Marsilius and Ockham, Luther argued “we are under our princes, lords, and emperors… we must outwardly obey their laws instead of the laws of Moses.”
This embrace of what became called the erastian solution entailed using secular authorities to mandate the proper interpretation of Scripture; as Luther would argue, “the princes of Saxony sit as governing authorities by God. The land and the people are subject to them.”
Interestingly, Luther would later backpedal on the role of secular authorities in religion because of his frustration with political authorities who confiscated German New Testaments and Luther’s works, leading him to fashion his “two kingdoms” theory in which the spiritual and temporal authorities should remain separate. Yet even this became later convoluted by arguments made in 1530, when he suggested that rulers should intervene when “papists and Lutherans” disagreed over the meaning of Scripture.
**Another important development influencing historical-critical methods would be Luther’s conception of the “canon within the canon,” seeking to determine the “true kernel and marrow of all the books [of Scripture],” a method later exegetes would appropriate in trying to find the true “historical Jesus.”
As, “individual books do not provide unanimous affirmation of the chosen kernel,” leading exegetes to resort to “sorting through individual texts, layering them according to authentic and spurious, early and late, pure and tainted passages.” **
Luther’s influence on the historical-critical method can also be seen in his attempts at revising the canon, questioning the apostolic authorship of the epistle of James and expressing suspicion of the book of Revelation.
Of course, once one begins questioning the canon, it does not take long for others to see the potential “Pandora’s Box” and realize that every book’s authenticity or veracity is up for grabs.
Martin Luther is often characterized as the spark that set alight a religious reformation that would spread across Europe and change forever the face of Christianity in the West. Yet, beyond this famous characterization lies an individual deeply wedded to a nominalist philosophy; an advocate of a German national church led by secular authorities; a promoter of the use of temporal authorities to accomplish spiritual goals; and a sower of historical-critical interpretive seeds. These qualities occur within a man who would consistently re-shape his theology in response to external forces, all in a historical context of corruption in the Catholic Church and a rising sense of unique German identity separate from Rome.
Many are familiar with the story of Luther’s roadside decision to become a monk – less are familiar with his previous law training deeply immersed in the nominalism of William of Ockham, whom called the nominalist philosopher, “my master Occam,” “the greatest dialectician,” and his philosophy, “my own school… which I have absorbed completely.” This would have far reaching implications for his own theological thought.
It is particularly evident in Ockham’s rejection of the analogy of being, as Luther himself rejected the traditional fourfold meaning of scripture in favor of his dialectical mode of exegesis, as he placed law and gospel against one another.
Also deeply influential was Luther’s conception of the invisible church, which essentially privatized religious belief in such a dualistic fashion that it ultimately pitted the subjective realm of faith against the objective world in a form reminiscent of Averroism.
Once Luther became professor of theology at Wittenberg, we see his tendencies towards politicization emerge, teaching that, “it would be much safer if the temporal affairs also of the clergy were placed under the control of secular rulers.”
Like England, Germany was developing a deeper sense of nationalism that chafed under papal authority, particularly the large monies flowing out of Germany to Rome; much popular literature circulating in Germany at the time, sometimes apocalyptic in nature, anticipated a German church separate from Rome and guided by a political ruler. This immediate context explains to some degree the intense German reaction to the papal indulgences sold throughout the Holy Roman Empire, and that provided the catalyst for Luther’s call for reform.
In 1520, Luther appealed to the German nobility in a tract that urged the rejection of papal authority and called for the German nobility to step in to effect dramatic religious change.
In language notably similar to that of Marsilius and Ockham, Luther argued “we are under our princes, lords, and emperors… we must outwardly obey their laws instead of the laws of Moses.”
This embrace of what became called the erastian solution entailed using secular authorities to mandate the proper interpretation of Scripture; as Luther would argue, “the princes of Saxony sit as governing authorities by God. The land and the people are subject to them.”
Interestingly, Luther would later backpedal on the role of secular authorities in religion because of his frustration with political authorities who confiscated German New Testaments and Luther’s works, leading him to fashion his “two kingdoms” theory in which the spiritual and temporal authorities should remain separate. Yet even this became later convoluted by arguments made in 1530, when he suggested that rulers should intervene when “papists and Lutherans” disagreed over the meaning of Scripture.
**Another important development influencing historical-critical methods would be Luther’s conception of the “canon within the canon,” seeking to determine the “true kernel and marrow of all the books [of Scripture],” a method later exegetes would appropriate in trying to find the true “historical Jesus.”
As, “individual books do not provide unanimous affirmation of the chosen kernel,” leading exegetes to resort to “sorting through individual texts, layering them according to authentic and spurious, early and late, pure and tainted passages.” **
Luther’s influence on the historical-critical method can also be seen in his attempts at revising the canon, questioning the apostolic authorship of the epistle of James and expressing suspicion of the book of Revelation.
Of course, once one begins questioning the canon, it does not take long for others to see the potential “Pandora’s Box” and realize that every book’s authenticity or veracity is up for grabs.
S
steido01
Guest
Oh, absolutely. Do not mistake me for some crude antinomian. Law and Gospel is a Lutheran staple. Luther’s point was that the author of James taught (nearly) all Law and very little Gospel. He never mentions the Passion, hardly mentions Christ, and spends his time telling Christians rules for living.
Now tell me, without the other books to put it into context, how useful is James compared to Paul or the Gospels?
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Tell me: how are you suppose to call yourself a follower of Jesus if you don’t do what he asks? People are gonna come to Jesus at the last judgement bragging about how many mighty deeds they did. But He will say to them,“I never knew you. Depart from Me you evildoers.”
Both are equally useful. Jesus’ message cannot be separated from how He wants us to live.
I am gonna end with a quote from a very wise man: “Be doers of the Word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves.”
B
benhur
Guest
Hi SF,
I suppose consulting “tradition” and “proper authorities” can also lead to being “free” from the truth of proper interpretation of Writ also.
For his "final answer’’, did Peter consult with the “proper authorities” on whom Jesus was ?
How many were slain to prevent such “anarchy”, starting with Christ Himself ?
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Hi JB,
Your post is a bit confusing, though I understand being doers and not hearers alone.
Yet your first quote is about apparent doers not making it into heaven. One assumes that works of inequity are evil actions as in lying, cheating, stealing etc… I think the inequity is thinking/teaching your religious works can save you, or save you more fully, as the religious leaders of His day did. That is an inequity in itself, even being the the worst form of lying, cheating and stealing.
One must be born again, be a spiritual being that Christ can “know”, and even “sup with”. This is a primary, fundamental “doing”, on which to build deeds upon . Circumventing this, especially with religion and works, is* the *inequity.
Blessings
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Seriously? Mighty deeds and miracles won’t get you into heaven.
M
Michael68
Guest
Hi benhur
I know this is off topic, could you explain what you mean by “born again”?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Do Catholics need to confess this when going to confession or how would they confess this?
M
Michael68
Guest
No. This refers to a one time event by leaders of both churches.
I don’t believe any Lutheran, knowledgeable of their teaching, would ever dare claim other than what you say here, not if they’ve read the confessions.
I will close, as I often do on this topic, with Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:6
Jon
S
steido01
Guest
I’m not sure you’ve read a single word I’ve typed. Are you responding to me, or a straw man?
I’ve said quite plainly that I’m not an antinomian. I understand the necessity of Law and Gospel quite well. In the words of one brilliant theologian, “Without the Law the Gospel is not understood; without the Gospel the Law benefits us nothing.”
Lutherans see the need for both. We also understand that without the perspective of the Passion – the theology of the Cross – we cannot rightly understand Law or Gospel. James doesn’t mention the Passion a single time. Not once. So that book cannot be understood on its own in the same way, say, Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John can. Not that it doesn’t have worth (indeed, it’s of great value!) but only that it is complementary to the Gospels.
Lest you continue thinking I’m some biblical reductionist, here’s another quote from a mighty good pastor; “The point of difference between the Law and the Gospel is not this, that the Gospel is a divine and the Law a human doctrine, resting on the reason of man. Not at all; whatever of either doctrine is contained in the Scriptures is the Word of the living God Himself.
Nor is the difference, that only the Gospel is necessary, not the Law, as if the latter were a mere addition that could be dispensed with in a strait. No, both are equally necessary.”
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Oh, I’m responding to you.
You can’t compare books of Scripture. No one has the authority to downplay books just because they don’t mention the Passion. You need the Gospels as much as you need James. When people try to weigh books of the Bible based on value, what they’re doing is diminishing the value of the Bible altogether.
And James does mention the Passion, though not directly.
James 5:6
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Dosen’t mean that some do,
And there’s some Catholics who believe the Eucharist is symbolic, and that think they have to work their way to heaven. Look at doctrine
Jon
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
No…it would not be confessed in the context of the sacrament of reconciliation by individual penitents, who are not personally guilty of what is related in paragraph 233.
Unless, of course, someone today were doing that very thing “exaggerated and caricatured their opponents in order to make them look ridiculous [and thus] repeatedly violated the eighth commandment, which prohibits bearing false witness against one’s neighbor.” In such an instance, yes the person would be obliged to confess that. Properly, they should confess as well that their actions were willfully the opposite of what the Holy See and the Council Fathers stipulated and mandated by means of the Church’s proper authority.
This is not accurate, either. It is assuredly not a one time event nor is it just for leaders.
The Service of Common Prayer, now published, which Pope Francis together with Bishop Younan, President of the Lutheran World Federation, will inaugurate this coming October in Sweden, and which will be used by clergy of both denominations around the world throughout the following year long commemoration of the Reformation, will include expressions of repentance for the past, which will be articulated not only by the Catholic and Lutheran clerics co-officiating but by all those participating as well.
S
steido01
Guest
No, I’m not sure you’re understanding me (or Luther, for that matter). I’m not “downplaying” the value of any of the church catholic’s books. What I’m saying is that their uses are not all alike. They have different purposes. Those that preach Christ and Him crucified form the center, and we expand from that core. How does it “diminish” the value of Holy Scripture to seek out Christ under every sentence, phrase, and word?
It has also struck me that if an outsider were to read this thread, they might be confused as to which of us is the Sola Scripturist. Which of us understands Scripture as the Word of God passed down from the Apostles through the church, and which of us sees it as a closed table of contents to anathematize anyone who disagrees?
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
You diminish it by saying a book doesn’t have the value of the others. Scripture is an important part of God’s Divine Revelation. To diminish a book of Scripture is to diminish the whole package.
- Status