Questions for Protestants

[ncstevem]

Protestantism was founded on three basic principles first introduced by Martin Luther.

1. Sola Fide – man is saved by Faith alone.
2. Sola Scriptura – the Bible alone is the sole authority in matters of faith
3. The priesthood of all believers to read and interpret Scripture for themselves

As Catholics, we know that each one of these concepts is erroneous. I have some questions for those who believe the above concepts.

If Martin Luther was correct about the above principles, why are not all Protestants Lutherans? Is it because Luther was wrong about some things? If Luther had some things wrong what were his errors and what makes you so sure he was correct about the above?

If Sola Fide is true, are Born Again Christians who are guilty of adultery or fornication still guaranteed salvation? If so then was St. Paul wrong to write the following (1 Cor 6: 9, Gal 5: 19, Eph 5: 3-7, Col 3: 5-6, 1Th 4: 3-8).

Since most people who lived in the first several centuries after Christ were illiterate and since the Canon of the NT wasn’t definitively established until the end of the fourth century, how did Christians learn the Faith in the first several centuries after Christ’s crucifixion? Further, until the invention of the printing press and moveable type in the 1450’s, Bibles were rare and extremely expensive. How did the Christians from the 4th century until the 1450’s learn the Faith?

Is it true most Protestants serious about their Faith accept the concept of Natural Law and objective Truth and also reject the concept of moral relativism and situational ethics? If so, how does individual interpretation of the Bible not lead to theological relativism and ultimately moral relativism? Does the fact that there are approximately 30,000(+) Protestant denominations today support or undermine the idea of individual Bible interpretation and how it coincides with objective Truth?

 

[Bluegoat]

Protestantism was founded on three basic principles first introduced by Martin Luther.

1. Sola Fide – man is saved by Faith alone.
2. Sola Scriptura – the Bible alone is the sole authority in matters of faith
3. The priesthood of all believers to read and interpret Scripture for themselves

 

[JonNC]

=ncstevem;6663592]Protestantism was founded on three basic principles first introduced by Martin Luther.

Not convinced your understanding of Luther is completely accurate (but then, my understanding of Catholicism isn’t always accurate either, hence the need for charitable dialogue).

1. Sola Fide – man is saved by Faith alone.

Acutally, man is saved by Grace, and the life, suffering, death and ressurection of Christ. Sola fide says we are justified only by faith, and not our own actions. Lutherans do not view justification as an ongoing process, as Catholics do. That ongoing process of growth in grace, fulfilling the requirement of obedience to Christ’s commands, is sanctification.

1. Sola Scriptura – the Bible alone is the sole authority in matters of faith

So long as one understands that ss does not exclude Tradition. The very first section of the Book of Concord, the Lutheran confessions, is the three ecumenical creeds. Lutherans, obviously, do not reject Tradition.

1. The priesthood of all believers to read and interpret Scripture for themselves

As a cradle Lutheran, I’ve never heard it phrased this way. Martin Chemnitz, the 2nd generation reformer warns against personal interpretation saying, *“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…” * I was not raised believing I had the power or authority to interpret scripture myself. If I am to remain Lutheran, I am obliged, in matters of faith, to accept the Lutheran Confessions as a true reflection of scripture.

As Catholics, we know that each one of these concepts is erroneous. I have some questions for those who believe the above concepts.

Read some of the recent joint documents between Lutherans and Catholics, and you will find a growing convergence on justification.

If Martin Luther was correct about the above principles, why are not all Protestants Lutherans? Is it because Luther was wrong about some things? If Luther had some things wrong what were his errors and what makes you so sure he was correct about the above?

If the Catholic Church was correct about its principals why are not all (Orthodox, PNCC, Old Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Lutherans) Catholic?

Luther got a number of things wrong, but Lutherans are not held to the man Luther. We are held to scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.

If Sola Fide is true, are Born Again Christians who are guilty of adultery or fornication still guaranteed salvation? If so then was St. Paul wrong to write the following (1 Cor 6: 9, Gal 5: 19, Eph 5: 3-7, Col 3: 5-6, 1Th 4: 3-8).

You are confusing Lutheran teaching with Calvinism. Lutherans recognize the scriptural call for confession/Absolution, and the free will of the regenerate to reject Christ and lose salvation. “Born Again Christians” isn’t particularly Lutheran lingo. Lutherans would say we are born again at Baptism, not exactly the position of American evangelical Christians who use the phrase on a regular basis.

Since most people who lived in the first several centuries after Christ were illiterate and since the Canon of the NT wasn’t definitively established until the end of the fourth century, how did Christians learn the Faith in the first several centuries after Christ’s crucifixion? Further, until the invention of the printing press and moveable type in the 1450’s, Bibles were rare and extremely expensive. How did the Christians from the 4th century until the 1450’s learn the Faith?

They learned it through the Church, where they’re supposed to learn it. The mission of the Church is to preach the word and administer the sacraments. It is where I learned of Christ, first through the sacrament of Baptism a month after my birth, through confirmation, and it has continued in the Church through word and sacrament.

Is it true most Protestants serious about their Faith accept the concept of Natural Law and objective Truth and also reject the concept of moral relativism and situational ethics? If so, how does individual interpretation of the Bible not lead to theological relativism and ultimately moral relativism? Does the fact that there are approximately 30,000(+) Protestant denominations today support or undermine the idea of individual Bible interpretation and how it coincides with objective Truth?

Are you asking about Lutherans or Protestants? I can’t/won’t speak for Protestants, but confessional Lutherans hold to the Truth, as pronounced in scripture and reflected in the ecumenical creeds, and Lutheran confessions. Those Lutherans who slip into liberalism cannot be considered “confessional”, anymore than “cafeteria Catholics” are considered fully Catholic.
Does the fact that these 30,000 denominations rolleyes ultimately trace their roots to Rome (not Lutheranism, btw) call into question just Protestants, just Catholicism, or the human sin that is within all of us?

Jon

 

[to_seek]

Protestantism was founded on three basic principles first introduced by Martin Luther.

1. Sola Fide – man is saved by Faith alone.
2. Sola Scriptura – the Bible alone is the sole authority in matters of faith
3. The priesthood of all believers to read and interpret Scripture for themselves

As Catholics, we know that each one of these concepts is erroneous. I have some questions for those who believe the above concepts.
Hi, how do you know that these concepts are erroneous? To me it is very clear when reading Scripture that Christ Himself spoke many times on this subject. By the way, a true believer will rely on The Holy Spirit to guide him or her when reading Scripture. Faith is the start of a journey. True faith will reflect in good works. The two go together.
If Martin Luther was correct about the above principles, why are not all Protestants Lutherans? Is it because Luther was wrong about some things? If Luther had some things wrong what were his errors and what makes you so sure he was correct about the above?

If Sola Fide is true, are Born Again Christians who are guilty of adultery or fornication still guaranteed salvation? If so then was St. Paul wrong to write the following (1 Cor 6: 9, Gal 5: 19, Eph 5: 3-7, Col 3: 5-6, 1Th 4: 3-8).
No, noone who does not repent of his or her sins such as the above mentioned will be saved, not even a catholic. Thats common sense. No St Paul was not wrong. The problem I see is that Catholics and Protestants take a different slant on the same Scripture. I believe that always happened right from the time Jesus taught on earth. Im sure the pharisees of the time had major aguments, debates etc on what Jesus meant.
Since most people who lived in the first several centuries after Christ were illiterate and since the Canon of the NT wasn’t definitively established until the end of the fourth century, how did Christians learn the Faith in the first several centuries after Christ’s crucifixion? Further, until the invention of the printing press and moveable type in the 1450’s, Bibles were rare and extremely expensive. How did the Christians from the 4th century until the 1450’s learn the Faith?
I believe that all knowledge was passed down by word of mouth, a lot of cultures do that even today. At least until the first scribes started recording all data. Common sense again.
Is it true most Protestants serious about their Faith accept the concept of Natural Law and objective Truth and also reject the concept of moral relativism and situational ethics? If so, how does individual interpretation of the Bible not lead to theological relativism and ultimately moral relativism? Does the fact that there are approximately 30,000(+) Protestant denominations today support or undermine the idea of individual Bible interpretation and how it coincides with objective Truth?

All christians believe in absolute truth, no matter what their creed is. Anything else is a lie and dont forget a lot of christians follow worldly ideas, including catholics, that is the problem of a secular humanist society. No as stated all creeds debate different parts of their faith beliefs including catholics. A true believer knows the truth of God. It is not individual interpretation that is the problem. It is whether the person is being guided by The Holy Spirit who is always Objective Truth. Im sure if you think about it, why would a Church of any denomination want to stifle Biblical Truth or tell their congregations that only the Pope can fully and truthfully interpret Holy Scripture. To me that is the strange thing, remarkably like the cults who encourage total dependance on one leader. What do you think about that? No disrespect, but it kind of gives the impression catholics are not intelligent, thinking, discerning people, who cant be trusted to read correctly. Does this give you any more insight that it is not a black and white issue. Regards, to seek.

 

[Berean2]

(Original OP)

LMTO! We Protestants are often accused of being “obsessed” with Mary; I think the same could be said of many RC’s in regard to Luther. Luther is not the Protestant pope, nor is Calvin, or Wesley. No biblical Protestant in their right mind would say any of those guys was infallible (remember: we only see Scripture as infallible). Now, it’s true that some people treat those guys as tho they were popes—that’s simply what amounts to the guru-syndrome, which afflicts all religions across the world (you already see it in Corinthians in the passage where Paul chides folks for saying “I am of Paul,” “I am of Cephas” etc.). But the average Protestant doesn’t officially view any of the great “Protestant Movers” as supreme.

Keep in mind that there were many converging currents leading to what we now call “Protestantism;” it wasn’t “founded,” it evolved. Luther wasn’t out to start a movement or even a new church: he still considered himself a Catholic/the Catholic Church as valid (the 95 theses are strongly RC!), and he still used the RC mentality in his reading of Scripture. He was simply a “match” thrown on a heap of dry wood.

…how does individual interpretation of the Bible not lead to theological relativism and ultimately moral relativism?

Because if a Protestant believingly reads God’s Word (thru which His Holy Spirit works and trains souls), he’ll heed such injunctions as the 10 Commandments (not to mention that certain folks who are supposedly guided by Mother Church still end up committing perverted acts against minors—how do you explain that?). I’ve been heeding the Bible since '76, and believe me, I despise theological and moral relativism (it’s the Frankfurt School Gramscians who’re responsible for the massive decay of Western Society, not Protestantism). The person to blame for the anomy of the West is Marx, not Luther. If Protestantism was the main culprit in the anarchy that now riddles the West, why was it still possible in the 40’s & 50’s to leave your keys in the ignition while you went into a store, or safely sit out in Central Park till midnite on hot summer nites?

As for Sola Fide, that’s referring to justification; any Biblical Protestant understands that (a la Romans 6) once we are brought into Christ (justified/reconciled to God), we are to yield ourselves as instruments of righteousness; or as Paul sums it up in Corinthians, “Because we have these promises [of justification by grace alone], brethren, let us be diligent to purify ourselves of all defilement of body and soul, making holiness perfect in the fear of God.”

It would be refreshing if Protestantism weren’t repeatedly described in reductionist straw man fashion.

 

[larkin31]

Protestantism was founded on three basic principles first introduced by Martin Luther.

1. Sola Fide – man is saved by Faith alone.
2. Sola Scriptura – the Bible alone is the sole authority in matters of faith
3. The priesthood of all believers to read and interpret Scripture for themselves

If Martin Luther was correct about the above principles, why are not all Protestants Lutherans? Is it because Luther was wrong about some things? If Luther had some things wrong what were his errors and what makes you so sure he was correct about the above?

Everyone is wrong about something.

Nothing on this list states “My way is the only way.” Why would you assume that one must be a Lutheran?

 

[Danny_Clover]

Protestantism was founded on three basic principles first introduced by Martin Luther.

1. Sola Fide – man is saved by Faith alone.
2. Sola Scriptura – the Bible alone is the sole authority in matters of faith
3. The priesthood of all believers to read and interpret Scripture for themselves

The bad news is that you got two out three wrong, but the good news is, if this were baseball, a batting average of .333 would still get you into the hall of fame.

Sola scriptura doesn’t mean that the Bible is the sole authority, only that it is the supreme authority. If we really believed that it was the only authority, then we woudln’t have creeds, confessions, catechisms, etc.

Likewise, the priesthood of the believer doesn’t mean that we can interpret scripture for ourselves. We must still understand scripture within the bounds set by the church.

Does the fact that there are approximately 30,000(+) Protestant denominations today support or undermine the idea of individual Bible interpretation and how it coincides with objective Truth?

If that claim were true, then you would still have to ask whether the differences between these alleged denominations fall within an acceptable margin for disagreement, or whether they are such a disagreement as to justify dividing over. You’d also have to acknowledge the fact that one or more of the denominations may be wrong.

 

[Danny_Clover]

LMTO! We Protestants are often accused of being “obsessed” with Mary; I think the same could be said of many RC’s in regard to Luther.

Oh, haven’t you heard? Luther is just soooo 16th century. The new obsession now is Calvin and how we justify his allegedly burning Michael Servetus at the stake.

 

[Izdaari]

Protestantism was founded on three basic principles first introduced by Martin Luther.

1. Sola Fide – man is saved by Faith alone.
2. Sola Scriptura – the Bible alone is the sole authority in matters of faith
3. The priesthood of all believers to read and interpret Scripture for themselves

As Catholics, we know that each one of these concepts is erroneous. I have some questions for those who believe the above concepts.

If Martin Luther was correct about the above principles, why are not all Protestants Lutherans? Is it because Luther was wrong about some things? If Luther had some things wrong what were his errors and what makes you so sure he was correct about the above?

Insofar as those three principles are concerned, I might as well be Lutheran. Indeed, the main reason I’m not is that the best local church happened to be of a different denomination… and it fully agrees with Luther on those three as well.

Was Luther wrong about some things? Oh, yes! For one thing, he was notoriously anti-semitic. On that, he couldn’t have been more wrong! But I don’t agree with him on those three principles on the basis of his personal authority, but on the basis of the soundness of his reasoning, which I’ve read for myself.

If Sola Fide is true, are Born Again Christians who are guilty of adultery or fornication still guaranteed salvation? If so then was St. Paul wrong to write the following (1 Cor 6: 9, Gal 5: 19, Eph 5: 3-7, Col 3: 5-6, 1Th 4: 3-8).

Paul wasn’t wrong, but Paul is often misunderstood. Adultery and fornication are indeed very serious sins, but they are not unforgivable.

Since most people who lived in the first several centuries after Christ were illiterate and since the Canon of the NT wasn’t definitively established until the end of the fourth century, how did Christians learn the Faith in the first several centuries after Christ’s crucifixion? Further, until the invention of the printing press and moveable type in the 1450’s, Bibles were rare and extremely expensive. How did the Christians from the 4th century until the 1450’s learn the Faith?

For one thing, oral tradition, the same as the Jews before Christianity came along. One rabbi, on visiting a certain Babylonian city, heard that the Jewish community there didn’t have a copy of the book of Esther. So he sat down and wrote one out for them! And at the time, the ability to do such a thing wasn’t considered unusual, because rabbis commonly did have all the Hebrew Scriptures memorized.

And of course, Christians were read and taught the Scriptures in church, from the first-generation church on. That wasn’t unique to the Catholic tradition.

Is it true most Protestants serious about their Faith accept the concept of Natural Law and objective Truth and also reject the concept of moral relativism and situational ethics? If so, how does individual interpretation of the Bible not lead to theological relativism and ultimately moral relativism? Does the fact that there are approximately 30,000(+) Protestant denominations today support or undermine the idea of individual Bible interpretation and how it coincides with objective Truth?

I am a believer in Natural Law, but that came by way of Hobbes, Locke and Jefferson as I learned history and political science… so my understanding of Natural Law is perhaps a bit different than the Catholic understanding. It is not conditioned upon my religious faith, at least not beyond deism. It does serve as the underpinning for my classical liberal political philosophy.

I believe in objective truth, but I don’t believe all truths are objective truths. There is room in my worldview for some cultural, moral and situational relativism. The world that God made is objectively real, but we don’t understand how it works directly, but through our mental models of it, which are often defective.

Yes, different Christians may at times interpret passages in the Bible differently. But I really don’t see that as a problem. Some are right, some are wrong, some are in between and some are still trying to figure it out. So? All of life is like that.

The vast majority of those 30,000+ Protestant churches (if that is indeed the right number) don’t differ on the most important things, and remain part of the invisible, catholic (small-c) church. Though my church happens to be affiliated with Assemblies of God, if it changed to Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican or Lutheran, I could still remain a member because the main Christian things, the things pretty much all Christians at all times have agreed on, what C.S. Lewis called “mere Christianity”, would not change.