Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[orange_man]

I believe that Luther changed doctrine and the Bible of his own accord.

That is where my problem w/ Luther begins and ends. That he was a nut is obvious. That he was right on some counts is also obvious.

He had a brilliant mind. The CC owes a lot to him.

Still, he changed doctrine and the Bible without authority.

Some here are complaining that he was an anti-semite and otherwise a miserable human being. That is irrelevant. Some of the popes have been miserable human beings, too. The CC doesn’t get its authority from itself (from the men who run it), and so it doesn’t depend on the righteousness of its popes.

Luther, however, made changes without authority and without the protection of infallibility.

He shouldn’t have made the changes he did, and that he did not speak infallibly means that no one can know that the doctrines he promoted are correct. He said so himself, didn’t he, when he denied papal infallibility.

He argues against reason, yet expects others to follow him because he has reasoned out a doctrine that suits his fancy.

wasn’t papal infallibility enumerated in the nineteenth century (long after Luther was dead & buried)? Moreover, what doctrines did Luther “change” exactly? Faith alone … he added the word alone in one German translation of scripture (though he readily admited it did not appear in the original Koine Greek text). He did a “idea” translation from the original Greek into German (trying to convey the idea represented by the Greek words into an entirely different language).

Is there anything besides faith that saves us? Well, preceding faith there is grace, which enables our faith. Preceding grace there is God and His eternal plan in election. Do works save us? Did it save any Pharisee?

Unfortunately the Catholic Church has departed from the sound theology of its doctor of grace and predestination, Augustine, who never taught anything resembling a universal prevenient grace (adopted by Catholics, both Latin and Eastern Rite, as well as Arminian protestants).

That being said … I would never say Luther was perfect, but of course neither is Rome. What Luther contributed to Christendom was sound theology, built upon by other reformers like Calvin, Beza, and others.

 

[orange_man]

We have to agree also that the teaching of Sola Scriptura by Luther is in effect reducing the authority of the Church, thereby, crippling her to some extent.

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them (Westminster Confession of Faith).

I believe this is closer to the intention and heart of Christ as opposed to the Roman idea that its tradition may trump the word of God (or is equal to scripture); or that the lay man is ill equipped to interpret scripture and form a personal relationship with God for himself.

 

[josie_L]

Josie,
What is the source, so I can view it? But in short, the differing expressions used by our communions to describe grace and justification need to be reconciled, and I believe can be, as proven by the JDDJ. We can all look backwards and continue to throw polemics at each other, or we can look forward with a desire that the HS guide our communions together. Seems to me that our respective leaders are further along this road than many of us in the laity of both.

Jon

And I am happy that such a communion will take place, however, some people would deny Luther made any changes that significantly altered the theology set by the CC. To here such things said boggles the mind . I write so I may clarify any misunderstanding concerning Catholic doctrines/theology.

Here is the link to the article you wanted: www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304fea1.asp

God bless, Jon.

P.S. There are two parts to this article, key in the words faith alone and Martin Luther, on Catholic Answers, and you will find what you are looking for.

 

[TertiumQuid]

TetriumQuid, sola scriptura and sola fida are both against Scripture, and the (up to that point) 1500 year teaching and interpretation of Scripture (check earlier posts on this subject, if not, I’ll provide you with them.)

Actually, your private interpretations don’t interest me all that much. If you can produce an infallible magisterial pronouncement applicable to the universal Catholic Church previous to 1500 on justification or the canon, that would interest me. I’ve already presented the paradigm your church uses to establish truth: infallible pronouncment. By holding you to this standard, I’m simply asking you to be a consistent Catholic.

The Councils of Carthage and Hippo did not establish the canon for the Church as a whole. The Canon was not officially and authoritatively established for the Western Church until the Council of Trent. Up until that time, history shows us Catholic theologians held varying opinions on the canon, like Cardinal Cajetan. Council of Trent expert Hubert Jedin has documented that even at Trent, some of the best scholars that were considered fairly knowledgeable on canon issues did not affirm the Duetero- canonicals as Scripture. You can read about these men here. If the canon was settled previous to Trent’s dogmatic pronouncment, the men at Trent who did not believe the apocrypha was Scripture would have been sanctioned and anathema. They were not, proof that I’m right.

In *Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther’s Reformation *[New York: Harper and Row, 1964], Jaraslov Pelikan states on page 51-52:

“Existing side by side in pre-Reformation theology were several ways of interpreting the righteousness of God and the act of justification. They ranged from strongly moralistic views that seemed to equate justification with moral renewal to ultra-forensic views, which saw justification as a ‘nude imputation’ that seemed possible apart from Christ, by an arbitrary decree of God. Between these extremes were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification.”

If you can produce any offical dogmatic statement from Rome to refute Pelikan’s point, I’d be very interested in seeing what Rome’s dogmatic teaching on justification was previous to luther.

There is an unfortunate problem of Catholic apologetic double standards that are replete within this thread. The Catholic apologists assume Trent was following the tradition of the church, and there was no teaching of “faith alone” previous to Luther. In other words, Luther invented “justification by faith alone”. It didn’t exist until Luther. It can’t be verified in church history. It can’t be true. On the other hand, when the same historical standard is applied to certain Roman Catholic dogmas, like Mary’s Bodily Assumption, Purgatory, Indulgences, etc., this same historical standard is swept under the rug and hidden. One has to seriously question why a standard that Catholic apologists hold Protestants to is not likewise applied to their own beliefs. Wade through the corridors of church history and search for the threads of all Roman Catholic dogma. One falls flat of linking many of them back to the early church, or in some instances, even the Bible.

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Since Luther stated in his letter “Let Your Sin’s Be Strong” dated 1 August 1521, that obeying the commandments don’t matter, I would say that this is a change in doctrine:

Luther’s theology indeed has a place for the Law of God and its use in the life of a Christian. The Law for Luther was dual purposed: it first drives one to see their sin and a need for a savior; secondly it functions in the life of a Christian to lead one to a correct understanding of the good one ought to do.

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Luther knows how important Moses and the law was in his theology. Luther taught that anyone who is to preach must be able to preach the law:

“First, he must preach the Law so that the people may learn what great things God demands of us; of these we cannot perform any because of the impotence of our nature which has been corrupted by Adam’s fall.”
Source: Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 1 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 1:131.

Luther also points out that only by knowing God’s law does one even “know” what a good work is:

“…[O]nly those things are good works which God has commanded, just as only that is a sin which God has forbidden. Therefore, he who wants to know and do good works need only know God’s Commandments… These Commandments of God must teach us how to distinguish among good works.”
Source: Ewald Plass, What Luther Says Volumes 1-3 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing house, 1959) 3:1499.

These examples show that Luther valued the law. Luther scholar Paul Althaus points out for Luther, “The Ten Commandments have their place not only ‘before’ but also ‘after’ justification; thus they not only exercise the Christian in the theological function of the law but also lead him to a right knowledge of the good he ought to do according to God’s will.” [Source: Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 272].

Luther composed a hymn on the Ten Commandments in which he states, “To us come these commands, that so- Thou son of man, thy sins mayst know- And make thee also well perceive- How before God man should live.” [Source: LW 53:279] Elsewhere Luther said of the Ten Commandments, “They are the true fountain from which all good works must flow.” [Source: Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 272, footnote 124].

In Luther’s Small Catechism the Ten Commandments were placed first because he wanted people to understand that God is wrathful against sin. The negative prohibitions in the Ten Commandments clearly showed our need for a savior. also in the Small Catechism, Luther suggests a daily regiment of prayer and includes a verbal reading of the Ten Commandments. In the reciting of the Ten Commandments along with the Apostles Creed and Lord’s Prayer, one hears both law and gospel at the beginning and ending of each day. Luther says, “…[N]o man can progress so far in sanctification as to keep even one of the Ten Commandments as it should be kept, but that the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer must come to our assistance, as we shall hear, through which we must continually seek, pray for, and obtain the power and strength to keep the Commandments" [Source: What Luther Says 3:1501].

Luther placed a strong emphasis on the First Commandment, which was one of the key factors in the shape of his entire theology. Luther believed God spoke the word of creation bringing human creatures into existence was repeated in the First Commandment. The whole of the Scripture can be summarized in the First Commandment. He understood the First Commandment to be both law and gospel. It is law because it invokes a demand with a burden that can crush us. When we do not place God at the center of our lives, we are lost not living the full life of a human creature. This command is also gospel: it is good news that God says He is our Father, that He is our God, protector-provider, Lord and Savior. It is His gift of being His child. The implication of this for Luther’s entire theology is that he derived all of God’s gracious promises from the First Commandment. As Roland Bainton has rightly said,

“One might have expected the great line of demarcation for [Luther] to have lain between the Old Testament and the New. It did for some Protestants, like the Anabaptists, who rejected the wars of Yahweh and took literally the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount. Luther on a different count might have used his distinction of law and gospel to repudiate Moses as law, but Luther did not. Law and gospel, said he, lie side by side throughout the whole Bible. That which relies on man’s good works is law. That which relies on God’s good grace is gospel. The Ten Commandments can witness to grace and the Sermon on the Mount can be treated as a new law. Therefore, the Old Testament is not to be rejected or relegated to a lower rank. Here one must recall that Luther interpreted the Old Testament in terms of the pre-existent Christ, who was speaking through Moses and through David.”
Source: Roland Bainton, Studies on the Reformation, 6-7.

Luther said of the entire Old Testament, “Christ must first be heard in the Gospel, then it will be seen how beautiful and lovely the whole Old Testament is in harmony with him, so that a man cannot help giving himself in submission to faith and be enabled to recognize the truth of what Christ says in John 5: 46, “For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me, for he wrote of me”.”
Source: Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 1 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 1:151.

James Swan

 

[josie_L]

wasn’t papal infallibility enumerated in the nineteenth century (long after Luther was dead & buried)? Moreover, what doctrines did Luther “change” exactly? Faith alone … he added the word alone in one German translation of scripture (though he readily admited it did not appear in the original Koine Greek text). He did a “idea” translation from the original Greek into German (trying to convey the idea represented by the Greek words into an entirely different language).

Papal infallibility always was, that it was delineated further during the Nineteenth century does not make it a new doctrine. Doctrines within the CC can develop overtime, but we have always held to those truths from the time of Christ.

Is there anything besides faith that saves us? Well, preceding faith there is grace, which enables our faith. Preceding grace there is God and His eternal plan in election. Do works save us? Did it save any Pharisee?

The CC does not deny that grace precedes faith, however faith working in love powered by grace is necessary for our salvation, anyone who denies this does not understand scriptures. You confuse good works with the works of the Mosaic law, and therefore misinterpret Paul. James made it quite clear that faith (to believe in Christ) and works result in a living faith (a complete faith), as opposed to a dead faith that has no works. Faith, itself has throughout the Bible an alternating definition, at times it means an intellectual assent (simply put a belief in Jesus) whereas at other times it means an all-encompassing faith (a living faith, one that is not just a belief affirmed with words but actions as well).

Unfortunately the Catholic Church has departed from the sound theology of its doctor of grace and predestination, Augustine, who never taught anything resembling a universal prevenient grace (adopted by Catholics, both Latin and Eastern Rite, as well as Arminian protestants).

I do not know much about predestination to do my argument justice, however the predestination of which I am aware of and has understood by Catholics is different from what Calvin preached. God knowing all things already knows who will reject or embrace his love and gift of salvation, based upon that knowledge, He knows who will go to Heaven and those who will go to Hell, in this sense do Catholics define predestination. It is a predestination which is not manipulated by God and allows for Humans to use their God-given free will.

That being said … I would never say Luther was perfect, but of course neither is Rome. What Luther contributed to Christendom was sound theology, built upon by other reformers like Calvin, Beza, and others.

Of course neither are you perfect (in mind, body and soul), which begs the question how do you know you are right?

 

[SHW]

Luther’s theology …
“…[O]nly those things are good works which God has commanded, just as only that is a sin which God has forbidden. Therefore, he who wants to know and do good works need only know God’s Commandments… These Commandments of God must teach us how to distinguish among good works.”
Source: Ewald Plass, What Luther Says Volumes 1-3 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing house, 1959) 3:1499…

Thank you for the clarification.

Pax,
SHW

 

[w_stewart]

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them (Westminster Confession of Faith).

I believe this is closer to the intention and heart of Christ as opposed to the Roman idea that its tradition may trump the word of God (or is equal to scripture); or that the lay man is ill equipped to interpret scripture and form a personal relationship with God for himself.

Paul treated Scriptures and the Tradition equally. The Church founded by Christ possesses both. Through the Church, faithful can have relationship with God, being the Church his Body.

 

[josie_L]

Actually, your private interpretations don’t interest me all that much. If you can produce an infallible magisterial pronouncement applicable to the universal Catholic Church previous to 1500 on justification or the canon, that would interest me. I’ve already presented the paradigm your church uses to establish truth: infallible pronouncment. By holding you to this standard, I’m simply asking you to be a consistent Catholic.

The Councils of Carthage and Hippo did not establish the canon for the Church as a whole. The Canon was not officially and authoritatively established for the Western Church until the Council of Trent. Up until that time, history shows us Catholic theologians held varying opinions on the canon, like Cardinal Cajetan. Council of Trent expert Hubert Jedin has documented that even at Trent, some of the best scholars that were considered fairly knowledgeable on canon issues did not affirm the Duetero- canonicals as Scripture. You can read about these men here. If the canon was settled previous to Trent’s dogmatic pronouncment, the men at Trent who did not believe the apocrypha was Scripture would have been sanctioned and anathema. They were not, proof that I’m right.

In *Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther’s Reformation *[New York: Harper and Row, 1964], Jaraslov Pelikan states on page 51-52:

“Existing side by side in pre-Reformation theology were several ways of interpreting the righteousness of God and the act of justification. They ranged from strongly moralistic views that seemed to equate justification with moral renewal to ultra-forensic views, which saw justification as a ‘nude imputation’ that seemed possible apart from Christ, by an arbitrary decree of God. Between these extremes were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification.”

If you can produce any offical dogmatic statement from Rome to refute Pelikan’s point, I’d be very interested in seeing what Rome’s dogmatic teaching on justification was previous to luther.

There is an unfortunate problem of Catholic apologetic double standards that are replete within this thread. The Catholic apologists assume Trent was following the tradition of the church, and there was no teaching of “faith alone” previous to Luther. In other words, Luther invented “justification by faith alone”. It didn’t exist until Luther. It can’t be verified in church history. It can’t be true. On the other hand, when the same historical standard is applied to certain Roman Catholic dogmas, like Mary’s Bodily Assumption, Purgatory, Indulgences, etc., this same historical standard is swept under the rug and hidden. One has to seriously question why a standard that Catholic apologists hold Protestants to is not likewise applied to their own beliefs. Wade through the corridors of church history and search for the threads of all Roman Catholic dogma. One falls flat of linking many of them back to the early church, or in some instances, even the Bible.

James Swan

Did you read my post at all? The CC tradition has always believed the deuteros were divinely inspired, in fact the Latin Vulgate Bible was and has the deuteros contained within it (the Guttenberg Bible as well). You can quote all the individuals you like that were not convinced of the deuteros, unless you can state definitively when the Magisterium has ever taught them to be uninspired, you do not have a case. And while you’re at it find a Bible existing before the Reformation and authorized by the Church that does not contain the deuteros in it.

I leave you with this as you took upon yourself to ignore my post:

“Protestant author Paul Achtemeier tells us, “Eastern and Roman Catholic tradition generally considered the Old Testament ‘apocryphal’ books to be canonical. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that these books were clearly denied canonical status (in Protestant circles). The Roman church, however, continues to affirm their place in the canon of Scripture” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1st ed. [Harper & Row, c1985], 69).”

as well as this:

"The early acceptance of the deuterocanonicals was carried down through Church history. The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew… . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.”

As for the portion in bold: I would suggest you look harder or read John Henry Newman’s book: An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine.

 

[Cinette]

I believe that Luther changed doctrine and the Bible of his own accord.

That is where my problem w/ Luther begins and ends. That he was a nut is obvious. That he was right on some counts is also obvious.

He had a brilliant mind. The CC owes a lot to him.

Still, he changed doctrine and the Bible without authority.

Some here are complaining that he was an anti-semite and otherwise a miserable human being. That is irrelevant. Some of the popes have been miserable human beings, too. The CC doesn’t get its authority from itself (from the men who run it), and so it doesn’t depend on the righteousness of its popes.

Luther, however, made changes without authority and without the protection of infallibility.

He shouldn’t have made the changes he did, and that he did not speak infallibly means that no one can know that the doctrines he promoted are correct. He said so himself, didn’t he, when he denied papal infallibility.

He argues against reason, yet expects others to follow him because he has reasoned out a doctrine that suits his fancy.

This post is so clear and well presented. It comes from sound reasoning and knowledge and it is a pleasure to debate with the likes of you.

Thank you and God bless you
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

Yeah, maybe so. But, of course, when you or I write personal letters we may not expect it to go public, so to speak. Luther knew he was speaking to a theologian like himself, who would not mistake the hyperbole for something, as you said, dangerous.

Finally, may I add to the end of your last sentence above, “since just one sin of adultery will forfeit a person’s justification” the words, “if it remains unrepented of”.

Jon

Ecumenism is good but… to those who do not know the faith well, it can muddy the waters and therefore it is dangerous.

Many Catholics do not know their faith well and many just know the outward signs and are in the Church because they are cradle Catholics and they feel comfortable. My Grandfather was Catholic, my parents are Catholic, I am Catholic and my children are Catholic kind of thing. This is sad and points to a very shallow type.

We should pray for them. I do.

Cheers

 

[RobbyS]

Interesting…I thought his (Luther’s) anti-semitism was rather well known.

He was, I uderstand, quite disappointed by failed efforts to reach out to the Jews. They stubbornly refused to see Christ in the Scriptures. He was an intemperate man, and quick to heap verbal abuse on his religious enemies. All the same, can’t blame him for Hitler.

 

[Cinette]

wasn’t papal infallibility enumerated in the nineteenth century (long after Luther was dead & buried)? Moreover, what doctrines did Luther “change” exactly? Faith alone … he added the word alone in one German translation of scripture (though he readily admited it did not appear in the original Koine Greek text). He did a “idea” translation from the original Greek into German (trying to convey the idea represented by the Greek words into an entirely different language).

Is there anything besides faith that saves us? Well, preceding faith there is grace, which enables our faith. Preceding grace there is God and His eternal plan in election. Do works save us? Did it save any Pharisee?

Unfortunately the Catholic Church has departed from the sound theology of its doctor of grace and predestination, Augustine, who never taught anything resembling a universal prevenient grace (adopted by Catholics, both Latin and Eastern Rite, as well as Arminian protestants).

That being said … I would never say Luther was perfect, but of course neither is Rome. What Luther contributed to Christendom was sound theology, built upon by other reformers like Calvin, Beza, and others.

Oh dear - I was enjoying your post and then from the penultimate paragraph down I was disappointed…Ah well!

To my mind Sola Scriptura and sola Fide make no sense. It is implicit that through grace and faith good works would result - it is logical and makes perfect sense. The history of the Church demonstrates the logic also of Tradition and its influence and how Scripture (written Tradition) emanated from Oral Tradition. It is so simple to understand and I cannot understand how intelligent people cannot see this and yet they do.

As for that four letter word only Luther made much mischief and influenced generations with this. That was dumb.

I know Luther was intelligent (although sometimes I wonder) and that he wrote some good things but he was dumb to think he could institute reform by going outside the Church. I am sure he must have had regrets. Later looking at the sum of his work - the splintered denominations, confused - he must have realised the mess he caused. I am assuming that eventually he was allowed into Heaven or maybe he has to spend a long time in Purgatory.

Cinette

 

[BareKnuckler]

I always wonder why some catholics are quick to point out the anti-semitism of Luther but apparently overlook the anti-semitism of those in their own fold.

Eh, its only wrong if someone else does it, remember

 

[c659smith]

Yes he did. Until the Pope proved he was not infallible by defending his right to sell entrance into heaven. Once Luther’s faith in the pope was rightly crushed, he began to examine the religion to see if other false teachings existed.

“In our Latin Bible, ‘repent’ has come to mean ‘to do penance.’ But in the original Greek it means ‘to change one’s mind’ — and that is what Jesus meant. Jesus didn’t ask for penance… works, deeds or rituals… he asks for a simple change of heart. Salvation is not earned by pilgrimages to Rome, veneration of relics, or Masses attended. We need only Jesus Christ. Jesus paid for our sins. Salvation is a gift from God.” - Matin Luther

“Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God’s grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!” - Martin Luther

This is in contrast to the teaching of the RC:
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”(Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).Pope!!!

"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought … calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. …God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, …” (St. Catherine)

Ginger

Ginger

Those sins you forgive are forgiven and those sins retained are retained.

Who said this and who was it said to?

 

[TertiumQuid]

Did you read my post at all?

I haven’t read every post in this thread, but it appears, neither have you. I noted earlier you cited Luther out of context here, yet, I think you just moved on without admitting you did a cut and paste of a mis-citation presented by Peter Wiener. If you did address this somewhere, my apologies for having missed it.

The CC tradition has always believed the deuteros were divinely inspired, in fact the Latin Vulgate Bible was and has the deuteros contained within it (the Guttenberg Bible as well).

Actually it appears you’re not reading my posts, which is ok, I realize the facts I’ve presented don’t fit in your template, and can’t account for a significant amount of historical information. There were theologians and others all the way up to Trent that did not believe the Deutero-canonicals were canon. This information can be found here. The “Tradition” you speak of wasn’t determined unti the Council of trent. Up until that time, the Roman Catholic Church gives her theologians the freedom to hold differing and speculative views.

That’s why in the 6th Century, Gregory the Great could say,

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed" (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)

Or similarly, the great Catholic theologian Cardinal Cajetan could say

…these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose.

You can quote all the individuals you like that were not convinced of the deuteros, unless you can state definitively when the Magisterium has ever taught them to be uninspired, you do not have a case.

My case has been that the Roman Church allows her theologians freedom up until dogmatic pronouncement on any particular issue. In a Roman Catholic worldview, this will account for many voices in Church history and their opinions on the Canon, including Luther, Erasmus, and Cajetan, as well as Jerome, The Glossa ordinaria, and a host of others. To be consistent on this will mean Roman Catholics can’t critisize Luther. What happens though in response are usually posts like yours in which the argument is ignored so Luther can be continually chastised anachronistically.

And while you’re at it find a Bible existing before the Reformation and authorized by the Church that does not contain the deuteros in it.

This isn’t the point. The larger canon was often put forth, even by those who doubted divine Duetero-canonical authority. As Pope Gregory stated of them, “though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church.” The issue was not whether or not they appear in a Bible, but what their divine status was. That’s why Luther’s Bible has them, and even why some Protestant confessions of faith say they are useful to read but not inspired.

I leave you with this as you took upon yourself to ignore my post:

As to your quotes, they don’t address my points at all. The first quote backfires on you because it says “generally” and then it affirms my point that not until Trent did the Roman Church make an infallible pronouncement on the canon. As to your second quote, I’ll have to get to that later today or tomorrow, as my copy of Kelly is elsewhere at the moment. Regardless, it has nothing of substance to the points I’ve been making.

James Swan

 

[bobregan]

wasn’t papal infallibility enumerated in the nineteenth century (long after Luther was dead & buried)? Moreover, what doctrines did Luther “change” exactly? Faith alone … he added the word alone in one German translation of scripture (though he readily admited it did not appear in the original Koine Greek text). He did a “idea” translation from the original Greek into German (trying to convey the idea represented by the Greek words into an entirely different language).

Is there anything besides faith that saves us? Well, preceding faith there is grace, which enables our faith. Preceding grace there is God and His eternal plan in election. Do works save us? Did it save any Pharisee?

Unfortunately the Catholic Church has departed from the sound theology of its doctor of grace and predestination, Augustine, who never taught anything resembling a universal prevenient grace (adopted by Catholics, both Latin and Eastern Rite, as well as Arminian protestants).

That being said … I would never say Luther was perfect, but of course neither is Rome. What Luther contributed to Christendom was sound theology, built upon by other reformers like Calvin, Beza, and others.

“That being said … I would never say Luther was perfect, but of course neither is Rome”

Summing up, if I’m reading TetriumQuid and Orange Man correctly, then there is no Christian faith (Protestant or Catholic) that is perfectly correct on doctrine, faith and morals. It’s almost as if you’re proclaiming the Church started by Christ (whatever you think it is) for 2000 years has at times (if ever) gotten wrong Christ’s teachings. As if the Holy Spirit has never been involved in any Christian Church.

Calvin had sound theology??? He taught that the Eucharist is only a symbol is sound theology?? C’MON!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!

And my question on where did Luther (or Calvin, or Zwingli, or Joel Osteen, etc. etc.) get their authority to start a church in Christ’s name never gets answered.

It’s a simple question, with a simple answer. Where did the founder of the Catholic Church (Peter) get his authority to start a Church in Christ’s name? From Jesus Christ.

From whom did Luther (or any Protestant group) get its authority to start a church?______________ (place answer here.)

 

[TertiumQuid]

Calvin had sound theology??? He taught that the Eucharist is only a symbol is sound theology?? C’MON!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!

I’m on my way out the door, but I 'd like to suggest actually looking in to Calvin’s view before commenting on it, and then contrasting it with Zwingli’s for clarification.

James Swan

 

[bobregan]

My bad, apologies, I need another cup of coffee before I fully wake up!..Zwingli was purely symbolic in his teachings on the Eucharist, Calvin landed somewhere between Luther and Zwingli’s teachings. Mt point being, why, after 1500 years, would they decide to be diametrically opposite from the 1500 year teaching of the Eucharist? As in john 6, it is a “hard” saying. Are they not then like the disciples in John 6:66 that decided to stop following Christ because to eat His flesh and drink His Blood was too “hard” to believe?

And if someone (whether Catholic or Protestant) thinks the Eucharist is only a symbol, aren’t they turning away from Christ as in John 6:66? I have to conclude yes.

As a Catholic, I once did find the Teaching of the Eucharist “hard”. But I decided to believe the teaching first with faith (as Peter does in John 6), and dedicate much time, study and prayer in to why it is truly Christ’s Body and Blood. And the more I studied, the more the beauty of the teaching came out…the more I wanted to receive Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist. And the graces from this started to flow…

I would highly recommend to anyone NOT to go half way and believe that the eucharist is only symbolic. Believe and have faith first like Peter did, then dedicate much time to prayer/study in to the Mystery…you will see.

The Catholic Church does have its human sins and faillings over the last 2000 years.It is run by men, who fail (the selling of indulgences, for example). But because the Catholic Church has the body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jeus, I could never, never leave the Catholic Church.

Maybe if Luther, Zwingli, etc. had a stronger faith in the Eucharist, they would have stayed in the Catholic Church and fought to change these sins. And because of a strong belief in the Eucharist they would have never, never thought of leaving the Church.

 

[kalt]

wasn’t papal infallibility enumerated in the nineteenth century (long after Luther was dead & buried)? Moreover, what doctrines did Luther “change” exactly? Faith alone … he added the word alone in one German translation of scripture (though he readily admited it did not appear in the original Koine Greek text). He did a “idea” translation from the original Greek into German (trying to convey the idea represented by the Greek words into an entirely different language).

Is there anything besides faith that saves us? Well, preceding faith there is grace, which enables our faith. Preceding grace there is God and His eternal plan in election. Do works save us? Did it save any Pharisee?

Unfortunately the Catholic Church has departed from the sound theology of its doctor of grace and predestination, Augustine, who never taught anything resembling a universal prevenient grace (adopted by Catholics, both Latin and Eastern Rite, as well as Arminian protestants).

That being said … I would never say Luther was perfect, but of course neither is Rome. What Luther contributed to Christendom was sound theology, built upon by other
reformers like Calvin, Beza, and others.

As I said in earlier posts, he rejected the 7 Sacraments. He changed the teaching on the eucharist. He denied papal infallibility. He also denied the inerrancy of the Bible.

Some things are expressly defined (not thought up) when there is reason to. Look back at the councils. Many things have been defined at those meetings that had long been known by not expressly defined. They’re talking about them, because the long-held long-known “thing” has been challenged.

Again, that Luther wasn’t perfect is irrelevant. No pope has ever been perfect. The fact that Luther didn’t speak infallibly on the faith–a fact that he admits–leaves his followers unsure of his accuracy.

Is it any wonder, then, that so many splinter groups have cropped up since? And why not? If no man can be sure that his leader is correct, why feel compelled to follow him?

Since they can never be sure that the faith they’re following is correct (Is it the body of Christ? Is infant baptism correct? Is refusing baptism to infants a sin? Is marriage a sacrament? Is apostolic succession true? With what authority does my minister/bishop speak?) , why not look around and see if there is a church which teaches a way that is more suitable to your lifestyle. And if there is none, to create one? Why not? You have no guarantee that Luther was correct. You have no guarantee that anyone else who’s formed his own faith is correct? So why not find one that suits what you personally believe to be true? And to change churches when you’ve decided that something else is true?