'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[De_Maria]

Of course I had a response. It is false. Provide, please, a quote where Luther says charity is rejected.

Is it charity to say:

If the wife is unwilling, let the maid come? Yes or no.

 

[JonNC]

Actions speak louder than words. You don’t act as though you don’t care. If you didn’t care you wouldn’t be arguing as hard as long as you do.

I rarely speak of the beliefs of other communions except in comparison. What I argue against is misrepresentation of Lutheran beliefs as found in the confessions.

And then interpret them.

I would suggest that my “interpretation “ is more accurate than your misinterpretations of them, or @dopeyMS ‘s misunderstandings of them.

 

[De_Maria]

I rarely speak of the beliefs of other communions except in comparison. What I argue against is misrepresentation of Lutheran beliefs as found in the confessions.

Because you think you’re the arbiter and perfect model of Lutheran belief.

I would suggest that my “interpretation “ is more accurate than your misinterpretations of them, or @dopeyMS ‘s misunderstandings of them.

I don’t interpret them. I stick to the arguments presented me by the Protestant whom I am speaking with. They interpret them and I compare that interpretation to Scripture. It is my motus operandi to bring all Protestants back to Scripture and show them the errors to which the false doctrine of Scripture alone has led them.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Of course I had a response. It is false. Provide, please, a quote where Luther says charity is rejected.

Is it charity to say:

If the wife is unwilling, let the maid come? Yes or no.

Make sure you reference the context, then I will answer. I won’t respond to statements out of context. Luther was prone to hyperbole and sarcasm. Some Catholic apologists are prone to misrepresenting these as statements of belief or doctrine.
So, provide a context beyond polemics.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

JonNC:

Of course I had a response. It is false. Provide, please, a quote where Luther says charity is rejected.

Is it charity to say:

If the wife is unwilling, let the maid come? Yes or no.

Make sure you reference the context, then I will answer. …

Again, you don’t deny that he said it but want to justify it with context. Lol! In what context is advising adultery, justified?

 

[TULIPed]

It is my motus operandi to bring all Protestants back to Scripture and show them the errors to which the false doctrine of Scripture alone has led them.

This is an interesting point. Doctrine as a moving target. I’m curious - when you talk with Protestants about Sola Scriptura, how do they define the doctrine (mostly - what’s the “average” interpretation). For example - on average - would Protestants you talk with say that the doctrine of SS says that “all tradition - including all the creeds - since they aren’t explicitly in the Bible - are not to be used.”

 

[mcq72]

It was a caricature of the absurd notion that the Gospel can be codified into various ‘solas

Not sure it is absurd…heard nice sermon the other day on what Gospel is…but simply put it was that our acceptance is based upon what Christ is and did for us on Calvary…He paid the price for our sin, He is our righteousness, propitiation, and hope for glory eternal, not what we do anymore…hence the good news, to rest from righteous works for acceptance before God…key word " for acceptance" …and He promises to make us a new creature, putting to death the old man, so that He living in us , pleases God and leads us to run a course to His pleasing ( good works?)… in that regard we seem justified…but the justification is initial upon His entering us freely , for He being holy would not do otherwise ).

 

[mcq72]

Again, you don’t deny that he said it but want to justify it with context. Lol! In what context is advising adultery, justified?

Please…we were just on another thread where one poster said to another " I will physically fight you"…a first time poster “driving by” was appalled, not knowing the context, of humor between two old dialoging friends so to speak…so context ( and linguistic “tools”) can totally flip literal words around.

If one denies such linguistics, be careful in partial reading of Ecclesiastes.

 

[mcq72]

In what context is advising adultery, justified?

Where he is not really advising it.

 

[JonNC]

Again, you don’t deny that he said it but want to justify it with context. Lol! In what context is advising adultery, justified?

Some of the most uncharitable things about Luther are the unsubstantiated and dishonest attacks against him by a few Catholic apologists. I thank God for Catholic theologians who do not speak and act in such a way.
I’m backing out of this poisonous argument, but before I do, here is the context. One can disagree with his conclusions, but pulling a sentence or phrase out of context is cheap and dishonest.

http://www.lutherdansk.dk/Web-Living as husband and wife/Living as husband and wife.htm

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Again, you don’t deny that he said it but want to justify it with context. Lol! In what context is advising adultery, justified?

Please…we were just on another thread where one poster said to another " I will physically fight you"…a first time poster “driving by” was appalled, not knowing the context, of humor between two old dialoging friends so to speak…so context ( and linguistic “tools”) can totally flip literal words around.

If one denies such linguistics, be careful in partial reading of Ecclesiastes.

So, you’re implying that he was joking? Now, I might believe this possible, but it is also undisputable that he advised a King to get himself another wife. He said it was ok as long as he did it in secret. So as not to upset the populace.

So, since you claim the context will change the meaning of what he said, provide the context.

In what context is advising adultery, justified?

Since he also advised a King to enter a bigamous relationship. And the King whom he advised, did so. You’ll have to provide the explicit proof that this was simply a joke.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

It is my motus operandi to bring all Protestants back to Scripture and show them the errors to which the false doctrine of Scripture alone has led them.

This is an interesting point. Doctrine as a moving target. I’m curious - when you talk with Protestants about Sola Scriptura, how do they define the doctrine (mostly - what’s the “average” interpretation).

Average? Really.

The most common definition they used to give, was Luther’s. Sola Scriptura is the sole rule of faith. But, since it is proven that you can’t find that in Scripture, I haven’t had a Protestant spring that in years.

Today, Protestants are very reluctant to give a definition because I immediately tell them to show it to me in Scripture.

But, there are some who say that Sola Scriptura is an exception because it is not a doctrine, they say. They say it is a “praxis”. So, they claim it doesn’t have to be in Scripture.

So, I ask them to provide the Scripture that says that Sola Scriptura is a praxis that doesn’t need to be mentioned.

For example - on average - would Protestants you talk with say that the doctrine of SS says that “all tradition - including all the creeds - since they aren’t explicitly in the Bible - are not to be used.”

I haven’t seen that argument in years. They have had to accept tradition because of 2 Thess 2:15.

And then there are some, who say Sola Scripura means that Scripture is the highest authority. Not the sole authority. They claim that Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the sole highest authority. And I ask them to show me from Scripture where it says that Sola Scriptura is the sole highest authority.

Then, there are some who say, Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the sole source for doctrine.

Today, the Protestants with whom I speak are very reluctant to define Sola Scriptura and point to that definition in Scripture. They still insist all Catholic Doctrine must be explicitly in Scripture, but deny that SS has to meet that criteria.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Again, you don’t deny that he said it but want to justify it with context. Lol! In what context is advising adultery, justified?

Some of the most uncharitable things about Luther are the unsubstantiated and dishonest attacks against him by a few Catholic apologists. I thank God for Catholic theologians who do not speak and act in such a way.
I’m backing out of this poisonous argument, but before I do, here is the context. One can disagree with his conclusions, but pulling a sentence or phrase out of context is cheap and dishonest.

Martin Luther - Living as Husband and Wife

Did you post this in earnest? You admit that Luther said:

What I said was this: if a woman who is fit for marriage has a husband who is not, and she is unable openly to take unto herself another – and unwilling, too, to do anything dishonorable since the pope in such a case demands without cause abundant testimony and evidence, she should say to her husband, “Look, my dear husband, you are unable to fulfill your conjugal duty toward me; you have cheated me out of my maidenhood and even imperiled my honor and my soul’s salvation; in the sight of God there is no real marriage between us. Grant me the privilege of contracting a secret marriage with your brother or closest relative, and you retain the title of husband so that your property will not fall to strangers. Consent to being betrayed voluntarily by me, as you have betrayed me without my consent.”

This is a joke, right?

 

[dopeyMS]

And not a single one has anything to do with Luther. Not one.

Luther broke away from the Church so all the Protestant sects we see today are a direct result of that. You can’t be so ignorant not to see that where every man walks by the truth of his own vain imagination. Truth does not come from the bible it comes by Holy Tradition that was passed down orally from the Apostles to their successors and so on. All the Protestant beliefs we see today can be traced back to Arminius, Luther and Calvin the three main streams of Protestant belief. And then in the 19th century Darby, White, Smith and Russell showed up and Protestants were further fractured into more inert sects.

 

[JonNC]

Luther broke away from the Church so all the Protestant sects we see today are a direct result of that.

Nonsense. The Anabaptists, Zwingli, and others had nothing to do with Luther.

Truth does not come from the bible it comes by Holy Tradition that was passed down orally from the Apostles to their successors and so on.

So, the Bible isn’t truth? Really? Do you have a CCC reference for that?
Beyond that, Holy Tradition is vital to understanding the faith. Of course, there are differences of opinion on what Tradition teaches, as well.

All the Protestant beliefs we see today can be traced back to Arminius, Luther and Calvin the three main streams of Protestant belief.

I have no ties to Arminius or Calvin, so you’ve actually disproved your statement above.

And then in the 19th century Darby, White, Smith and Russell showed up and Protestants were further fractured into more inert sects.

And none of them are related to Luther.

 

[dopeyMS]

dopeyMS:

It was a caricature of the absurd notion that the Gospel can be codified into various ‘solas

Not sure it is absurd…heard nice sermon the other day on what Gospel is…but simply put it was that our acceptance is based upon what Christ is and did for us on Calvary…He paid the price for our sin, He is our righteousness, propitiation, and hope for glory eternal, not what we do anymore…hence the good news, to rest from righteous works for acceptance before God…key word " for acceptance" …and He promises to make us a new creature, putting to death the old man, so that He living in us , pleases God and leads us to run a course to His pleasing ( good works?)… in that regard we seem justified…but the justification is initial upon His entering us freely , for He being holy would not do otherwise ).

Unlike some I don’t exclude Protestants from Salvation. The wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest and God separates them, not man.

 

[JonNC]

Unlike some I don’t exclude Protestants from Salvation. The wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest and God separates them, not man.

And "protestants’ should never exclude Catholics from Salvation.

 

[dopeyMS]

Nonsense. The Anabaptists, Zwingli, and others had nothing to do with Luther.

Anabaptists or Baptists are Arminian and the majority today fall into the dispensational category of John Darby. All Protestant beliefs go back to Arminius, Luther and Calvin with Luther being the ring-leader.

 

[TULIPed]

Today, Protestants are very reluctant to give a definition because I immediately tell them to show it to me in Scripture.

It’s a great question to ask. I wonder - is there an example of Catholic doctrine or Tradition that’s in opposition to Scripture (according to the Catholic Church - not to what a Protestant would say)? I ask this because my experience - from reading the RCC for example - is that pretty much all Catholic doctrine contained therein is (exceptionally) well footnoted with scriptural references.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Nonsense. The Anabaptists, Zwingli, and others had nothing to do with Luther.

Anabaptists or Baptists are Arminian and the majority today fall into the dispensational category of John Darby. All Protestant beliefs go back to Arminius, Luther and Calvin with Luther being the ring-leader.

That assumes there was a “ring” to lead. There wasn’t. there were separate movements.