Sola scriptura and corrections?

[JonNC]

First off, it’s flattering how you guys justify your doctrines by our doctrines.

Here’s hoping this is sincere, and not condescending. If we are looking for agreement and unity, we have to find justification in doctrine, agreement in doctrine. Viewing our doctrines as separate means we remain separate.

The Holy Father Emeritus was speaking of faith completed in works. Which is what Saint Paul taught and is in accord with Saint James. That has been Church teaching from the beginning.

And there is no contradiction of that in the Lutheran understanding of sola fide.

I believe Pope Benedict is responding directly to Luther’s commentary, and his understanding of Luther.
Jimmy Akin provides an excellent analysis of the convergence of the doctrine.

Faith alone saves; yet faith that’s not alone.

The problem is that isn’t the phrase. The phrase is, “Faith alone saves, but (saving) faith is not alone”. In other words, justification is by grace alone through faith, and a saving faith is a faith that works through love.
This is repeated all through Lutheran teaching. Saving faith cannot be without works. Example:

Thus faith is a divine work in us, that changes us and regenerates us of God, and puts to death the old Adam, makes us entirely different men in heart, spirit, mind, and all powers, and brings with it [confers] the Holy Ghost. Oh, it is a living, busy, active, powerful thing that we have in faith, so that it is impossible for it not to do good without ceasing. [11]]Nor does it ask whether good works are to be done; but before the question is asked, it has wrought them, and is always engaged in doing them. But he who does not do such works is void of faith, and gropes and looks about after faith and good works, and knows neither what faith nor what good works are, yet babbles and prates with many words concerning faith and good works. [12] [Justifying] faith is a living, bold [firm] trust in God’s grace, so certain that a man would die a thousand times for it [rather than suffer this trust to be wrested from him]. And this trust and knowledge of divine grace renders joyful, fearless, and cheerful towards God and all creatures, which [joy and cheerfulness] the Holy Ghost works through faith; and on account of this, man becomes ready and cheerful, without coercion, to do good to every one, to serve every one, and to suffer everything for love and praise to God, who has conferred this grace on him, so that it is impossible to separate works from faith, yea, just as impossible as it is for heat and light to be separated from fire.

There’s no circular reasoning here. There is only an understanding that the source of our salvation is not our works, but grace. We access justification by grace through God’s gift of faith.

 

[Agathon77]

@JonNC,

After reading Jimmy Akins’ article, I see that modern Protestants ( And not their 16th century forebears ) had to change their Sola Fide to formed faith because the antinomian Protestants took faith alone literally. Very Catholic.

The problem remains that Luther, in his commentary on Gal 5:6; says faith alone; not works when Jesus allows the saved into heaven.

It’s an old polemic your communities still teach that we teach works by salvation. We’ve been teaching justification by faith, from the beginning; that your modern Protestants have only been teaching since the 19th century as Akins writes in his article.

The Council of Trent, he says; was correct.

Your second point:

Luther changed ecclesiology from what was practiced since the Apostles founded their churches of Bishop rules the local Church, assisted by the priests and deacons; with the bishop having Apostolic authority in his diocese. Luther upended it when he tried to make it more egalitarian and lay oriented.

Point 3: Address to the Christian Nobility of the Christian Nation. I’ve read it. In it, Luther says in one of the Walls of the Romanists that authority to interpret Scripture is removed from the Magisterium and into individual hands as a way to force Rome to reform. Also: In this same book, Luther says to seize the Church in Germany and render it subordinate to state authority; perfectly catering to and serving the secular princes’ desire for control over a national German church. Neatly resolving the Investiture Contest problem.

The problem isn’t the Church trying to be the state. She never desired to be the state. Simply that the Church desires to operate outside of state control in order to fully and freely do her work in the spiritual sphere.

The princes wanted a church they could control that wouldn’t act against them. And Luther gave it to them.

None of these things was taught by the Apostles

 

[JonNC]

After reading Jimmy Akins’ article, I see that modern Protestants ( And not their 16th century forebears ) had to change their Sola Fide to formed faith because the antinomian Protestants took faith alone literally. Very Catholic.

Nope. This is the same understanding as in the Lutheran Confessions. This is the problem with the use of the term Protestant.

The problem remains that Luther, in his commentary on Gal 5:6; says faith alone; not works when Jesus allows the saved into heaven.

But it isn’t inaccurate, as Akin shows and Pope Benedict states.

It’s an old polemic your communities still teach that we teach works by salvation. We’ve been teaching justification by faith, from the beginning; that your modern Protestants have only been teaching since the 19th century as Akins writes in his article.

But I haven’t said that at all, have I? I haven’t stated or declared what Catholics teach. In fact, aren’t you the one trying to tell me what we believe?
Reaching convergence means we look to the things we agree on. And to that point, as I’ve said here on CAF before, my issue with Catholicism isn’t soteriology, because I don’t believe Catholicism teaches works righteousness. My understanding is that Catholics perform good works that add to justification only under grace. Correct me if I’m wrong.
My issue remains ecclesiology.

 

[Agathon77]

I’m sorry, @JonNC. Today has a been rough day for me; so my eloquence today isn’t at my best.

Even so; my rough speaking is not excusable. Again, I’m sorry.

I stand by my view on Luther’s eisegesis in his commentary. He read works into circumcision and uncircumcision and then said that Jesus allows the saved in on the basis of faith alone avails and works avails nothing.

 

[JonNC]

I’m sorry, @JonNC. Today has a been rough day for me; so my eloquence today isn’t at my best.

Even so; my rough speaking is not excusable. Again, I’m sorry.

No need to apologize.

I stand by my view on Luther’s eisegesis in his commentary. He read works into circumcision and uncircumcision and then said that Jesus allows the saved in on the basis of faith alone avails and works avails nothing.

I understand.

 

[Agathon77]

Thank you, @JonNC on both counts.

I genuinely like you, Jon.

 

[JonNC]

Thank you, @JonNC on both counts.

I genuinely like you, Jon.

And I, you.

 

[Agathon77]

Thanks, @JonNC.

 

[steve-b]

Some Catholics here have offered the notion that the Reformers through out 1500 years of the Church, which is a canard from the Lutheran perspective. From a Lutheran view, nonsense such as the Great Apostasy or Trail of Blood are canards, too.

Re: Reform in the Church

1. Going back in time, obviously WAY WAY WAY Before Luther , there were 18 ecumenical councils http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm , + enumerable local councils, which is the proper way to exercise reform when needed in the Church.

AND IN THESE COUNCILS

They also dealt with Heretics, αἱρετικὸν to the faith, from the beginning heresies The Great Heresies | Catholic Answers down to the likes of ☞ Luther and all those in his time, and beyond.

SO

I’d just recommend

Don’t associate heretics with reformers. Heretics aren’t reformers.

Said another way

αἱρετικὸν ≠ reformer

AND

Re: those in αἱρετικὸν

According to Paul, if after 2 tries to correct one in αἱρετικὸν , and they don’t change, then Paul says to Bp Titus,

Tit 3:10-11
10 As for a man who is factious αἱρετικὸν after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

WOW!!! THAT’S serious stuff ! There’s no worse consequence

AND

obviously keeping with the theme of scripture,

Paul wrote THAT 1400+ yrs before Luther was even a thought. I’m thinking, how is it Luther who spent a lot of time preaching and lecturing people about about Sola Scriptura, didn’t pay attention to THAT warning from Paul? And in extension THAT goes for all those who likewise don’t pay attention to…

JonNC:

Lutherans maintain apostolic teaching, word and sacrament, the necessity of a visible Church, the Creeds and ecumenical councils. That’s the baby: OHCAC.

Lutherans might maintain that,

HOWEVER

The OHCAC disagrees that Lutherans are the OHCAC

 

[JonNC]

Lutherans might maintain that,

HOWEVER

The OHCAC disagrees that Lutherans are the OHCAC

And it doesn’t matter a bit what the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome thinks about the status of Lutherans as authentic members of the OHCAC.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Lutherans might maintain that,

HOWEVER

The OHCAC disagrees that Lutherans are the OHCAC

And it doesn’t matter a bit what the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome thinks about the status of Lutherans as authentic members of the OHCAC.

Well,

Historically speaking, before Lutheranism even existed

Luther in 1521 , based on the explanation given in the following document, about Luther’s position, Luther appears to not have cared much either, so the OHCAC excommunicated him. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm

SO

timing wise, Lutheranism came AFTER that

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

steve-b:

Lutherans might maintain that,

HOWEVER

The OHCAC disagrees that Lutherans are the OHCAC

And it doesn’t matter a bit what the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome thinks about the status of Lutherans as authentic members of the OHCAC.

Well,

Historically speaking, before Lutheranism even existed

Luther in 1521 , based on the explanation given in the following document, about Luther’s position, Luther appears to not have cared much either, so the OHCAC excommunicated him. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm

SO

timing wise, Lutheranism came AFTER that

Which, of course, is irrelevant.
The excommunication of Luther has nothing to do with anyone else.

 

[steve-b]

JonNC:

Which, of course, is irrelevant.

Well we’ll both agree, I haven’t used scripture alone to argue my points.

However,

As I’ve argued before, elsewhere using scripture, OT at that,

Here’s what I’d say to your point.

Using Ez 3:17-21 , and these examples

A=Catholic,
B = someone doing wrong,
Life=heaven,
Death=hell,

here’s 4 potential scenarios using those passages from Ezekiel (emphasis mine)

knowing full well, I’m not your judge. nor am I judging you

1. “If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand.” . IOW A gives B no warning. A & B are both screwed. Both die
2. “But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life.” . IOW A gives B warning. B ignores the warning. A lives B is screwed.
3. “if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand.” . IOW A gives B no warning. A is screwed. B is being B and is screwed and ALSO, his good works are not remembered
4. "Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning; and you will have saved your life.” . IOW A warns B and B listens and changes, A & B live

putting this as God sees it, As a result of the instruction and consequences given, I would do all I can to be in scenarios 2 & 4 and avoid #s 1 & 3 like the plague. But that’s me.

 

[JonNC]

That, of course, applies to all of us.

 

[steve-b]

That, of course, applies to all of us.

AND

“B” needs to change

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

That, of course, applies to all of us.

AND

“B” needs to change

For all have sinned and far short of the glory of God.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

JonNC:

That, of course, applies to all of us.

AND

“B” needs to change

For all have sinned and far short of the glory of God.

AND

ALL can reject their errors after being warned, and turn around…while still alive here.

 

[brianjmc1]

Respectfully…

If you take this literally - For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, then you are stating that Christ sinned OR then you are denying his humanity…

 

[JonNC]

Respectfully…

If you take this literally - For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, then you are stating that Christ sinned OR then you are denying his humanity…

No one interprets this to mean an inclusion of the Christ. If you take it for its meaning, it is talking about us.
Catholics interpret it to even exclude the Blessed Virgin, but the exception doesn’t cancel the rule.

 

[brianjmc1]

JonN, but then it seems you are denying Christ’s humanity. If you interpret this literally, as I believe you have, then do you deny that Christ was fully human?

This reminds me of the scripture Mark 1:5 - Did ALL people of Jerusalem go to him to be baptized…

I don’t believe RCC interprets it this way. They interpret it as, most fall short, but there are exceptions, Christ, Mary, etc…

No disrespect, I appreciate your response!!!

Thanks,
Brian