Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[JonNC]

Both you and Gabriel of 12 present the Catholic faith in a way that is very appealing and cpuragipus and refeclets the love and concern that Christ has for all of us.

Thanks to you both.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Topper17;13099040]Hi Gabriel,

Thanks for your response.

Your welcome Topper17

What I see here Gab is a reluctance, and in fact, even an inability, to recognize the role that Martin Luther and his radical Sola Scriptura played, and continues to play, in the doctrinal dissension that Western Christendom suffers.

I can understand and respect your view. I assure you, my effort is never a reluctance to share my Catholic faith. But there is a time for everything.

Two wrongs do not make a right. If we concentrate on Martin Luther’s (historical) personal opinions and sentiments against the Church during his life time, we need to discuss them within the historical context of their time frame.

It is one wrong for non-Catholic Christians who continue to use the historical protestant reformers personal opinions and sentiments interpreted from an irresponsible interpretation of Sola Scriptura to attack our Catholic faith so as to remove unlearned Catholics from the pews, and it is a double wrong for a Catholic to use his/her personal opinions and sentimental views to correct and rebuke such arguments, while TRUTH becomes the victim and Here we only have the clashing of swords. That said, there is a time for such debates when both sides are well versed equally on the subject, so that a fair assessment can be reached that is not one sided.

There is a time for the Michael Voris’s to educate Catholic’s and thank God, his views and opinions are not preached from the Pulpit in a Mass setting or he would fall under Church scrutiny and disciplines. There is time for such a platform that Michael uses.

As I stated in a previous post, we do well to “learn a wisdom from Luther and our Church fathers”, who both took actions that resulted in a separation of communions. We cannot continue that path from history in order to reach reconciliation for a full communion. Reconciliation is the path and direction to which the Barque of Peter moves in our present age.

The Barque of Peter is still here, Martin Luther and the other protestant reformers are long gone. She has embarked upon a Lutheran’s view of Sola Scriptura today; that does not carry the sentimental views and opinions of the historical Martin Luther, a subject matter you eloquently revisited here.

The Lutherans have moved a mile here, and if we Catholics obey our Lord? When the Lutherans in a sense have asked us Catholics to go with them another mile. to which I agree with my Lord who teaches us; “Matthew 5:41 If anyone commends you to go one mile, go with them two …”

I believe, strongly, that the only way that we are going to be able to heal the wounds to Christian unity is to understand how they began. That means understanding Martin Luther and his ‘lesser known’ teachings.

So long as we revisit this history in order to help Peter adjust the sails in the direction of reconciliation. If we have ears to hear what our Lutheran brethren are saying today, you will find the history you revisit in Martin Luther’s sentiments and opinions are not held by Lutherans seeking reconciliation with Peter and Christian unity.

In fact, Luther’s assault against the Christian Sacrament of marriage has had reached it’s ‘logical conclusion’ in a decision by the Supreme Court that nobody could justify from Scripture or Christian Tradition.

Keep in mind, we have historical Popes, Saints and Martyrs who have written and shared their personal sentiments and opinions that the Church does not teach and hold too. **We cannot hold Luther’s actions and personal opinions against our separated brethren today who by “no fault of their own” hold to a Lutheran communion. **Again two wrongs do not make a right. You give too much credit to Martin Luther here, for it is not against Martin Luther to which we battle against on subjects of Marriage today and the sacraments. We battle against the evil powers and principalities not Martin Luther.

I respect and am impressed with your knowledge of a historical Martin Luther. The reluctance you may sense from my post is my unwillingness to communicate with our Lutheran brethren with a historical negative sentiment and opinion to a period to which I nor our present Lutheran’s did not live in, and by no fault of our own, we have to contend and live with the historical result of a separated communion, or travel the path with my Lutheran brethren two more miles towards the goal of reconciliation.

What sey ye Topper17? Do we relive the past in our present time or learn from our history and gain the courage and faith to go two more miles with our Lutheran brethren towards reconciliation? Peter has already set sail on this journey of reconciliation, we Catholics must muster the courage to get on board in One faith, One Lord and One baptism as One body of Christ.

There is much more to share with our Lutheran brethren on this two mile journey towards reconciliation, with the historical understanding of not repeating reasons to hold to a separation of communion by no fault of OUR own, but a path towards a full communion.

In summary, a Lutheran’s Sola Scriptura today reveals an understanding that has gained a mile towards reconciliation, in this respect our brethren are asking us Catholics to travel another mile with them and if Catholics still follow our Lord’s teachings and commandments, we Catholics are willing to go two more miles with our Lutheran brethren.,towards reconciliation. Are their rough seas? yes,; but which journey upon Peter’s boat has never been without rough seas?

Peace be to you Topper17

 

[commenter]

Both you and Gabriel of 12 present the Catholic faith in a way that is very appealing and cpuragipus and refeclets the love and concern that Christ has for all of us.

Thanks to you both.

Thank you Jon and Ben. The hardest thing for me is to refrain from posting when I have strong feelings but nothing new and intelligent to add. That doesn’t mean I am not learning something.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response.

Topper,

This has never been more true:

“This message is for everyone who is of good heart and sincerely seeking the truth, whether you are Protestant or just a wishy-washy Catholic: Get on board the Barque of Peter now, while there is still time.

God bless you as well, Topper.

Mary.

I think that the term “Barque of Peter” is especially appropriate. Like Voris, I see the Church as being like a huge unsinkable ship. Of course the ship has it’s ‘issues’, but unlike the Titanic, it literally is protected by the Holy Spirit from ‘sinking’.

Since the 1500’s, there are an uncountable number of people who have jumped overboard and have built their own ‘crafts’ out of whatever flotsam and jetsam they can find in the water. Needless to say, these crafts are sinking into the depths constantly. We see various groups splitting off from an already unseaworthy craft, thereby reducing it’s already poor ability to survive. From time to time a few of these crafts lash themselves to another craft, but the trend is definitely towards a larger and larger number of smaller crafts, with each new generation looking less and less like the original still protected ship.

All this time the Ship of Christ has had the rescue nets over the side, actively encouraging people to come back to safety. Yet people sit in their little boats and non-boats, insisting that THEIRS is the one that is the ‘right one’, and even that all of the other little crafts are not. Of course, given the disparity between the ship and the little crafts, they have no choice but to define themselves by their relationship with the ship.

The time to climb that rescue net is NOW! That goes also for what Michael Voris calls ‘wishy washy’ Catholics also Mary.

The point that Michael Voris was making is that Luther’s ‘Reformation’ has had tremendous and very negative effects on our society. He points specifically towards the recent decision on Same Sex Marriage and calls for all to climb those nets.

“What happened last week at the Supreme Court is the effect of Martin Luther’s revolt against the authority of God and the Church. Having wrested that authority away from the Church, it has now been delivered into the hands of the State, who will use that authority to attack the Church — as the State has always done.

The only security left — as has really always been the case — is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Those of you with good hearts, however much you may not understand Catholicism, do you really want your children growing up in a world where scenes like this are normal? Do you really want your children going to schools teaching about masturbation and sodomy before they’ve reached the age of 10? Do you want your sons growing up to be sissified men and your daughters unable to find a strong man? Do you really want your children growing up with either no notion of God and His great love for us, or with a view of God that is so distorted that it is useless for attaining salvation?

Because that is the world we are in, and it’s only going to get worse, and the only safety from it — from the destruction of your children’s souls, not to mention your own — is the sacramental life of the Catholic Church.

The Church is like this great ship in the middle of an expansive ocean whipped on all sides by great winds and storms — just like Our Blessed Lord in the boat with His apostles. Outside that ship there is only death, drowning, being dragged under the waves. If you do not get on board now, you will have very little time before the storm crashes on you and you are lost.

Catholics, you must preach this message, clearly and loudly. Save yourselves and everyone you can, and you must start now. There is only a little time left.” Michael Voris

Of course Voris could probably be criticized for not being ‘positive enough’ but it could just be that he cares enough to refuse to sugar coat the obvious future of those little crafts.

Possibly a review of Luther’s assault on Christian marriage would be instructive. What do you think Mary?

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[steido01]

“What happened last week at the Supreme Court is the effect of Martin Luther’s revolt against the authority of God and the Church. Having wrested that authority away from the Church, it has now been delivered into the hands of the State, who will use that authority to attack the Church — as the State has always done."

Perhaps Voris forgets who held “that [civil] authority” during Christianity’s first centuries? (Hint: it wasn’t the Church - it was preoccupied with being fed, alive, to lions.) Yet the Church prospered and souls were saved.

Perhaps he forgets the barbaric practices of the Roman Catholic Church when it held absolute power throughout Europe. (Hint: innocents died at the stake.) Yet the true Church within the church prospered and souls were saved.

Perhaps he forgets what Christ had commanded us, to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” ? The State has been entrusted with the execution of Natural Law. We are to follow it, so long as it is in keeping with God’s Law. When the State goes against Natural Law and God’s Law (as the Supreme Court just did), we have a duty to resist the State. So let the State try to encumber the Church – we’ll resist, or better yet, have the honor of joining the martyrs. Because we can’t forget Christ’s following words, “But render to God that which is God’s.” No State can take God’s Word from us.

 

[benjohnson]

“What happened last week at the Supreme Court is the effect of Martin Luther’s revolt against the authority of God and the Church.

My snide side of me would say that there weren’t any Lutherans on the Supreme Court - the judicial bench was already filled with six Roman Catholics.

The truth of the matter it is certainly more complicated that blaming Roman Catholics or Lutherans and Luther for the same-sex marriage decision.

 

[commenter]

…

The time to climb that rescue net is NOW! That goes also for what Michael Voris calls ‘wishy washy’ Catholics also Mary.

The point that Michael Voris was making is that Luther’s ‘Reformation’ has had tremendous and very negative effects on our society. He points specifically towards the recent decision on Same Sex Marriage and calls for all to climb those nets.

The Church is like this great ship in the middle of an expansive ocean whipped on all sides by great winds and storms — just like Our Blessed Lord in the boat with His apostles. Outside that ship there is only death, drowning, being dragged under the waves. If you do not get on board now, you will have very little time before the storm crashes on you and you are lost.

Catholics, you must preach this message, clearly and loudly. Save yourselves and everyone you can, and you must start now. There is only a little time left.” Michael Voris

Of course Voris could probably be criticized for not being ‘positive enough’ but it could just be that he cares enough to refuse to sugar coat the obvious future of those little crafts.

Tops, I agree with your general principles. I firmly believe the RCC is a safer ship, and we are going to see a storm. Even those small boats that are still orthodox are using the same basic steering system used by the boats that went astray.

My only suggestion is not to rely on Michael Voris. Sure he’s right some of the time, but he’s not reliably right, in context with the Magisterium. What he says is true, but there sometimes are things he isn’t telling. There are other spokesmen, who are just as orthodox, just as “awake” to what’s really going on, who are fully united to the Magisterium. They are just as realistic about the Church, and its problems, as he is. Mr. Voris criticizes Catholic leaders as much as, or more than, all religious, political and media leaders combined. Is that realistic?

In a way there are 3 kinds of “little boats”: Protestants; liberal Catholics; and those who are only critiquing the Catholic Church, not working in any Catholic Church connected ministry, not in union with their bishop; but who are right about some things.

Be cautious about that third boat.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Gabriel,

Thanks for your response.

Your welcome Topper17

I can understand and respect your view. I assure you, my effort is never a reluctance to share my Catholic faith. But there is a time for everything.

Two wrongs do not make a right. If we concentrate on Martin Luther’s (historical) personal opinions and sentiments against the Church during his life time, we need to discuss them within the historical context of their time frame.

This has nothing to do with Luther’s ‘personal opinions or sentiments against the Church’. It does have however, everything to do with Luther’s rebellion against the Church, and the precedent he set, which paved the way for all of the rest of those who chose to continue to ‘reform the Church’ by creating an uncountable number of sects. Luther’s failings as a human being are not at issue. What is important is what he taught officially as the head of a new church. Was he right in what he did and taught or was he not?

It is one wrong for non-Catholic Christians who continue to use the historical protestant reformers personal opinions and sentiments interpreted from an irresponsible interpretation of Sola Scriptura to attack our Catholic faith so as to remove unlearned Catholics from the pews, and it is a double wrong for a Catholic to use his/her personal opinions and sentimental views to correct and rebuke such arguments, while TRUTH becomes the victim and Here we only have the clashing of swords. That said, there is a time for such debates when both sides are well versed equally on the subject, so that a fair assessment can be reached that is not one sided.

I agree 100% and strongly believe that the TRUTH is important. It has become a victim.

There is a time for the Michael Voris’s to educate Catholic’s and thank God, his views and opinions are not preached from the Pulpit in a Mass setting or he would fall under Church scrutiny and disciplines. There is time for such a platform that Michael uses.

Where do you disagree with Voris? On what specific facts? If there is a time for a person like Voris to use his platform, when is that time? Furthermore, I find it interesting that here, on the matter of Martin Luther, you bring up the idea that someone like Voris would ‘fall under the scrutiny of the Church’. Luther fell under the scrutiny of the Church and ended up creating a new church. How does that compare with what Voris does?

The point of posting the Voris quote is that it is a point of view that people should think about. Isn’t that what debate is for, to introduce different points of view?

As I stated in a previous post, we do well to “learn a wisdom from Luther and our Church fathers”, who both took actions that resulted in a separation of communions. We cannot continue that path from history in order to reach reconciliation for a full communion. Reconciliation is the path and direction to which the Barque of Peter moves in our present age.

I agree very much that there are lessons to be learned from the actions taken by Luther and by the Church in the early years of the Reformation, and in fact, I believe (and routinely demonstrate) that those actions very much point to the issue of the credibility of the theology that grew out of Luther’s Revolt.

The Barque of Peter is still here, Martin Luther and the other protestant reformers are long gone. She has embarked upon a Lutheran’s view of Sola Scriptura today; that does not carry the sentimental views and opinions of the historical Martin Luther, a subject matter you eloquently revisited here.

I do not think that the Catholic Church has ‘embarked upon a Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura today’, but I would be happy to review any information you might have which documents your claim.

The Lutherans have moved a mile here, and if we Catholics obey our Lord? When the Lutherans in a sense have asked us Catholics to go with them another mile. to which I agree with my Lord who teaches us; “Matthew 5:41 If anyone commends you to go one mile, go with them two …”

Gabriel, the Lutherans have not changed one word of the anti-Catholic language in their Confessions. Where, specifically and exactly is this ‘mile’ that you speak of?

So long as we revisit this history in order to help Peter adjust the sails in the direction of reconciliation. If we have ears to hear what our Lutheran brethren are saying today, you will find the history you revisit in Martin Luther’s sentiments and opinions are not held by Lutherans seeking reconciliation with Peter and Christian unity.

Gabriel, which of the sails do you think the Church should ‘adjust’ in the direction of reconciliation? Let’s look at the issue of the number of Sacraments for a moment - just the number. Do you think we should reduce the number from 7 to 2 in order to reconcile with the Lutherans, or do you think we should reduce the number to 0 to reconcile with all of the ‘zero Sacrament people”?

Do you think that Luther’s jettisoning of Marriage as a Sacrament has turned out well?

I think your suggestion of ‘adjusting the sails’ sounds really good in theory, but as always, the devil is in the details and it is in the details that I think that the ‘adjusting’ idea falls short.

God Bless You Gabriel, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Your welcome Topper17

I can understand and respect your view. I assure you, my effort is never a reluctance to share my Catholic faith. But there is a time for everything.

Two wrongs do not make a right. If we concentrate on Martin Luther’s (historical) personal opinions and sentiments against the Church during his life time, we need to discuss them within the historical context of their time frame.

It is one wrong for non-Catholic Christians who continue to use the historical protestant reformers personal opinions and sentiments interpreted from an irresponsible interpretation of Sola Scriptura to attack our Catholic faith so as to remove unlearned Catholics from the pews, and it is a double wrong for a Catholic to use his/her personal opinions and sentimental views to correct and rebuke such arguments, while TRUTH becomes the victim and Here we only have the clashing of swords. That said, there is a time for such debates when both sides are well versed equally on the subject, so that a fair assessment can be reached that is not one sided.

There is a time for the Michael Voris’s to educate Catholic’s and thank God, his views and opinions are not preached from the Pulpit in a Mass setting or he would fall under Church scrutiny and disciplines. There is time for such a platform that Michael uses.

As I stated in a previous post, we do well to “learn a wisdom from Luther and our Church fathers”, who both took actions that resulted in a separation of communions. We cannot continue that path from history in order to reach reconciliation for a full communion. Reconciliation is the path and direction to which the Barque of Peter moves in our present age.

The Barque of Peter is still here, Martin Luther and the other protestant reformers are long gone. She has embarked upon a Lutheran’s view of Sola Scriptura today; that does not carry the sentimental views and opinions of the historical Martin Luther, a subject matter you eloquently revisited here.

The Lutherans have moved a mile here, and if we Catholics obey our Lord? When the Lutherans in a sense have asked us Catholics to go with them another mile. to which I agree with my Lord who teaches us; “Matthew 5:41 If anyone commends you to go one mile, go with them two …”

So long as we revisit this history in order to help Peter adjust the sails in the direction of reconciliation. If we have ears to hear what our Lutheran brethren are saying today, you will find the history you revisit in Martin Luther’s sentiments and opinions are not held by Lutherans seeking reconciliation with Peter and Christian unity.

Keep in mind, we have historical Popes, Saints and Martyrs who have written and shared their personal sentiments and opinions that the Church does not teach and hold too. **We cannot hold Luther’s actions and personal opinions against our separated brethren today who by “no fault of their own” hold to a Lutheran communion. **Again two wrongs do not make a right. You give too much credit to Martin Luther here, for it is not against Martin Luther to which we battle against on subjects of Marriage today and the sacraments. We battle against the evil powers and principalities not Martin Luther.

I respect and am impressed with your knowledge of a historical Martin Luther. The reluctance you may sense from my post is my unwillingness to communicate with our Lutheran brethren with a historical negative sentiment and opinion to a period to which I nor our present Lutheran’s did not live in, and by no fault of our own, we have to contend and live with the historical result of a separated communion, or travel the path with my Lutheran brethren two more miles towards the goal of reconciliation.

What sey ye Topper17? Do we relive the past in our present time or learn from our history and gain the courage and faith to go two more miles with our Lutheran brethren towards reconciliation? Peter has already set sail on this journey of reconciliation, we Catholics must muster the courage to get on board in One faith, One Lord and One baptism as One body of Christ.

There is much more to share with our Lutheran brethren on this two mile journey towards reconciliation, with the historical understanding of not repeating reasons to hold to a separation of communion by no fault of OUR own, but a path towards a full communion.

In summary, a Lutheran’s Sola Scriptura today reveals an understanding that has gained a mile towards reconciliation, in this respect our brethren are asking us Catholics to travel another mile with them and if Catholics still follow our Lord’s teachings and commandments, we Catholics are willing to go two more miles with our Lutheran brethren.,towards reconciliation. Are their rough seas? yes,; but which journey upon Peter’s boat has never been without rough seas?

Peace be to you Topper17

Hi Gabriel,
The linked article about Pope Benedict seems to mirror what you have said here:

catholicworldreport.com/Blog/939/the_pope_martin_luther_and_our_time.aspx

The last paragraph says:

For those who think themselves more Catholic than the Pope, Benedict’s approach to Luther and to ecumenical action in general may displease. But for the rest of us, it was inspiring to see a German pope, addressing a group of German Lutherans and, without compromise to Catholicism, quoting Martin Luther. If full Christian unity in the west is ever to be restored this side of the Eschaton, it surely will come along the path trod by Pope Benedict: not watering down our specifically Catholic commitments but likewise not backtracking our steps in order to rejoin the road of recrimination and Christian apartheid.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

Thanks for your response.

My snide side of me would say that there weren’t any Lutherans on the Supreme Court - the judicial bench was already filled with six Roman Catholics.

The truth of the matter it is certainly more complicated that blaming Roman Catholics or Lutherans and Luther for the same-sex marriage decision.

Would you like to see an ELCA Supreme Court Justice, who would hold true to the teachings of their Lutheran Church on the issue of Same Sex Marriage, or abortion?

The point I was making is that Luther’s Assualt against the Christian institution of marriage, and Marriage as a Sacrament, has had a REAL IMPACT on today’s culture. That is exactly the point that Voris made.

I agree though – this is a very complex issue, exactly like many of the others, and I believe that on these kinds of issues, the views of all sides should be explored.

Ben, as you know, I believe that Martin Luther did great damage to the institution of Christian marriage. One of his ‘lesser known’ teachings on the matter is below. I would like to get your reaction to the following quote:

“Here you should be guided by the words of St. Paul, I Corinthians 7:4–5], “The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does; likewise the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Do not deprive each other, except by agreement,” etc. Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. **When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. **If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another.” Luther, Martin: Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan (Hrsg.) ; Oswald, Hilton C. (Hrsg.) ; Lehmann, Helmut T. (Hrsg.): Luther’s Works, Vol. 45 : The Christian in Society II. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1999, c1962 (Luther’s Works 45), S. 45:34

This is the actual text from Luther’s Works. Here Luther recommends that the government should compel wives to have sexual intercourse with their husbands and if she will not, the government should 'put her to death’.

To me, I see this as evidence that Martin Luther had an extremely poor understanding of Christian marriage, and in fact very poorly interpreted Holy Scripture on the subject. What is your reaction to Luther’s recommendation that ‘reluctant wives’ should be put to death by the government?

Shouldn’t this ‘recommendation’ (among many others) cause people to wonder if Luther was wrong on a lot more than just marriage. Doesn’t this call Luther’s ‘exegetical abilities’ into question?

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[PRmerger]

Would you like to see an ELCA Supreme Court Justice, who would hold true to the teachings of their Lutheran Church on the issue of Same Sex Marriage, or abortion?

To my Lutheran brothers: what is the ELCA teaching on the issue of Same Sex Unions and abortion?

 

[steido01]

I would like to get your reaction to the following quote:

Sums up 'bout 90% of your posts here, doesn’t it?

“Here you should be guided by the words of St. Paul, I Corinthians 7:4–5], “The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does; likewise the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Do not deprive each other, except by agreement,” etc. Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another.” Luther, Martin: Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan (Hrsg.) ; Oswald, Hilton C. (Hrsg.) ; Lehmann, Helmut T. (Hrsg.): Luther’s Works, Vol. 45 : The Christian in Society II. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1999, c1962 (Luther’s Works 45), S. 45:34

This is the actual text from Luther’s Works. Here Luther recommends that the government should compel wives to have sexual intercourse with their husbands and if she will not, the government should 'put her to death’.

Do you disagree with St. Paul? Or what your communion teaches regarding the sanctity of marriage? Because Luther’s words here are right in step with what my wife and I learned from two Roman Catholic priests during our Pre-Cana courses: that two become one flesh. To deny each other without consent devalues marriage just as much as adultery, masturbation, gay “marriage” or any other sin of the flesh.

To me, I see this as evidence that Martin Luther had an extremely poor understanding of Christian marriage, and in fact very poorly interpreted Holy Scripture on the subject. What is your reaction to Luther’s recommendation that ‘reluctant wives’ should be put to death by the government?

You’ve brought this silly bit up in other threads. Laughably, you have twisted Luther’s entire point to mean precisely the opposite of what was intended. He wrote this (before he was married, if I recall correctly) in defense of just how important marriage is – his point was that if people aren’t acting like married folk have been created to act, then they should not be able to celebrate their wrongness. Marriage is the fundamental building block of civilization, and among the first commands of God. Those who don’t respect the estate of marriage deserve the usual wage for sin.

Here’s a well-researched article that actually looks at context and doesn’t cherry-pick for “gotcha” soundbites: Luther on Marriage.

Shouldn’t this ‘recommendation’ (among many others) cause people to wonder if Luther was wrong on a lot more than just marriage. Doesn’t this call Luther’s ‘exegetical abilities’ into question?

I heard Moses killed a guy. So did David. David even had an affair with the widow. St. Paul killed plenty of Christians. You saying we should discard them too? How many popes would that disqualify?

 

[benjohnson]

To my Lutheran brothers: what is the ELCA teaching on the issue of Same Sex Unions and abortion?

Their teachings are what you’d expect based on the seeming practice of Repudiata Scriptura.

Though you’ll find individual ELCA churches who hold to the word of God.

 

[Topper17]

Hi PR,

To my Lutheran brothers: what is the ELCA teaching on the issue of Same Sex Unions and abortion?

You might have noticed that I never make serious charges or accusations without having hard evidence to back them up. That being said, I too look forward to a response to your question.

God Bless You PR, Topper

 

[steido01]

To my Lutheran brothers: what is the ELCA teaching on the issue of Same Sex Unions and abortion?

They don’t even know, and they admit as much. That’s why Confessional Lutherans have said things like this:

Resolution 3-21A, “To Address Cooperative Pastoral Working Arrangements with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.” (adopted as amended 706-343)

Whereas, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is in altar and pulpit fellowship (“full communion”) with Reformed church bodies, the Episcopal Church and the Moravian Church; therefore be it

Resolved, The 2001 synodical convention affirm the late President Alvin L. Barry’s judgment that “we cannot consider them [the ELCA] to be an orthodox Lutheran church body” (President’s Report, CW, p.7); and be it further

Resolved, That we of the LCMS recognize that many of our brothers and sisters of the ELCA remain faithful to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and we resolve to reach out to them in love and support; and therefore be it finally

Resolved, That current cooperative pastoral working arrangements with the ELCA be evaluated by the praesidium with results and recommendations reported to the next synodical convention; and be it finally

Resolved, That all actions taken in this resolution shall be used to help carry out “The Great Commission” and shall not in any way detract or distract from the primary mission of God’s kingdom on earth.

 

[steido01]

Their teachings are what you’d expect based on the seeming practice of **Repudiata Scriptura. **

Though you’ll find individual ELCA churches who hold to the word of God.

:sad_yes:

 

[Thorolfr]

To my Lutheran brothers: what is the ELCA teaching on the issue of Same Sex Unions and abortion?

The main statement of the ELCA on Same-Sex Unions is in the 2009 document “A Social Statement on Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust”, starting on page 18:

Lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships

Within the last decades, this church has begun to understand and experience
in new ways the need of same-gender-oriented individuals to seek
relationships of lifelong companionship and commitment as well as public
accountability and legal support for those commitments. At the same time,
public debates and deliberations have continued regarding understandings
of human sexuality in medicine, social science, and corresponding public
policy about same-gender relationships.

We in the ELCA recognize that many of our sisters and brothers in samegender
relationships sincerely desire the support of other Christians for living faithfully in all aspects of their lives, including their sexual fidelity. In
response, we have drawn deeply on our Lutheran theological heritage and
Scripture. This has led, however, to differing and conscience-bound understandings
about the place of such relationships within the Christian community.
We have come to various conclusions concerning how to regard
lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships, including whether and
how to recognize publicly their lifelong commitments.

While Lutherans hold various convictions regarding lifelong, monogamous,
same-gender relationships, this church is united on many critical issues. It
opposes all forms of verbal or physical harassment and assault based on
sexual orientation. It supports legislation and policies to protect civil rights
and to prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, and public services.
It has called upon congregations and members to welcome, care for, and
support same-gender couples and their families and to advocate for their
legal protection.

The ELCA recognizes that it has a pastoral responsibility to all children of
God. This includes a pastoral responsibility to those who are same-gender
in their orientation and to those who are seeking counsel about their sexual
self-understanding. All are encouraged to avail themselves of the means of
grace and pastoral care.

This church also acknowledges that consensus does not exist concerning
how to regard same-gender committed relationships, even after many years
of thoughtful, respectful, and faithful study and conversation. We do not
have agreement on whether this church should honor these relationships and
uplift, shelter, and protect them or on precisely how it is appropriate to do so.
In response, this church draws on the foundational Lutheran understanding
that the baptized are called to discern God’s love in service to the neighbor.
In our Christian freedom, we therefore seek responsible actions that serve
others and do so with humility and deep respect for the conscience-bound
beliefs of others. We understand that, in this discernment about ethics and
church practice, faithful people can and will come to different conclusions
about the meaning of Scripture and about what constitutes responsible
action. We further believe that this church, on the basis of “the bound
conscience,” will include these different understandings and practices
within its life as it seeks to live out its mission and ministry in the world.

 

[Thorolfr]

Continued:

This church recognizes that, with conviction and integrity:

• On the basis of conscience-bound belief, some are convinced
that same-gender sexual behavior is sinful, contrary to biblical
teaching and their understanding of natural law. They believe
same-gender sexual behavior carries the grave danger of unrepentant
sin. They therefore conclude that the neighbor and the
community are best served by calling people in same-gender
sexual relationships to repentance for that behavior and to a
celibate lifestyle. Such decisions are intended to be accompanied
by pastoral response and community support.

• On the basis of conscience-bound belief, some are convinced
that homosexuality and even lifelong, monogamous, homosexual
relationships reflect a broken world in which some
relationships do not pattern themselves after the creation God
intended. While they acknowledge that such relationships may
be lived out with mutuality and care, they do not believe that the
neighbor or community are best served by publicly recognizing
such relationships as traditional marriage.

• On the basis of conscience-bound belief, some are convinced
that the scriptural witness does not address the context of
sexual orientation and lifelong loving and committed relationships
that we experience today. They believe that the neighbor
and community are best served when same-gender relationships
are honored and held to high standards and public accountability,
but they do not equate these relationships with marriage.
They do, however, affirm the need for community support and
the role of pastoral care and may wish to surround lifelong,
monogamous relationships or covenant unions with prayer.

• On the basis of conscience-bound belief, some are convinced
that the scriptural witness does not address the context of
sexual orientation and committed relationships that we experience
today. They believe that the neighbor and community are
best served when same-gender relationships are lived out with
lifelong and monogamous commitments that are held to the
same rigorous standards, sexual ethics, and status as heterosexual
marriage. They surround such couples and their lifelong
commitments with prayer to live in ways that glorify God, find strength for the challenges that will be faced, and serve others.
They believe same-gender couples should avail themselves of
social and legal support for themselves, their children, and other
dependents and seek the highest legal accountability available
for their relationships.

Although at this time this church lacks consensus on this matter, it encourages
all people to live out their faith in the local and global community of
the baptized with profound respect for the conscience-bound belief of the
neighbor. This church calls for mutual respect in relationships and for guidance
that seeks the good of each individual and of the community. Regarding
our life together as we live with disagreement, the people in this church
will continue to accompany one another in study, prayer, discernment,
pastoral care, and mutual respect.

elca.org/Faith/Faith-and-Society/Social-Statements/Human-Sexuality

 

[Thorolfr]

Also, the ELCA voted at their Churchwide Assembly in 2009 to allow congregations to call and ordain LGBT people in committed and monogamous relationships. Just last Thursday (July 2, 2015), Asher O’Callaghan became the first known transgender person to be ordained through the regular ordination process of the ELCA (July 2, 2015) and was called to be pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in Idaho Springs, CO.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Topper17;13110752]Hi Gabriel,
This has nothing to do with Luther’s ‘personal opinions or sentiments against the Church’. It does have however, everything to do with Luther’s rebellion against the Church, and the precedent he set, which paved the way for all of the rest of those who chose to continue to ‘reform the Church’ by creating an uncountable number of sects. Luther’s failings as a human being are not at issue. What is important is what he taught officially as the head of a new church. Was he right in what he did and taught or was he not?

Hello Topper it is good to speak with you
Luther being in full communion as an Augustinian monk, was right to raise the issue of any abuses within the Catholic Church. Was Luther correct in what he taught against the Magisterium and the Church, in my opinion; no. But the Church does not charge Lutherans today for sin and the separation by no fault of their own.

CCC 817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."

CCC 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

Where do you disagree with Voris?

I agree with Voris that Catholics who take an independent view outside of Church teaching should be taken out behind the barn and be given a few swats, but that language or metaphor should never be addressed towards protestants and non-Catholic Christians.

On what specific facts?

Voris personal views and opinions become debatable after his discussion leaves the facts.

If there is a time for a person like Voris to use his platform, when is that time?

When he is addressing only Catholics being infected by non-Catholic teachings and never in a liturgical setting.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that here, on the matter of Martin Luther, you bring up the idea that someone like Voris would ‘fall under the scrutiny of the Church’. Luther fell under the scrutiny of the Church and ended up creating a new church. How does that compare with what Voris does?

Two things here; One, I stated “thank God” Voris does not teach his views in a Mass liturgical setting. If Voris did such a thing? Voris would fall under scrutiny and disciplines of the Church. Two, Voris in my opinion, clashes bravely with the swords of Protestantism of past times that checks the Joe and Mary pew members.

The point of posting the Voris quote is that it is a point of view that people should think about. Isn’t that what debate is for, to introduce different points of view?

Sure, that makes for a healthy debate. But the points should address the specific subject matter. We cannot hold Lutherans today for Actions taken by Martin Luther centuries ago. We must follow our Catechism here.

continue;