P
Peter_J
Guest
Interesting. I’m not even slightly on board with it.
- Status
S
steido01
Guest
Must be something in the air. I also said and confessed something like that. In fact, I recited nearly every possible combination of the same words, just in case the point was at all unclear the first time around.
Add a tired and hungry ten-month-old to the extended service, and suddenly the blandness of Ordinary Time is awful appealing.
G
GKC
Guest
It was a deal of reading and speaking. There was a 10 month-er (more or less) a few pews in front of me.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Obligatory Lutheran Satire: youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
P
PRmerger
Guest
I disagree.
I think it is a doctrine taught by Christians.
And, I would add: it is also taught by Muslims.
P
PRmerger
Guest
JonNC, I haven’t been able to follow the thread in its entirety, so if you answered and I missed it, I apologize.
Could you please answer the above?
C
commenter
Guest
Thank you for illustrating this distinction, one of many facets of Lutheranism and Anglicanism I learned about on this forum (yes, I know there are many deeper layers, but the little I learn is welcome).
My guess is that there was a time years ago when almost all Lutherans held to a “quia” understanding, that the term wasn’t necessary until more than a few were found to hold other views. I would also guess these categories are a matter of degree, not “either/or”. I also wonder if there is a continuum, that the continuum might be moving. In other words, perhaps the LCMS now, for instance, is much closer to the “quia” subscription than the ELCA is now, but both are closer to the “quatenus” view now than they (or predecessor group) were in 1960.
Correct me if I’m borrowing too much from trends in other parts of Protestantism and mis-applying it here.
(I wish I could find others patient enough to explain Presbyterianism, Methodism, etc in the depth I receive from Lutherans and Anglicans here).
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
This ‘right’ that you have to tell others how they have distorted Sola Scriptura, and use it improperly – can you be more specific and exact. Where did you obtain this ‘right’ from how do you know that YOU are correctly employing it?
It would seem that if you really have this ‘right’ to tell others that they are wrong, then the key would be to be able to CONVINCE them, with something substantive, something REAL, that that is the case. Otherwise they are going to reject your claim to ‘do SS right’ and will attempt to tell YOU that YOU are wrong in your views of Sola Scriptura.
Luther was originally very clear that the individual was to interpret and that there were NO limitations on how those individual interpretations were to be used. This was the teaching upon which the Protestant Reformation was built. That your church now denies it does not change that fact that that is exactly what he taught.
It was only after the results of this disastrous teaching became known (even to Luther) that he adapted and began teaching that HE was the ultimate interpreter. As you also know, the faithful Catholics of the time warned Luther that his radical teachings on Scripture were going to lead to massive doctrinal dissension. He of course denied this, claiming that once people had been unshackled from the teachings of the church and had had an opportunity to see HIS interpretations, they would see that he was right.
Furthermore, it was actually decades after this that the Lutheran church morphed into teaching that doctrine was something to be determined, not by the individual and not by Luther, but by the Church.
That being said, I see your statement as being false. Lutherans do NOT ‘stick to the original usage’ of Sola Scriptura. You teach directly against the Luther of the first 8 years of his Revolt and you also teach directly against the teachings of the later Luther. You simply cannot ‘jump past’ all of the original teachings of Luther and then claim that you stick to the ‘original usage’.
In addition, given that Sola Scriptura, with all of its conflicting definitions, usages, and terminology, has been responsible for so much doctrinal confusion and outright disbelief, and given that it was Luther who introduced SS into the modern Western Church, why exactly should Lutheranism have the right (as you put it) to tell us how Scripture should be used?
Your church also teaches that it is the church which determines doctrine, not the individual. Yet Luther the individual seems to get a pass on opposing the doctrines of the Church, and with absolutely no credible explanation.
Topper
I would think that those whom you are correcting would find the correcting to be arrogant. That is unless you can somehow convince them that your position is superior to theirs.
This ‘right’ that you have to tell others how they have distorted Sola Scriptura, and use it improperly – can you be more specific and exact. Where did you obtain this ‘right’ from how do you know that YOU are correctly employing it?
It would seem that if you really have this ‘right’ to tell others that they are wrong, then the key would be to be able to CONVINCE them, with something substantive, something REAL, that that is the case. Otherwise they are going to reject your claim to ‘do SS right’ and will attempt to tell YOU that YOU are wrong in your views of Sola Scriptura.
As you know Jon, I don’t want people here to be inadvertently misguided or misinformed. You say that Lutherans ‘stick to the original usage’ (of SS), but as you well know, you do not. Lutheran’s ‘original use of SS’ was that it was the individual who was to interpret Scripture INCLUDING for doctrine. Luther’s pursued this foolish and impractical folly for the first 8 years or so of his Revolt (1517-1525). We have discussed this before and you know that it is true. (References upon request as always).
Luther was originally very clear that the individual was to interpret and that there were NO limitations on how those individual interpretations were to be used. This was the teaching upon which the Protestant Reformation was built. That your church now denies it does not change that fact that that is exactly what he taught.
It was only after the results of this disastrous teaching became known (even to Luther) that he adapted and began teaching that HE was the ultimate interpreter. As you also know, the faithful Catholics of the time warned Luther that his radical teachings on Scripture were going to lead to massive doctrinal dissension. He of course denied this, claiming that once people had been unshackled from the teachings of the church and had had an opportunity to see HIS interpretations, they would see that he was right.
Furthermore, it was actually decades after this that the Lutheran church morphed into teaching that doctrine was something to be determined, not by the individual and not by Luther, but by the Church.
That being said, I see your statement as being false. Lutherans do NOT ‘stick to the original usage’ of Sola Scriptura. You teach directly against the Luther of the first 8 years of his Revolt and you also teach directly against the teachings of the later Luther. You simply cannot ‘jump past’ all of the original teachings of Luther and then claim that you stick to the ‘original usage’.
In addition, given that Sola Scriptura, with all of its conflicting definitions, usages, and terminology, has been responsible for so much doctrinal confusion and outright disbelief, and given that it was Luther who introduced SS into the modern Western Church, why exactly should Lutheranism have the right (as you put it) to tell us how Scripture should be used?
Your church also teaches that it is the church which determines doctrine, not the individual. Yet Luther the individual seems to get a pass on opposing the doctrines of the Church, and with absolutely no credible explanation.
Topper
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Sola Scriptura is a practice?!
From what authority does this practice come from?
From what authority does this practice come from?
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Well said Topper. As Luther said during his last years, “Every milkmaid that can read, will found her a new religion” and “A plowboy with a Bible knows more than the pope.”
M
MaryT777
Guest
What an endearing quote by Luther of course. To believe any part of what this man supplied to me is extremely misled and the fruits of his words and deeds are rotten in my opinion.Well said Topper. As Luther said during his last years, “Every milkmaid that can read, will found her a new religion” and “A plowboy with a Bible knows more than the pope.”
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
"Stylteralmaldo:
PRmerger:
PRmerger:
I don’t think your question to #1 was directly addressed. My impression through reading through the thread is that Lutheranism don’t define sola scriptura the way I expressed in my three points. They don’t truly believe in sola scriptura the way Catholics express what sola scriptura is since Lutherans, who supposedly came up with the term chose to define it the way they do (some kind of authority is given to the Confessions - thus sola scriptura to the Lutheran is really magisterium (Confessions) + Scripture). Not sure if I got that right, but that’s what I’ve concluded through the conversation.
What I got out of the response is that belief in sola scriptura is not relevant to whether or not one is saved based on Jon’s response bolded above. However, I was always under the impression that one of the reasons for the Protestant revolution was the idea that sola scriptura was the way to go. If it’s not that big of a deal, why break away from the Church because of it?
I don’t think your question to #1 was directly addressed. My impression through reading through the thread is that Lutheranism don’t define sola scriptura the way I expressed in my three points. They don’t truly believe in sola scriptura the way Catholics express what sola scriptura is since Lutherans, who supposedly came up with the term chose to define it the way they do (some kind of authority is given to the Confessions - thus sola scriptura to the Lutheran is really magisterium (Confessions) + Scripture). Not sure if I got that right, but that’s what I’ve concluded through the conversation.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Mary,
I was raised and confirmed a Confessional Lutheran before reverting back to Catholicism (I was baptized Catholic
. What was revealing and rather disappointing, was that I had to uncover the “real” Martin Luther by digging into his works myself. As most orthodox Lutherans (mostly pastors) already know about his crudeness and vulgarity in his works, most laypeople within the Lutheran body know nothing of the sort. They [pastors] know that disclosing the “real” Martin Luther will discredit almost anything he had to say, particularly in his theological discourses and writings. Then, if and once you approach a Lutheran pastor with these discoveries, I would suggest most if not all will justify his teachings by saying that he was just another sinful man such like the 10th century popes, or that he was merely trying to “reform” the Catholic Church, and that he did not want to start a new church etc etc. I even had an old orthodox Lutheran pastor tell me that he accepted only 2% of what Martin Luther advocated as it relates to doctrine, as the rest was either contemptuous antipathy towards the Pope and the authority of the Church, or a political manifesto; read his The Jews and Their Lies if you really want to know Luther’s heart.The fact is, Luther’s 95 theses were not necessarily deemed as heretical, as I believe they were mere suggestions to the Pope relating to the abuse of indulgences by some. What was heretical (all due respect to my Lutheran brethren
was that of sola scriptura and sola fide as the latter is condemned word for word in Scripture and the former is non-existent in Scripture…and that’s where Luther, in my mind, became a manic recluse hiding in a German castle fearing for his life, as opposed to all the martyrs of the early church gladly singing hymns on the way to their execution. Again, no disrespect to my wonderful Lutheran brethren, this was just some of my personal experience. 
God bless!
B
benjohnson
Guest
To save all of us some time, I’ve developed a small TRS-80 BASIC (C64 too!) script that will simulate our tete-a-tete thus far. I’ve GPLd it so fee free to add and modify as needed.
10 PRINT 'Lutherans: The Lutheran definition of Lutheran Sola Scriptura is that it’s a hermenutical practice of the church."
20 PRINT "Catholics: not it’s not "
30 I=RND(4)
40 IF I=1 THEN PRINT “it’s just like that BIBLE ONLY Evangelical friend of mine.”
50 IF I=2 THEN PRINT “Martin Luther was naughty, so I don’t believe you.”
60 IF I=3 THEN PRINT "Sola Scriptua for Lutherans must be Doctrine! I saw it in a book. "
70 IF I=4 AND RND(999)=1 THEN PRINT "Sounds like it’s really Prima Scripture. "; PRINT "Lutherans: That’s seem more correct to us too. "
80 GOTO 10
10 PRINT 'Lutherans: The Lutheran definition of Lutheran Sola Scriptura is that it’s a hermenutical practice of the church."
20 PRINT "Catholics: not it’s not "
30 I=RND(4)
40 IF I=1 THEN PRINT “it’s just like that BIBLE ONLY Evangelical friend of mine.”
50 IF I=2 THEN PRINT “Martin Luther was naughty, so I don’t believe you.”
60 IF I=3 THEN PRINT "Sola Scriptua for Lutherans must be Doctrine! I saw it in a book. "
70 IF I=4 AND RND(999)=1 THEN PRINT "Sounds like it’s really Prima Scripture. "; PRINT "Lutherans: That’s seem more correct to us too. "
80 GOTO 10
Thank you for your kind remarks.
Yes, I think you are right, even regarding the LCMS - the influence of, particularly, the church-growth movement has been damaging.
Jon
Undoubtedly. One of the problems in ecumenical dialogue is getting past the knee-jerk reaction that disagreement is arrogance.
In America, the right is obtained via God, and protected by the constitution.
Agreed. that’s where dialogue comes in. Not polemics. One takes the time to explain one’s side, then actually listens to the other. That’s true regardless of SS. Its true regarding Sacred Tradition, as well. One of the first steps in CONVINCING someone is not to shout at them.
But more importantly, to listen to what one says about their faith, and not try to tell them what their faith is.One of the great things about my time here at CAF has been the fact that I have been able to listen to Catholics share their faith without the filter of my communion. I have learned so much by listening to Catholics talk about their faith. Its truly been a blessing. In the same way, I have discovered many fine Catholics here who have listened to me share my faith, and received it without trying to insist that I believe, or must believe their interpretation of my faith. It hasn’t been true of everyone, mind you, but it has been true of many.
I won’t comment on the bolded, but it isn’t always about Luther the man. If you know of a communion or*** tradition*** that used Sola scriptura differently than it is explained in the FofC, prior to the Augsburg Confession, I’m quite willing to listen. Perhaps the Anabaptists. I frankly do not know much about their hermeunetics.
Please find that in CA, or its Apology. Again, the title of the thread is: Re: Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans. The OP asked about Lutherans, not about Luther.
“I would think that those whom you are correcting would find the correcting to be arrogant.” Think about it.
If there’s something I have relayed, which every other Lutheran here has also either supported or expressed themselves, that doesn’t agree with your view of it, perhaps you need to reevaluate your view, or actually listen to what we say. Arrogance actually starts with claiming one knows better what someone else believes.
No surprise there.
Maybe you’re right. Keith Mathison seems to think the CC was first.
Where in CA is this “original teaching” of Luther? Again, the question was about Lutherans.
Mainly just to irritate you, Topper.
Seriously, I don’t think any Lutheran here has said that Lutheranism gets to tell you how scripture is to be used. You’re showing offense at something that hasn’t happened. Topper, I suggest you go and listen to your priest about how scripture is to be used in the Catholic Church. That’s his job, not mine, and not Lutheranism’s. I will promise you this: if a Lutheran comes on here and tells you he knows better than your priest how Catholic hermeunetics works, I will dispute him.
Hey, you finally got it!
Jon
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Eric,
Only if we know how, specifically and exactly, we became divided, will we know how to become united again.
There are a lot of people here on CA who are investigating the Catholic Church and have absolutely no idea about who Martin Luther really was. Who he actually was and what he actually taught is very important.
I agree that Lutheranism generally seems to be intentionally hiding the Real Luther, from even their own flocks. Luther’s analogy of a dunghill covered under a blanket of snow comes to mind. His many ‘lesser known’ teachings DO discredit him personally, and also discredit his more well-known and better accepted teachings. As for how well the facts are hidden - Dietrich Bonhoeffer didn’t know about Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies”, even as a 1930’s German Lutheran Pastor!
As for the Lutheran Pastor you mentioned who accepted only 2% of what Luther taught (apparently in defiance of the teachings of the Church) – how in the world was that NOT ENOUGH to cause him to question ALL of what Luther taught in defiance of the teachings of Historic Christianity? How is possible for that pastor you mentioned to place such ‘confidence’ in such a man?
You mentioned Salvation by Faith Alone and Sola Scriptura. ISTM that the historical record shows that SBFA was based on a tremendous individual psychological need and SS was simply a novel way to justify it, even it was initially only to the self.
God Bless You Eric, Topper
Thanks for your response and your kind words.Well said Topper. As Luther said during his last years, “Every milkmaid that can read, will found her a new religion” and “A plowboy with a Bible knows more than the pope.”
Your comment makes me wish that I had followed my gut a few years ago and started collecting quotes from former Lutherans who have converted (or reconverted), in part at least because of learning about Martin Luther, the man and his teachings. As you have probably learned here in just a short time, there are those here who very much ‘discourage’ the revealing of the Truth about the man and his teachings. The Truth is NOT ‘bashing’, or hate speech, or disrespectful of anyone; it is simply the Truth. What Luther did and taught 500 years ago resulted in the division of Western Christendom and it needs to be revealed.I was raised and confirmed a Confessional Lutheran before reverting back to Catholicism (I was baptized Catholic
Only if we know how, specifically and exactly, we became divided, will we know how to become united again.
There are a lot of people here on CA who are investigating the Catholic Church and have absolutely no idea about who Martin Luther really was. Who he actually was and what he actually taught is very important.
I agree that Lutheranism generally seems to be intentionally hiding the Real Luther, from even their own flocks. Luther’s analogy of a dunghill covered under a blanket of snow comes to mind. His many ‘lesser known’ teachings DO discredit him personally, and also discredit his more well-known and better accepted teachings. As for how well the facts are hidden - Dietrich Bonhoeffer didn’t know about Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies”, even as a 1930’s German Lutheran Pastor!
As for the Lutheran Pastor you mentioned who accepted only 2% of what Luther taught (apparently in defiance of the teachings of the Church) – how in the world was that NOT ENOUGH to cause him to question ALL of what Luther taught in defiance of the teachings of Historic Christianity? How is possible for that pastor you mentioned to place such ‘confidence’ in such a man?
I agree. Luther’s 95 Theses were not necessarily overtly heretical, and in fact he was right to complain about the abuses associated with the practice of indulgences. However, he was not a good enough Theologian to recognize where his theological inclinations were headed, which was towards heresy. The better educated (and better) Theologians recognized this whereas Luther did not. They warned him that he was headed towards heresy. His response was that HE was teaching what the Church had always taught and that they (at least 30 or so of them) were ALL wrong. It wasn’t so much that he believed that they were wrong about what was ‘correct’ but that he believed that they were teaching something different than had ever been taught. Of course when he realized that it was HE himself who was teaching novelty, then he had to conclude that ‘they’ meaning all the Church, had ALL been wrong whenever they had taught differently than he was.The fact is, Luther’s 95 theses were not necessarily deemed as heretical, as I believe they were mere suggestions to the Pope relating to the abuse of indulgences by some. What was heretical (all due respect to my Lutheran brethren
You mentioned Salvation by Faith Alone and Sola Scriptura. ISTM that the historical record shows that SBFA was based on a tremendous individual psychological need and SS was simply a novel way to justify it, even it was initially only to the self.
God Bless You Eric, Topper
M
MaryT777
Guest
You make some excellent points, Topper. Even the teaching that the “office of the Papacy” is the Antichrist, (albeit the confessions seem to say the Pope himself) that is in the book of Concord which LCMS Pastors vow to uphold during their ordination is not a requirement to know among the lay Lutherans. The average Lutheran seems to confirm( at least here and the Pastor here told me that was typical )to Luther’s small Catechism which is pretty benign in nature albeit heretical in and of itself with the number of sacraments etc.
Thus you could be pretty ignorant of much of what Luther taught and said while confirmed by the small Catechism.
There is a great book out there for any lurker Lutherans considering Catholicism. This is a great book full of Scriptural reasons many left the Catholic Church.
There We Stood, Here We Stand : Eleven Lutherans …
www.amazon.com/There-Stood-Here-Stand…/075961…
Amazon.com, Inc.
There We Stood, Here We Stand : Eleven Lutherans Rediscover Their Catholic Roots [Timothy Drake] on Amazon.com. FREE shipping on qualifying offers.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi ben,
With all due and considerable respect, I have to point out that some very specific and direct criticisms have been directed towards Luther here.
BTW, Luther was a little more than ‘naughty’.
God Bless You ben, Topper
With all due and considerable respect, I have to point out that some very specific and direct criticisms have been directed towards Luther here.
Your response does not deal with the criticisms that have been posted but seems to attempt to only make light of them. Is all of this ‘BASIC stuff’ an attempt to deflect attention away from those criticisms or is it more of an attack on those who post those criticisms and questions?
BTW, Luther was a little more than ‘naughty’.
God Bless You ben, Topper
M
MaryT777
Guest
LOL…" a little Naughty" Overly scrupulous and desperate to ease his conscience one might say thus new doctrinal thoughts. His friend was the printing press and Luther would roll over in his grave at the state of Lutheranism today. I can’t even imagine what he would say those who disagreed and wonder what Synod he would “accept” as “real Lutheranism.” My guess would be the WELS.
Mary.
- Status