S
steido01
Guest
Just wanted to highlight the useful portion of your post. Pelikan was a wise and kind Christian.
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
I can do simple multiplication.Reminds be of a short story by Asimov. A Feeling of Power.
G
GKC
Guest
Nine times seven is sixty-three.
T
Topper17
Guest
The part of the OP that you omitted above is as follows:
Clearly the OP is about, in large part, the role of Sola Scriptura in the ‘million different interpretations’.
With the OP in mind, I quoted Harvard Professor Steven Ozment and asked for your comments. That quote is as follows:
**
“The division within Protestant ranks that is so striking to us today began almost immediately with the Reformation’s success. **Luther nailed his famous theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg on 31 October, 1517, and before a decade had passed he faced determined Anabaptist, Spiritualist, and Zwinglian competitors. Each took inspiration from his movement, while at the same time decrying its corruption and declaring independence from it. Here began the unending line of would-be reformers of the Reformation, who have ever since confronted the original and later versions of Protestantism with their own allegedly truer interpretations of Holy Scripture. **Since Luther’s protest, hundreds of Protestant denominations have sprung up in the modern world, and new ones continue to appear.” **Professor Steven Ozment, “The Birth of a Revolution”, pg. x
Jon, Ozment states that in less than 10 years, Luther’s ‘success’ (Ozment’s term) had resulted in many competing and conflicting doctrines and communions, each of which ‘took inspiration from his movement’. Since those early days of Luther’s Reformation, ‘hundreds of Protestant denominations have sprung up”, which is obviously an understatement.
Do you agree with (Harvard Professor of History) Ozment’s assessment? If not, can you explain how and why you think he has misunderstood the history of Luther and the spread of denominalization?
As we have seen, the OP refers to Sola Scriptura and it’s resulting ‘million different interpretations’ (again, from the OP). There is no question that Sola Scriptura has led to doctrinal dissension and also no question that Luther’ ‘discovered’ Sola Scriptura. His role in teaching the ‘right’ to Private Interpretation of Scriptures also is undeniable. In addition, his teaching on Private Interpretation is what ultimately did the most damage to Christian unity. He should have listened to all those warnings.
Jon, how does Lutheranism account for Luther’s teaching on the Right to Private Interpretation?
that was the backgound information the OP provides for the questions he asked.
Of course I agree with him. What I don’t agree with is your implication that, somehow, what others did was Luther’s fault. We always seem to get back to this, Topper, and it doesn’t seem to matter the title of the thread. Those who chose to do what they did are responsible for their actions, as adults and Christians. Luther is not responsible for Zwingli anymore than he is responsible for me.
Of course there is a question about it. Humans make choices,. Sola scriptura is a practice. It doesn’t effect anymore, it doesn’t do anything, unless someone, some human, chooses to act on it.
To the extent that Luther taught personal interpretation, he is responsible for his belief in that. Lutherans, regarding doctrine, don’t employ that. Which goes to the point: personal interpretation doesn’t do anything, doesn’t effect anything, unless a human being chooses to employ it.
Why must we account for something we don’t do? It was his opinion. I’m sure that, somewhere, he wrote about why he believed that, to the extent that he did.
Jon
.
But when we talk about these things, it must be admitted that they play a role. True?
Oops. Actually, that was my mistake. Sorry.Not necessarily. Often stated by yours truly:
If the EO and CC came to complete communion, I would see that as an undeniable and therefore irresistible, movement of the Spirit within the Church, and I would take steps immediately to join it.
So, yes, if the bishops of the EO accepted papal infallibility in full unity, regardless of the form that agreement took, I would accept it.
Jon
G
GKC
Guest
Gave it to the white mice. They asked for it.
S
steido01
Guest
Well, this thread has been fun. So long and thanks for all the fish!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, indeed. It is a great stumbling block to many that there is a schism between east and west.
Reminds me of some discussions with some thoughtful atheists who have stated that if we Christians could ever really unite there would be an irresistible drive for them to become a believer.
But, alas, we can see that the Truth remains, whether there is unity or disunity.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Oops, you were right, 63. Guess I’m a little rusty on multiplication.
Huh? White mice? Is that another crazy new Anglican ritual?
G
GKC
Guest
Me and steido01 were playing smart aleck literati.
It looked to me as if you were joining in, with another opus
C
commenter
Guest
Hard for me to follow your benchmark logic. One can argue that “the East” is now joined with the West, accepting papal infallibility, in consideration of the Eastern Catholic Churches (most former Orthodox) now in union with Rome.
Or, one can argue that even if the EO joined up with Rome, that still leaves the Oriental Orthodox, so we don’t have “union” yet. Or some other group.
Or one can argue that the EO, while not accepting explicitly papal infallibility, are deeply committed to “Tradition”. But nothing starts out as Tradition. It had to enter the house by some “magisterium” door (accepted by some patriarch, often the Patriarch of the West) before later becoming canonized as “Tradition”. So indirectly, they are already in union with some variation of a Magisterium. So your benchmark is partly reached.
Or one can question the benchmark itself. Perhaps union with the Pope is one of the ways bishops reach the fullness of the Spirit’s guidance; lacking that, …?
I am sensing a hidden agenda here…I’ll bet you unconsciously feel you know your own personal spirituality better than anonymous Catholics on the internet. Right?
G
GKC
Guest
I thank you. They’re my main mode of expression, in places like this. Though I’ll occasionally use a smilie.
At home, I can make faces, and communicate.
G
GKC
Guest
Or Slartibartfast
T
Topper17
Guest
I agree and am fleshing out that background information in a more complete manner. The better fleshed out it is the better the subject can be understood.
Well if you agree with him then you must accept his comment that regarding his comment that ”…Anabaptist, Spiritualist, and Zwinglian competitors. Each took inspiration from his movement"
Please don’t misunderstand my position, I am NOT saying that Luther is 100% responsible for the doctrinal dissension and all of the denominalization which sprung up following his ‘success’ (again, Ozment’s term). But I absolutely reject the idea that he is not at all responsible for the results of what he taught, which seems to me to be what you are suggesting.
The vast majority of the people of his time were completely unprepared and unable to decide doctrinal issues for themselves.
In the real world, leaders are held responsible when they lead people astray. Being held responsible, at least in part, is the price of assuming a leadership role, especially when you have not been asked to, when things end poorly. When someone takes an unprecedented amount of responsibility and authority on their own shoulders, in defiance of existing authority, and ‘it doesn’t turn out well’, sorting out their role and level of responsibility is the natural consequence.
What I am saying Jon is that Luther bears a portion of the responsibility and fault for the denoniminalization and doctrinal confusion from which Western Christianity suffers today.
Its like saying a cook in a dinner cooked up some deady soup, but he isn’t responsible for the sickness caused. After all, the silly people drank that soup thinking it was ok, so they are responsible. The man who cooked up the poison soup and sold it is what Jon, not responsible?
Jon, Luther was warned that his radical approach to Scripture was going to lead to doctrinal dissension.
Many times Luther was warned that denominalization would run rampant if people accepted his “right to decide” or PI. At Leipzig John Eck (who was incorrectly represented here on this thread) warned him and after Leipzig, Eck prophesized the results of Luther’s Revolt.
**
“Eck’s crowing letters (regarding his victory at Leipzig) after the event declared that Luther opposed sacred and solid tradition of the church with the appeal to the conscience of the individual. Men of Eck’s conviction foresaw – rightly, as it turned out – that once the individual conscience was granted freedom to seek its own definition of truth, Christian faith would become so fragmented that no consensus would be possible and that the uncertainties inherent in any religion would become the spiritual equipment of humankind.” **Marius, pg 186
What Marius is saying is that Eck was RIGHT in warning of the multitude of conflicting doctrines. Luther should have had the wisdom to understand that Eck was right. But he forged ahead anyway, believing that once people had been exposed to his teachings, they would all believe as he did. Obviously Luther was wrong. It was a costly mistake.
Luther was a monk, a priest, Professor of Theology and held a Doctorate. He was responsible for what he taught, and also, to at least some degree, for the consequences of his teachings.
Ok then Jon, if you want to defend him by posting why he believed that, I think that would be a great contribution to the discussion. Please do so.
Please understand, I am not holding Lutheranism as a denomination, responsible for Luther’s teaching on Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation. By the same token, I don’t think that you can realistically divorce Luther and his weirder and less successful teachings from Lutheranism. After all, Lutheranism was founded upon his teachings.
So how about this – I will present my case as best I can, using supporting information as I can, and you can do the same. That way, everyone who is reading along can make up their own minds as to which of us has the more compelling argument. I will be arguing that Luther bears SOME responsibility for the denominalization and doctrinal confusion that the Western church suffers, and I supposed that you will arguing that he should not be held responsible, at all, in any respect.
I think that the various Scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, should be heard on this very important topic and that their comments could add more context to the connection between Sola Scriptura and the ‘million different interpretations’ mentioned in the OP. That sounds fair doesn’t it?
- Status