Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[JonNC]

=commenter;13041668]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.

Let me first start by saying that I understand your viewpoint, but would add that, on this issue, I really don’t expect others to see my benchmark logic, as you put it. I’m not sure its even logical. Though I may be wrong, I suspect that Evangelical Catholics might have an easier time understanding the tension represented in my remarks, that being tension between the strong desire to be in communion with the historic sees of the Church, and determining which one is right without the others.

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.

Remember that it isn’t an acceptance or rejection of Sacred Tradition, but the interpretation of it.

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?

Umm, probably.
If by hidden agenda, you mean something similar to the tension expressed above, I hope that answers your question.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Except that you and I both know that faith doesn’t come from a decision.

I don’t believe that at all.

Faith is an act of the will.

 

[PRmerger]

Except that you and I both know that faith doesn’t come from a decision.

I don’t believe that at all.

Faith is an act of the will.

Faith is an act by which one person says to another: “I
choose to trust you and believe you.”—Kreeft

Perhaps such a person misunderstands what faith is, and
think of it as some irresistible mystical experience, or some
sudden, undeniable light of certitude. Instead, it is like pledging
your loyalty to a king, or a friend, or a spouse: it is a choice.—Kreeft

For the atheist, the decision cannot be made to become a Christian, at least not without the Holy Spirit.

True, this.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;13042923]Faith is an act by which one person says to another: “I
choose to trust you and believe you.”—Kreeft

Perhaps such a person misunderstands what faith is, and
think of it as some irresistible mystical experience, or some
sudden, undeniable light of certitude. Instead, it is like pledging
your loyalty to a king, or a friend, or a spouse: it is a choice.—Kreeft

Council of Orange, canon 5

CANON 5.** If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism – if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles,** for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

True, this.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

With regards to the connection between Sola Scriptura, ‘millions of interpretations’ (a quote from the OP), and Martin Luther, who discovered Sola Scriptura, next we have the great Calvinist Theologian R. C. Sproul:

“Two of the great legacies of the Reformation were the principal of private interpretation and the translation of the Bible into the vernacular. The two principals go hand in hand and were accomplished only after great controversy and persecution. Scores of persons paid with their lives by being burned at the stake (particularly in England) for daring to translate the bible into the vernacular. **One of Luther’s greatest achievements was a translation of the Bible into German so that any literate person could read it for himself.It was Luther himself who brought the issue of private interpretation of the Bible into sharp focus in the sixteenth century. Hidden beneath the famous response of the Reformer to the ecclesiastical and imperial authorities at the Diet of Worms was the implicit principal of private interpretation.**When asked to recant of his writings, Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by Sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.” Notice that Luther said “unless I am convinced…….” In earlier debates at Leipzig and Augsburg, Luther had dared to presume to interpret Scripture contrary to interpretations rendered by Popes and by church councils. That he would be so presumptuous led to the repeated charge of arrogance by church officials. Luther did not take these charges lightly but agonized over them. He believed that he could be wrong but maintained that the Pope and councils could also err. For him only one source of truth was free from error. He said, “The Scriptures never err.” Thus, unless the leaders of the church could convince him of his error, he felt duty-bound to follow what his own conscience was convinced Scripture taught. With this controversy the principal of private interpretation was born and baptized with fire.” R.C. Sproul, (Protestant Theologian) “Knowing Scripture”, pg. 33-4

What baffles me to no end is how Sproul could depict PI as a positive development. Did he not read either Scripture or any of the Fathers on the subject? Doesn’t he realize what the results of PI have been? Or, alternatively, does he believe that doctrinal diversity is (somehow) a ‘good thing’?

Jon, a couple of weeks ago I think I saw you say that you preferred the thouhts of Chemitz over those of Luther. Could you explain why:

Topper

 

[PRmerger]

Council of Orange, canon 5

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism – if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

Jon

Amen!

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

I think that one of my favorite Protestant Theologians, Alister McGrath, has some excellent points to make regarding Sola Scriptura, Martin Luther, and Luther’s teaching on Private Interpretation.

(The Great) Alister McGrath tell us:

**“The idea that lay at the heart of the sixteenth-century Reformation, which brought about Anglicanism and the other Protestant churches into being, was that the Bible is capable of being understood by all Christian believers – and that they all have the right to interpret it and to insist upon their perspectives being taken seriously. Yet this powerful affirmation of spiritual democracy ended up unleashing forces that threatened to destabilize the church, eventually leading to fissure and the formation of breakaway groups. **Anglicanism may yet follow the pattern of other Protestant groups and become a “family” of denominations, each with its own way of reading and applying the Bible.

**The dangerous new idea, firmly embodied at the heart of the Protestant revolution, was that all Christians have a right to interpret the Bible for themselves. However, it ultimately proved uncontrollable, spawning developments that few at the time could have envisaged or predicted. **The great convulsion of the early sixteenth century that historians now call “the Reformation” introduced into the history of Christianity a dangerous new idea that gave rise to an unparalleled degree of creativity and growth, on the one hand, while on the other causing new tensions and debates that, by their very nature, probably lie beyond resolution. The development of Protestantism as a major religious force in the world has been shaped decisively by the creative tensions emerging from this principal.

The Dangerous Idea

……Yet from it’s outset, the movement was seen by its opponents as a menacing development, opening the way to religious mayhem, social disintegration, and political chaos. It was not simply that Protestantism seemed to revise, corrupt, or abandon some of the traditional beliefs and practices of the Christian faith. Something far more significant – and ultimately much more dangerous – lay beneath the surface of the Protestantism criticisms of the medieval church.** At its heart, the emergence and growth of Protestantism concerned one of the most fundamental questions that can confront any religion: Who has the authority to define its faith? Institutions or individuals? Who has the right to interpret its foundational document, the Bible?**”

**“Protestantism took its stand on the right of individuals to interpret the Bible for themselves **rather than be forced to submit to “official” interpretations handed down by popes or other or other centralized religious authorities. For Martin Luther, perhaps the most significant of the first generation of Protestant leaders, the traditional authority of clerical institutions had led to the degradation and distortion of the Christian faith. Renewal and reformation were urgently needed. And if the medieval church would not put its own house in order, reform would have to come from its grass roots – from the laity. **Luther’s radical doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” empowered individual believers. It was a radical, dangerous idea that bypassed the idea that a centralized authority had the right to interpret the Bible. There was no centralized authority, no clerical monopoly on biblical interpretation. A radical reshaping of Christianity was inevitable, precisely because the restraints on change had suddenly – seemingly irreversibly – been removed. **

The outbreak of the Peasants’ War in 1525 brought home to Luther that this new approach was dangerous and ultimately uncontrollable. If each individual was able to interpret the Bible as he pleased, the outcome could only be anarchy and radical religious individualism. Too late, Luther tried to rein in the movement by emphasizing the importance of authorized religious leaders, such as himself, and institutions in the interpretation of the Bible. But who, his critics asked, had “authorized” these “so-called” authorities? Was not the essence of Luther’s dangerous new idea that there was no such centralized authority? That all Christians had the right to interpret the Bible as they saw fit?”, McGrath, “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, p. 2-4

Here we see, among other things, that it was (again) in 1525, as the result of the Peasant’s War, that Luther finally realized that SS+PI (for everbody that is) was a really, really bad idea. He hadn’t listened to the (much better Catholic) Theologians who had been warning him of exactly this problem for 6 years (since the Leipzig Debate). As McGrath puts it, Luther tried to “tried to rein in the movement by emphasizing the importance of authorized religious leaders, such as himself, and institutions in the interpretation of the Bible”. No longer was he teaching that EVERYONE could use THEIR PI to interpret the Scriptures. What McGrath is telling us is that the Reformation was founded on a principle that was wrong, even in Luther’s mind, although he did not realize it until it was too late. The ‘radicals’ and the Anabaptists had already used his principles to forge their own path.

The question then turns to what Luther did after 1525 when it finally became apparent, even to him, that SS+PI for everyone was not going to work out very well in the real world. So then, in 1525, after realizing that the principal upon which he had built his Revolt was faulty, what did he do? Did he return to the Mother Church, realizing that he had been wrong exactly as he had been warned?

I would like to know Jon why you think Luther ignored those warnings that his teachings were going to cause doctrinal dissension.

 

[AugustTherese]

Sorry for the hiatus, just got back from Rome. Thought I would share this:

“It is absurd to believe that He Who wrote only once in His Life, and that was in the sands, and Who never told anyone to write, should have intended that His Truth should be available only and exclusively in a few memoranda that were written down by a few followers over twenty years after His Death, and were never gathered together in their approved form until three centuries later? Grant that they are inspired and revealed, and I believe it and confess it and read those writings daily; but I still say it is unthinkable that these books which were not written until His Mystical Body was already spread throughout the whole Roman Empire, should be His only way of communicating Truth. If He did not take some effective guarantee to preserve His Truth, which was so sacred that He died for it, then Truth did not matter to Him. If He could not prolong His Truth, up to this hour, then He is not God. Either that infallible Truth of Jesus Christ is living now, available now, or He is not God.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen (The Rock Plunged into Eternity)

With much love to my Lutheran brethren!

Eric

 

[MaryT777]

Sorry for the hiatus, just got back from Rome. Thought I would share this:

“It is absurd to believe that He Who wrote only once in His Life, and that was in the sands, and Who never told anyone to write, should have intended that His Truth should be available only and exclusively in a few memoranda that were written down by a few followers over twenty years after His Death, and were never gathered together in their approved form until three centuries later? Grant that they are inspired and revealed, and I believe it and confess it and read those writings daily; but I still say it is unthinkable that these books which were not written until His Mystical Body was already spread throughout the whole Roman Empire, should be His only way of communicating Truth. If He did not take some effective guarantee to preserve His Truth, which was so sacred that He died for it, then Truth did not matter to Him. If He could not prolong His Truth, up to this hour, then He is not God. Either that infallible Truth of Jesus Christ is living now, available now, or He is not God.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen (The Rock Plunged into Eternity)

With much love to my Lutheran brethren!

Eric

What a wonderful quote!~ Thanks for posting it.

Mary.

 

[benjohnson]

Sorry for the hiatus, just got back from Rome. Thought I would share this:

[beautiful text was here]

With much love to my Lutheran brethren!

Eric

I don’t think you’ll find many Lutherans who would disagree with this - Lutherans have no objections at all for the true Traditions of the church.

Where Lutherans do used scripture is to curtail (our opinion) new claimed traditions or revelations that spring up from time to time - specifically the abuses of 500 years ago, and some of the new dogmas of the Catholic church in recent times like Papal Infallibility.

The odd part is that from a Lutheran perspective, the old abuses are gone and the details need not be church dividing - in that I can see that the majority of Council of Trent could be reconciled with our Confessions.

It’s the new dogmas from the 19th century on that remain church dividing in my estimation.

(Eric, I’m really glad you found CAF, you are kind and express your Catholic faith very well and you make God’s love for us very attractive. May your good example lead others that need it to RCIA).

 

[Peter_J]

The odd part is that from a Lutheran perspective, the old abuses are gone and the details need not be church dividing - in that I can see that the majority of Council of Trent could be reconciled with our Confessions.

It’s the new dogmas from the 19th century on that remain church dividing in my estimation.

Hmmm … maybe you’re an Old Catholic and never realized it.

 

[steido01]

Hmmm … maybe you’re an Old Catholic and never realized it.

Sometimes I wonder why there wasn’t more dialogue between Old Catholics and Lutherans. I mean, you find curious cases like Overbeck, but not too much else.

I tend to agree with Ben. If Vatican I didn’t exist, and we simply looked at Vatican II + the JDDJ, Rome looks a lot like home to Lutherans. But Vatican I was a real thing that really happened, so…

 

[JonNC]

Jon, a couple of weeks ago I think I saw you say that you preferred the thouhts of Chemitz over those of Luther. Could you explain why:

Because Chemnitz seems to explain well the practice of sola scriptura, the practice we see used by Melanchthon in the Apology years earlier.

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Here Melanchthon defends the real presence using scripture. He then supports his point by citing the univeral Church, East and West, and the Church Fathers.

For we can affirm with a good conscience that we have, after reading the Holy Scripture, applied ourselves and yet daily apply ourselves to the extent that the grace of the Lord permits to inquiry into and investigation of the consensus of the true and purer antiquity. For we assign to the writings of the fathers their proper and, indeed, honorable place which is due them, because they have clearly expounded many passages of Scripture, have defended the ancient dogmas of the church against new corruptions of heretics, and have done so on the basis of Scripture, have correctly explained many points of doctrine, have recorded many things concerning the history of the primitive church, and have usefully called attention to many other things. And we long for this, that in the life to come we may see what we believe and hope concerning the grace of God on account of His Son, the Redeemer, as members of the true catholic church; that we may see (I say) the Son of God Himself, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and fathers, who held to the true foundation, and may enjoy intimate friendship with them to all eternity. Therefore we examine with considerable diligence the consensus of the true, learned, and purer antiquity, and we love and praise the testimonies of the fathers which agree with the Scripture.

• Chemnitz

 

[JonNC]

And while Luther admittedly puts less stock in the Fathers than Chemnitz, he does not in any way disregard them all together. Again, on the real presence:

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

From the earliest times of the tradition we now call Lutheranism, the practice of sola scriptura has been as described by Lutherans in this thread. And to my knowledge, no communion or tradition practiced sola scriptura in a manner inconsistent with this prior to our use of it.

Jon

 

[AugustTherese]

I don’t think you’ll find many Lutherans who would disagree with this - Lutherans have no objections at all for the true Traditions of the church.

Where Lutherans do used scripture is to curtail (our opinion) new claimed traditions or revelations that spring up from time to time - specifically the abuses of 500 years ago, and some of the new dogmas of the Catholic church in recent times like Papal Infallibility.

The odd part is that from a Lutheran perspective, the old abuses are gone and the details need not be church dividing - in that I can see that the majority of Council of Trent could be reconciled with our Confessions.

It’s the new dogmas from the 19th century on that remain church dividing in my estimation.

(Eric, I’m really glad you found CAF, you are kind and express your Catholic faith very well and you make God’s love for us very attractive. May your good example lead others that need it to RCIA).

Thanks, Ben. Those are some very kind words from a kind Christian. Actually those are some of the nicest words anyone has ever said about me. Thank you so very much! It is not me, but rather me allowing Christ and His grace to reside in the depths of my heart, that gives you that impression, at least from my angle.

There are many tracts on the CA site that I would suggest you to at least check out regarding Vatican I. When Scripture tells us that the Apostles and their successors literally possess the authority handed down from Jesus Christ to bind and loose, and whatever they bind and loose here on earth will also be that in heaven… along with the fact that the Church cannot error (gates of hell will not prevail)… Vatican 1, among other Councils, will hopefully become clearer … It was Sacred Tradition that defined the developed details of the conciliar defined dogmas of the handed down mysteries of the Incarnation and Trinity, both that are not explicitly outlined in Scripture. Many Lutherans and Protestants use this exact argument when defending the doctrine of sola scriptura, somewhat ironic.

Have there been abuses, scandals, and/or “dark ages” within the Church? Of course, but those are problems dealing with morality, not with the Faith. Jesus hand picked 12 apostles, of which one willfully betrayed Him. There will always be, more or less, a Judas or two in the Church, as we are a Church full of sinners and always will be until the Total Christ is completely sanctified. Also, remember that Papal Infallibility is a term in the negative sense, meaning that it protects the Pope from teaching heresy, it does not mean that He can “define new dogmas”. The Gnostics said the same thing (new dogma) regarding the Council of Chalcedon, specifically that Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine.

God love you!

Eric

 

[commenter]

I don’t think you’ll find many Lutherans who would disagree with this - Lutherans have no objections at all for the true Traditions of the church.

Where Lutherans do use scripture is to curtail (our opinion) new claimed traditions or revelations that spring up from time to time - specifically the abuses of 500 years ago, and some of the new dogmas of the Catholic church in recent times like Papal Infallibility.

The odd part is that from a Lutheran perspective, the old abuses are gone and the details need not be church dividing - in that I can see that the majority of Council of Trent could be reconciled with our Confessions.

It’s the new dogmas from the 19th century on that remain church dividing in my estimation.

As I’m sure you know, Catholics claim that “new” dogmas are old beliefs newly clarified or newly defined, rather than actually “new”.

When Infallibility was proclaimed, the need for a Magisterium was hardly obvious. Christian denominations were “orthodox”. Underneath denominational distinctives they were united with each other, and with their own heritage, in commitment to Scripture, Christian Tradition, the Natural Law, evangelism, etc. The attitude was “we don’t need any “Magisterium” to guide us” because anyone using Scripture will float in the right direction anyway.

At Vatican I, Protestants foresaw many Christians would abandon the Faith, they never foresaw Protestant denominations would abandon the Faith, justifying every heresy with Scripture. They never predicted books would be added to the NT, not by some group in the desert, but by mainstream denominations, including the one the US president belongs to. They never predicted the abandonment of the Natural Law by sola scriptura churches - Protestant leaders in the 1800s never predicted acceptance of contraception.

Look around the world of 2015. Is the Magisterium still considered “extra baggage” as it appeared in the 1800s, given the insanity of recent decades in most of the seemingly reliable Sola Scriptura churches? Do people strain at the “gnat” of the Dogma of the Assumption, but swallow the “camel” of Christian support for legal abortion, gay marriage, and extra gospels?

 

[benjohnson]

Do people strain at the “gnat” of the Dogma of the Assumption, but swallow the “camel” of Christian support for legal abortion, gay marriage, and extra gospels?

You bring up a good point - and indeed the magisterium has been been a good bulwark to the faith. My reply would be that the principal errors you see in christianly today have more to do with our sin and our refusal to bind our wills to God’s will in that Lutheran churches that have maintained the correct (our opinion) practice of Sola Scriptura are remarkable consistent as well. This same sin is why you see ‘cafeteria’ Catholics who refuse to accept the clear teaching of the church.

 

[Peter_J]

Do people strain at the “gnat” of the Dogma of the Assumption, but swallow the “camel” of Christian support for legal abortion, gay marriage, and extra gospels?

You make a good point, commenter. However, I think it needs to be balanced by stressing that the church’s teaching on the Assumption is important as well as the church’s teachings on abortion, gay marriage, etc.

 

[Topper17]

And while Luther admittedly puts less stock in the Fathers than Chemnitz, he does not in any way disregard them all together.

First of all, I see the phrase ‘admittedly puts less stock in the Fathers’ as being more than a slight understatement. Furthermore, I don’t see your comment in total as being very strong in support of Luther. In fact, in terms of his relationship with the Fathers, I don’t think that a strong statement in his defense CAN be made. But to say that he didn’t “disregard them all together” is not exactly setting a very high bar, at all. He didn’t completely disregard them? I agree, but as long as you brought up Luther and, or possibly ‘vs.’ the fathers, it is an interesting subject, one that is very revealing.

First of all, Luther’s knowledge of the Fathers was not exactly ‘extensive’:

“**According to his (Luther’s) knowledge of early Christian literature, there was a sizeable gap in time between the writers of the New Testament and the earliest Church Fathers. Luther regarded Tertullian, who died in 230, as the earliest writer in the church after the apostles………he apparently did not know the writers who later acquired the title “apostolic fathers”. He was therefor, able to invoke the historical and chronological argument in a form no longer available to theologians of the twentieth century.” **Pelikan (Lutheran to EO convert), “Luther the Expositor”, pg. 83-4

This of course means that Luther was unaware of the 17 Early Church Fathers who proceeded Tertullian, or their writings. I find it ironic that Luther thought that Tertullian was the first Early Church Father, and that Tertullian became a heretic, a Montanist.
**
“Along the way Luther admitted that many of not most of the fathers of the church disagreed with his view of the relation of sin and grace and the incapacity of human beings to do any good work. “**And you say, “Do you not believe in the sayings of the Fathers?” I answer, ‘I believe? Who commands that they be believed? Where is the order from God concerning their faith?” Near the end he attacked Thomas Aquinas, whom Latomus had cited: “Now as for Thomas Aquinas, whether he be damned or blessed, I most vehemently doubt. Thomas wrote many heresies and is the author of the reign of Aristotle, the destroyer of pious teaching.” He ended with a caustic demand to his followers back in Wittenberg to get busy at polemics. The foes must be answered. Everyone must do his part. “I have crushed the head of the serpent; can you not stomp on it’s body?

Luther eventually became quite aware that his beliefs ran counter to those of historic Christianity and especially to the writings of the Fathers. Did that deter Him? Not hardly. He charged ahead, continuing to presume that he was “right” with God and everybody else was wrong.

Luther professed an extreme disrespect for the teachings of all who had come before him:
**
“Against all the sayings of the Fathers, against all the arts and words of angels, men and devils I set the Scriptures and the Gospel . . . Here I stand and here I defy them . . . The Word of God I count above all else and the Divine Majesty supports me; hence I should not turn a hair were a thousand Augustines against me, and am certain that the true Church adheres with me to God’s Word.” (**Against Henry VIII, King of England, 1522; in Grisar, Vol. IV, 391 / from Werke [Weimar], Vol X, II, p. 256 ff.)

That is an astonishing degree of self-sufficiency. I think that this Luther quote especially puts your comment about not ‘disregarding them all together’ into perspective.

Because he was not well educated in the teachings of the Fathers, Luther didn’t realize that he was departing from the teachings of the Church. Lutheran Professor E. G. Schweibert goes so far as to state that Luther had begun to stray from Catholic Orthodoxy as much as 11 years before he posted his 95 Theses, **and without realizing it. **

“He had begun to drift from the pale of the Roman Church as early as 1506, but he did not realize the full extent of his departure until the Leipzig Debate in 1519.” “Luther and His Times”, pg. 282

Luther’s ‘relationship’ with the Early Church Fathers, and his self-sufficiency, are important matters, as you seem to agree Jon.

More to follow on the subject. There is a great deal more to post.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13056189] First of all, I see the phrase ‘admittedly puts less stock in the Fathers’ as being more than a slight understatement.

I’m sure no one is surprised.

Furthermore, I don’t see your comment in total as being very strong in support of Luther.

Why did you expect it to be? You asked me why I tended toward Chemnitz’s view on this.

First of all, Luther’s knowledge of the Fathers was not exactly ‘extensive’:

A stunning indictment of the Church’s failure to properly educate even its best scholars - many Catholic scholars who lack an ax to grind do consider Luther a scholar - in that time and place.

Luther’s ‘relationship’ with the Early Church Fathers, and his self-sufficiency, are important matters, as you seem to agree Jon.

Actually, I don’t agree. You see, Topper, I had already come to own conclusions about Luther long before you started your crusade to educate the members of CAF on the “real” Luther, hidden lo these many years by the rascally Lutherans, who cleverly shielded his views by publishing volumes of his writings, and writing openly about them.

This should further prove the point you have already noted yourself, that Lutherans at not Lutheran specifically because of Luther. Sometimes we are Lutheran despite of what we already know about him. Because it isn’t about him.

You asked the question why I agree on these points with Chemnitz. Its because, as I explained in my previous post, he places Tradition and particularly the Fathers in their proper perspective, as reflected in the the CA and it’s Apology.

As I have said, and you have not disputed, no communion prior to ours practiced or defined sola scriptura in a different way.

More to follow on the subject. There is a great deal more to post.

Great. I look forward to your new thread.

Jon