Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[Gabriel_of_12]

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 point I make deals with Martin Luther’s personal views and actions against the CC who used Sola Scriptura to replace Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. Lutherans today do not hold to Martin Luther’s negative opinions and sentiments from a Sola Scriptura.

You can read Vatican II documents and the difference between Ecumenism and Reconciliation.

Or read the CCC 819,846,847,848

But most important to this discussion, there is a rising consensus among protestant biblical scholars including Lutherans who do not display a Sola Scriptura today, to which you argue against from a different time period. This subject of Sola Scriptura; Catholic Scholars have embarked upon in debates and discussions including on these forums, from our Lutheran brethren. Nothing is official yet by the CC per se; but **we can begin to make a new history here with a new and deeper understanding of Sola Scriptura or allow Truth the freedom to be heard on both sides towards reconciliation. **

I have books written by pre-Vatican I and II Church Fathers exposing a Martin Luther’s Sola Scriptura when lately I am learning that Lutheran’s and other protestants are taking a clarified understanding of Sola Scriptura, which I am delighted to see more exchanges being done on this subject with less tension.

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?

My emphasis is directed towards the Sola Scriptura theology and expression of the Lutheran faith today, following Vatican II, not the confessions in particular written from a difficult history.

The mile I speak of is a complacent understanding of Sola Scriptura that uses Church councils and early Church Fathers for one. Our two mile journey can display how in our liturgy a Sola Scriptura exist from a Lutheran’s view today of Sola Scriptura.

In fact, the two mile journey will display how a Lutheran’s description and expression of faith is said with different words, but saying everything Catholic. It is here, where I have a lot to share with my Lutheran brethren on a two mile journey with them on Sola Scriptura, especially the blessed Sacrament.

Gabriel, which of the sails do you think the Church should ‘adjust’ in the direction of reconciliation?

By being still and listen to what the post Vatican II popes teach and follow Peter and wait for the Holy Spirit to blow into the sails of Peter’s boat towards reconciliation. The waiting is a time for us to communicate efforts (setting the sails) at the lay level, so as to assist and prepare the boat of Peter to sail towards reconciliation. If the lay Catholic? is the detail (devil) towards reconciliation, then let me be the first to confess that I am a sinner who is always in need of my Savior and Lord.

In short, Let us go the extra two miles by opening the door to better understanding of the Lutherans Sola Scriptura without prejudices, ignorance and bias that stem from the period of the protestant reformation.

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”?

The Sacraments of the CC are not infected by Luther’s actions nor have they been infected or affected in anyway. I hope to discuss more about the Sacraments when it pertains to Sola Scriptura from a Lutheran view of today.

Peace be to you; Topper17

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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:

Jon

Thanks Jon I read the full commentary (article) on Pope Benedict’s speech too the Lutheran’s in Germany. Pope’s Benedict and JPII were both in the hearing of Vatican II council. We are still learning more today about the Vatican II documents and our post Vatican II popes writings and teachings on ecumenism and reconciliation of Christians.

Since Vatican II, Peter is still proclaiming Christ Crucified and working towards reconciliation and ecumenical efforts. I pray to see the Popes works and Vatican II’s reconciliation efforts come to a reality manifested in the present during my lifetime.

Peace be to you Jon

 

[Stilldreamn]

Since Vatican II, Peter is still proclaiming Christ Crucified and working towards reconciliation and ecumenical efforts. I pray to see the Popes works and Vatican II’s reconciliation efforts come to a reality manifested in the present during my lifetime.

Amen

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR,

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

Thank you, Topper.

 

[PRmerger]

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:

:tiphat:

 

[commenter]

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.

The problem is that all the Repudiatas would say they themselves still hold to the word of God. Whenever they want to follow the secular society in a new way, they “prayerfully” find verses in the Bible, and authoritative Lutheran documents, that can be reinterpreted out of context to support what they already decided to do. While those cited verses are referred to as “more relevant now than ever before”, other verses in the Bible or Tradition that had been considered totally reliable 10 minutes ago are suddenly deemed culture-bound, not of permanent relevance.

An observer can say “it’s obvious ELCA leaders are not really holding to the word of God; and it’s obvious that my particular congregation **is **holding to word of God”. Of course the Repudiata observer will say they are faithful to Scripture, and your congregation is not. (At this point I’m tempted to annoyingly bring up again the new “Scriptures” that a few extreme liberal Protestants are adding to the New Testament, so as it catches on, nothing will be learnable from Scripture since you can pick your scriptures to fit your lifestyle, but hearing groans from the thread I won’t mention that. Again).

It seems to me God would have given us an objective observer, not to supplant Scripture and Tradition, but to interpret and defend them. The Magisterium is the closest thing I can find that would meet that need.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem is that all the Repudiatas would say they themselves still hold to the word of God. Whenever they want to follow the secular society in a new way, they “prayerfully” find verses in the Bible, and authoritative Lutheran documents, that can be reinterpreted out of context to support what they already decided to do. While those cited verses are referred to as “more relevant now than ever before”, other verses in the Bible or Tradition that had been considered totally reliable 10 minutes ago are suddenly deemed culture-bound, not of permanent relevance.

An observer can say “it’s obvious ELCA leaders are not really holding to the word of God; and it’s obvious that my particular congregation **is **holding to word of God”. Of course the Repudiata observer will say they are faithful to Scripture, and your congregation is not. (At this point I’m tempted to annoyingly bring up again the new “Scriptures” that a few extreme liberal Protestants are adding to the New Testament, so as it catches on, nothing will be learnable from Scripture since you can pick your scriptures to fit your lifestyle, but hearing groans from the thread I won’t mention that. Again).

It seems to me God would have given us an objective observer, not to supplant Scripture and Tradition, but to interpret and defend them. The Magisterium is the closest thing I can find that would meet that need.

:clapping::bowdown2:

 

[crai7]

There is another aspect mentioned in the OP which to date has not been very well explored.

The Early Church Fathers were very clear about the authority of the Church, the authority of Scripture and in fact, about the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Their teachings in NO WAY support Luther’s disastrous teaching of Sola Scriptura.

 

[PRmerger]

Well the RC church isn’t ‘the church’. The RCC wasn’t the original church, it only appeared in the 4th century after the Romans had tried to first obliterate Christianity. If you can’t beat them join them.

It seems to have been more about co-opting Christianity into the Roman political system, and making Christianity palatable to pagans. Hence the reassignment of the pagan ‘mother and child idols’ scattered all over Rome to ‘Madonna and child’.

Constantine’s heavy handed meddling in the early church is pretty obvious. He was at the Council of Nicea and also involved himself in an early heresy. I seriously doubt the RCC was founded unmolested by political interests. Constantine may have been a great Emperor and he may have claimed to have seen a vision, but it is pretty clear from his life he was far from Christian, he was power mad through and through.

Hi, crai,

Just wanted to make sure you saw this response I made to your error in another thread:

Crai, I’m glad you’re here because you’re going to get a lot of correction on the misinformation you’ve been asserting here.

You stated: “Eastern Rite churches don’t even report to the Pope or Vatican”

and when asked to support your claim you offered a post about the Orthodox Church.

They are not the same thing, crai.

The Eastern rite churches are Catholic. And, as such, they do “report to the Pope or Vatican”.

Orthodox Churches are NOT Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

I seriously doubt the RCC was founded unmolested by political interests

If you believe this, crai, then since the table of contents of the NT was canonized in the 4th century but this same putatively corrupted entity called the RCC, how do you know that the Church didn’t err in this 27 book canon?

 

[crai7]

Hello All,

…Obviously one criticism of sola scriptura is that it eventually leads to a million different interpretations of the same text…

 

[PRmerger]

And tradition doesn’t lead to a million and one interpretations??? Then this forum wouldn’t exist.

Here’s the distinction: with SS, each and every Christian is being a “good” Christian if he has his own interpretation and departs from someone else.

With ST, a Catholic is being a “bad” Catholic if he departs from the Church’s teaching.

 

[crai7]

Learn what the Catholic Church teaches and then you’ll know you have it right. 2,000 years of true teaching. God Bless, Memaw

More like 1700 years of changing there minds.

 

[benjohnson]

The problem is that all the Repudiatas would say they themselves still hold to the word of God. Whenever they want to follow the secular society in a new way, they “prayerfully” find verses in the Bible, and authoritative Lutheran documents, that can be reinterpreted out of context to support what they already decided to do.

It’s certainly a remote possibility that they are prayerfully interpreting scripture. But in my estimation God’s word is clear and convincing in all of these matters.

That aside - we can’t let them off the hook for abandoning tradition - to think that the church has been teaching incorrectly for two millennia would take an incredible amount of personal hubris. To entirely discount the teachings of the Saints that have come before would boggle the mind if the mind wasn’t already boggled witnessing them refute God’s word.

 

[Topper17]

Hi comm,

Thanks for your response.

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.

First of all, we are now facing wholesale Same Sex Marriage as the law of the land, something that was absolutely unthinkable 15 years ago. Organizations who believe in the right to life are being forced to offer abortion coverage to their employees (the Little Sisters of the Poor). The list of issues goes on and on, and yet, we are ‘going to see a storm’? What do you call this if not a storm?

As for those little boats - what is the ‘basic steering system’, specifically and exactly that is being used by the orthodox small boats and the boats that ‘went astray’, as you put it?

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?

Please don’t misunderstand my ‘use’ of Michael Voris. He is not being held up as some kind of infallible teaching authority. He is NOT the Magisterium. I quoted him because I believe that his point of view is worth **considering. ** People can read what he writes, or watch his on line programs, and decide for themselves whether they agree with him, issue by issue. He and I happen to agree that Martin Luther and his teachings have had a very harmful impact on modern Christian culture. It is up to the individual to determine whether he makes his case in a compelling manner.

I very much appreciate your comment about how sometimes there are things that people are ‘not telling.’ I find that to be very true with regards to Martin Luther.

In what way, specifically, is Voris not fully upholding the Magisterium? Where do you think he is off base? We both know that as Catholics, we are ‘allowed’ to criticize Catholic leadership, and in fact we are ‘allowed’ to question the Pope. Of course, one cannot use this ‘liberty’ with abandon the way that Luther did. As a matter of fact, I don’t know of anyone who is MORE faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church than Voris, some who are equal to him but none who are more faithful. I don’t think we should characterize his criticisms of various Bishops as being disobedient to the Church in any way.

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.

I think that the only thing that can truly be trusted is the official teachings of the Catholic Church. Protestants are all over the map on virtually every issue, which absolutely proves that Sola Scriptura is completely unreliable.

Individual bishops can stray, and can support, or possibly, fail to condemn things like Same Sex Marriage. For this, they deserve the criticism of people like Voris. In fact, I see Voris as defending the Catholic Church; defending it from the forces that will weaken it, including those from within.

God Bless You comm, Topper

 

[bgfischer]

Matthew 19:14

 

[adrift]

More like 1700 years of changing there minds.

This is the second time you have made this uncharitable remark.

The Catholic Church has existed since Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus Protected by the Holy Spirit. Not once is there a teaching that was false. Your statement is one of bigotry hatred and revisionism. Keep it up and I will see banned under your name.

 

[Topper17]

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

Note to the thread:

The ‘well-researched article’ which was linked to, which doesn’t ‘cherry pick for gotcha soundbites’ is actually found on a very anti-Catholic site. In fact, the vast majority of the articles on that site were written from the perspective that Catholics are NOT Christians.

“I’ve been asked from time to time if I think Roman Catholics are fellow Christians. It certainly is possible that God has preserved a remnant of believers within the Roman church despite Trent’s anathematizing the Gospel. On the other hand, of those who zealously defend Rome, I do not consider these people to be Christians. I think such people are those who need to be either evangelized or refuted. Luther refers to Rome’s defenders as a “breed of men condemned long ago, with corrupted minds [1 Tim. 6:5 ]” (LW 60:216) .” James Swan

This from the “Beggers All” article as follows:

Sunday, June 09, 2013

“Luther: The Roman Church is Basically Christian?”

beggarsallreformation.blogspo…basically.html

This article should not be represented as being unbiased.

In fact, in this article, Swan make the case, and very convincingly, that **Luther considered the Catholic Church to be NOT Christian, which is of course the same position taken by the Lutheran Confessions. **

 

[steido01]

Note to the thread:

The ‘well-researched article’ which was linked to, which doesn’t ‘cherry pick for gotcha soundbites’ is actually found on a very anti-Catholic site. In fact, the vast majority of the articles on that site were written from the perspective that Catholics are NOT Christians.

Yes, yes, attack the source when the actual text hits you too hard in the face. Thankfully, most readers here are able to discern what is plain and what is polemic (both from outside bloggers and CAF posters). They don’t need you, or Voris, or Swan, or me to tell them to reject writers simply because of their beliefs. I presented an article that acknowledges the actual context of Luther’s work, while you have simply painted a cartoonish, brutish absurdity. Remarkably, you seem convinced that if you simply post loud enough, you will rewrite history to your liking.

In fact, in this article, Swan make the case, and very convincingly, that **Luther considered the Catholic Church to be NOT Christian, which is of course the same position taken by the Lutheran Confessions. **

So is Swan “convincing” or not? Which side of your mouth are you talking from? I won’t defend Swan, nor try to explain your cowardice in lambasting a person who you know is unlikely to defend himself here. What I will say is that one must severely butcher the Lutheran Confessions if one wants to paint the Catholic Church as “NOT Christian.” You can say terrible things about bloggers, you can say terrible things about dead men from the 1500’s, but you cannot lie about my religion, Topper. That is the very definition of uncharitable. Of course some Catholics are Christians, just as some Lutherans are Christian. The Lutheran Confessions are clear about this:

Article VII: Of the Church.
Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.

Article VIII: What the Church Is.
Although the Church properly is the congregation of saints and true believers, nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and evil persons are mingled therewith, it is lawful to use Sacraments administered by evil men, according to the saying of Christ: The Scribes and 2] the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, etc. Matt. 23:2. Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ, notwithstanding they be administered by evil men.

They condemn the Donatists, and such like, who denied it to be lawful to use the ministry of evil men in the Church, and who thought the ministry of evil men to be unprofitable and of none effect.

 

[Topper17]

Hi PR,

Thanks for your response.

Thank you, Topper.

As I am sure you have noticed, nobody has stepped up to document the ELCA position on abortion.

In 1991 the ELCA issued “A Social Statement on ABORTION”

From the text:

**“This social teaching statement was adopted by a more than two-thirds majority vote **at the second biennial Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, meeting in Orlando, Florida, August 28-September 4, 1991.”

The statement makes it very clear that the ELCA does not condemn abortion.

“…….B. The Gift of Our Diversity

Because we are united in Christ through faith, we have both the freedom and the obligation to engage in serious deliberation on moral matters. Induced abortion, the act of intentionally terminating a developing life in the womb, is one of the issues about which members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have serious differences. These differences are also found within society………

**A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born, nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy. **The concern for both the life of the woman and the developing life in her womb expresses a common commitment to life. This requires that we move beyond the usual ‘pro-life’ versus ‘pro-choice’ language in discussing abortion.

C. The Regulation of Abortion

………this church opposes:

· the total lack of regulation of abortion;
· legislation that would outlaw abortion in all circumstances;
· laws that prevent access to information about all options available to women faced with unintended pregnancies;
· laws that deny access to safe and affordable services for morally justifiable abortions;
· mandatory or coerced abortion or sterilization;
· laws that prevent couples from practicing contraception;
· laws that are primarily intended to harass those contemplating or deciding for an
abortion.”

**
This is the Official Teaching of the ELCA. It is also evidence that Sola Scriptura cannot ‘protect’ Christian teachings on issues of faith and morals. **

I think it is pretty clear (now) that the ELCA does not oppose abortion. In fact, a member of this Lutheran communion could take just about any view imaginable and NOT be in defiance of Church teaching. This is not to say that there are not faithful pro-life (in the standard sense) members of the ELCA , because of course there certainly are. But I would expect that these people are far more prone to swim the Tiber than those who hold opposing views.

God Bless You PR, Topper