P
PRmerger
Guest
Sadly, I think this is true.
- Status
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Hi steidoO1, I agree with you that; there are posters and thread readers who can discern the difference between opinions, facts and the reality of Church teaching. I agree also with you that personal views expressed about your faith are uncharitable.
I am shocked to learn that a view such as this "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," from one who is not a member of the ELCA? as if ? to blame Sola Scriptura for abortions, same sex marriage social issues. How we forget that a Catholic U.S President was in office when the abortion laws were being written for the law books and was assassinated followed by his brother.
There are those practicing our Catholic faith who understand the difference between battling the evil power and principalities versus the flesh.
Venting in a debate by anyone is a sign of weakness.
Peace be with you steido01
I
T
Topper17
Guest
:On the question as to whether the Catholic Church is or is not “the Church”
The Smalcald Articles are part of the (held to be Authoritative) Book of Concord. In the Smalcald Articles Luther wrote the following of the church:
"XII. Of the Church.
**1] We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and [in truth] they are not [the Church]; nor will we listen to those things which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid. **2] For, thank God, [to-day] a child seven years old knows what the Church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd. For the children pray thus: I believe in one holy [catholic or] Christian Church. 3] This holiness does not consist in albs, tonsures, long gowns, and other of their ceremonies devised by them beyond Holy Scripture, but in the Word of God and true faith." :bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#church
We constantly hear that Luther was simply one of a number of Theologians who contributed to Lutheran theology. That really isn’t completely accurate. In fact, as demonstrated by the inclusion of the Smalcald Articles, those who hold to the Book of Concord actually believe that what Luther wrote there is Authoritative and is binding upon Lutherans.
As if Luther was not clear about whether the Catholic Church was really a Church, he wrote in 1541:
"If they are not the church but the devil’s whore that has not remained faithful to Christ, then it is irrefutably and thoroughly established that they should not possess church property." (Wider Hans Wurst, or Against Jack Sausage, 1541, LW, vol. 41, 179-256, translated by Eric W. Gritsch; citation from p. 220)
Charming
Leaving aside the fact that Luther here ‘authorized’, meaning, by his ‘authority’, granted people the right to ‘help themselves’ to Church property. History informs us as to what happened of course.
Luther goes further though. He demands that the Catholic Church “prove” that it is the Church, and that if it cannot (to his personal satisfaction of course), then it is NOT the Church. He of course does not demand the same of his brand new tradition. It is PRESUMED to be right in the Eyes of God. Luther did NOT allow that presumption to be challenged.
“However, so that we may not completely waste our time with Harry’s devilish dirt, but may offer the reader something better and more useful—though not for the sake of Harry or those who incite him, for they are “self-condemned; they have ears, but hear not”—we will come to the point at issue, namely, why the papists, through their Harry, call us heretics. And the point is that they allege that we have fallen away from the holy church and set up a new church. **This then is the answer: since they themselves boast that they are the church, it is for them to prove that they are. If they can prove it with a single reason (I don’t ask for more), then we shall give ourselves up as prisoners, **willingly saying, “We have sinned, have mercy upon us.” But if they cannot prove it, they must confess (whether they like it or not) that they are not the church **and that we cannot be heretics since we have fallen away from what is not the true church. Indeed, since there is nothing in-between, we must be the church of Christ and they the devil’s church, or vice versa. Therefore it all turns on proving which is the true church.” **Against Hanswurrst, Luther Works, Vol 41, p 193, (c) Fortress Press
Here I actually agree with Luther. It “all turns on proving which is the ‘true Church.”
The True Church cannot teach conflicting doctrines. Either Lutheran or Catholic teachings are True in God’s Eyes. It cannot be both. That of course is not to say that Lutherans are not ‘imperfectly connected’ to the Catholic Church.
We are called as Catholics to accept Protestants as our brother’s in Christ. That does NOT mean however that we are required to believe that their teachings are correct, or are ‘equal’ to those of the Church where they disagree.
The Smalcald Articles are part of the (held to be Authoritative) Book of Concord. In the Smalcald Articles Luther wrote the following of the church:
"XII. Of the Church.
**1] We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and [in truth] they are not [the Church]; nor will we listen to those things which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid. **2] For, thank God, [to-day] a child seven years old knows what the Church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd. For the children pray thus: I believe in one holy [catholic or] Christian Church. 3] This holiness does not consist in albs, tonsures, long gowns, and other of their ceremonies devised by them beyond Holy Scripture, but in the Word of God and true faith." :bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#church
We constantly hear that Luther was simply one of a number of Theologians who contributed to Lutheran theology. That really isn’t completely accurate. In fact, as demonstrated by the inclusion of the Smalcald Articles, those who hold to the Book of Concord actually believe that what Luther wrote there is Authoritative and is binding upon Lutherans.
As if Luther was not clear about whether the Catholic Church was really a Church, he wrote in 1541:
"If they are not the church but the devil’s whore that has not remained faithful to Christ, then it is irrefutably and thoroughly established that they should not possess church property." (Wider Hans Wurst, or Against Jack Sausage, 1541, LW, vol. 41, 179-256, translated by Eric W. Gritsch; citation from p. 220)
Charming
Leaving aside the fact that Luther here ‘authorized’, meaning, by his ‘authority’, granted people the right to ‘help themselves’ to Church property. History informs us as to what happened of course.
Luther goes further though. He demands that the Catholic Church “prove” that it is the Church, and that if it cannot (to his personal satisfaction of course), then it is NOT the Church. He of course does not demand the same of his brand new tradition. It is PRESUMED to be right in the Eyes of God. Luther did NOT allow that presumption to be challenged.
“However, so that we may not completely waste our time with Harry’s devilish dirt, but may offer the reader something better and more useful—though not for the sake of Harry or those who incite him, for they are “self-condemned; they have ears, but hear not”—we will come to the point at issue, namely, why the papists, through their Harry, call us heretics. And the point is that they allege that we have fallen away from the holy church and set up a new church. **This then is the answer: since they themselves boast that they are the church, it is for them to prove that they are. If they can prove it with a single reason (I don’t ask for more), then we shall give ourselves up as prisoners, **willingly saying, “We have sinned, have mercy upon us.” But if they cannot prove it, they must confess (whether they like it or not) that they are not the church **and that we cannot be heretics since we have fallen away from what is not the true church. Indeed, since there is nothing in-between, we must be the church of Christ and they the devil’s church, or vice versa. Therefore it all turns on proving which is the true church.” **Against Hanswurrst, Luther Works, Vol 41, p 193, (c) Fortress Press
Here I actually agree with Luther. It “all turns on proving which is the ‘true Church.”
The True Church cannot teach conflicting doctrines. Either Lutheran or Catholic teachings are True in God’s Eyes. It cannot be both. That of course is not to say that Lutherans are not ‘imperfectly connected’ to the Catholic Church.
We are called as Catholics to accept Protestants as our brother’s in Christ. That does NOT mean however that we are required to believe that their teachings are correct, or are ‘equal’ to those of the Church where they disagree.
I will not spend much time of this, since the issue of Smalcald Article XII has been covered before.
Lutherans are obliged to accept Catholics as our Christian siblings, as the Confessions say. The point of Smalcald XII is to reject the notion that those in communion with the Bishop of make up the One True Church, only and exclusively.
Pr. Will Weedon writes:
Don’t misunderstand. Luther is perfectly clear elsewhere that he does not deny that Roman Christians are still Christians; the question is whether the Roman Pontiff is* the voice** of** the** Church and whether the curia and bishops submissive to him are the voice of the Church. The conclusion of our forebears in the 16th century was a resounding: “No way!” They are not** “the” **Church! *
bookofconcord.blogspot.com/
Lutherans do not deny that Catholics are Christians. They are indeed Christians. By what standard? The LCMS responds:
Now certainly, there are some Lutherans who may claim differently than what our communion actually teaches, just as there are Catholics who do the same, but the Lutheran Church does not teach, nor does our confession claim, that Catholics are not Christian.
Jon
Lutherans are obliged to accept Catholics as our Christian siblings, as the Confessions say. The point of Smalcald XII is to reject the notion that those in communion with the Bishop of make up the One True Church, only and exclusively.
Pr. Will Weedon writes:
Don’t misunderstand. Luther is perfectly clear elsewhere that he does not deny that Roman Christians are still Christians; the question is whether the Roman Pontiff is* the voice** of** the** Church and whether the curia and bishops submissive to him are the voice of the Church. The conclusion of our forebears in the 16th century was a resounding: “No way!” They are not** “the” **Church! *
bookofconcord.blogspot.com/
Lutherans do not deny that Catholics are Christians. They are indeed Christians. By what standard? The LCMS responds:
lcms.org/faqs/denominations#catholic
Now certainly, there are some Lutherans who may claim differently than what our communion actually teaches, just as there are Catholics who do the same, but the Lutheran Church does not teach, nor does our confession claim, that Catholics are not Christian.
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
So who was the Church in the 16th century, according to Luther? Who was it that set doctrine to which Christians must assent in the 16th century?
I’m not Luther, but it seems that Steido already posted that: the congregation of saints gathered around word and sacrament. When I’ve attended a Catholic mass, there I found the Church. I’ve never had the privilege to attend an orthodox service, but I know I would find The Church there.
Jon
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I thought of this thread when I came across this quote; “Those who want a Church that lives in the past will always be disappointed in a Church led by a Pope who wants a Church that is preparing for the future”
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi PR,
Thanks for your response.
This problem was ‘baked into the cake’ by the originator of Sola Scriptura himself, Martin Luther, and again, he WAS warned and chose to ignore those warnings.
Somehow I have been reminded of a passage in Roland Bainton’s rather ‘positive’ (towards Luther) biography regarding a difference of opinion about the interpretation:
"Erasmus rejoined that other passages of Scripture bear a different sense, and the matter is therefore not clear. If it were, why should debates over it have continued for centuries? Scripture needs to be interpreted, and the claim of Lutherans to have the Spirit by which to interpret is not confirmed by the fruits of the Spirit in their behavior.” Bainton, pg. 256
Prior to this, regarding the ‘fruits’:
“The [Wittenburg] town council was more abrupt. **They informed the [Catholic priests] that the celebration of mass was an offense was worthy of death……By the beginning of 1525 the mass was at an end in Wittenberg…….**Such changes aroused in the papists intense antagonism, and Pope Hadrian addressed [Prince] Fredrick the Wise [whose territory included Wittenberg] a veritable manifesto of the Counter Reformation.
“Beloved in Christ, we have endured enough and more than enough. Our predecessors exhorted you to desist from corrupting the Christian faith through Martin Luther, but the trumpet has sounded in vain. We have been moved by mercy and paternal affection to give you a fatherly admonition. The Saxons have ever been defenders of the faith. **But now who has bewitched you? Who has wasted the vineyard of the Lord? Who but a wild boar? We have you thank that the churches are without people, the people without priests, the priests without honor, and Christians without Christ. The veil of the temple is rent. Be not beguiled because Martin Luther appeals to Scripture. So does every heretic, but Scripture is a book sealed with seven seals which cannot be so well opened by one carnal man as by all the holy saints. The fruits of this evil are evident. For this robber of churches incites the people to smash images and break crosses. He exhorts the laity to wash their hands in the bloods of the priests. He has rejected or corrupted the sacraments, repudiated the expunging of sins through fasts, and rejects the daily celebration of the mass. He has committed the decretals of the holy Fathers to the flames. Does this sound to you like Christ or Antichrist? ** Separate yourself from Martin Luther and put a muzzle on his blasphemous tongue.” Bainton, pg. 252
Of course there will be howls here from those who are followers of Martin Luther, but the question that the Pope asked Fredrick in the second to last sentence deserves to be considered.
I have always believed that the key to understanding which side was ‘right’ in the early 16th century can be found in the arguments that each side used against the other – at the time. What else was the Pope supposed to have thought? Did not Luther’s behavior and writings justify the Pope’s question?
This of course was even before, but in the same year as, Luther’s recommendation that the Peasants be slaughtered without mercy.
What I find interesting here is the Pope’s comments about how heretics always ‘appeal to Scripture’. But if nothing else, the results of the Reformation, in the countless number of doctrinally competing communions, has proven that Sola Scriptura has been completely unable to provide doctrinal assurance to ANY of the traditions who hold to it.
The Catholic Magisterium can provide a single authoritative teaching on a particular subject as necessary. As demonstrated on virtually every issue imaginable, the various Sola Scriptura traditions cannot produce a unified doctrine - only doctrinal dissension and confusion.
God Bless You PR, Topper
Thanks for your response.
Agreed. It is quite clear than none of the Sola Scriptura traditions have any assurance that their beliefs (interpretations of Scripture) are ANY more reliable than those of ANY other tradition. And yet, the ALL believe that they ‘do it better’, with absolutely no foundation for that certainty. They ALL point to Scripture and say “Well, OUR beliefs hold to Scripture and the beliefs of all those who disagree with us do not.”
This problem was ‘baked into the cake’ by the originator of Sola Scriptura himself, Martin Luther, and again, he WAS warned and chose to ignore those warnings.
Somehow I have been reminded of a passage in Roland Bainton’s rather ‘positive’ (towards Luther) biography regarding a difference of opinion about the interpretation:
"Erasmus rejoined that other passages of Scripture bear a different sense, and the matter is therefore not clear. If it were, why should debates over it have continued for centuries? Scripture needs to be interpreted, and the claim of Lutherans to have the Spirit by which to interpret is not confirmed by the fruits of the Spirit in their behavior.” Bainton, pg. 256
Prior to this, regarding the ‘fruits’:
“The [Wittenburg] town council was more abrupt. **They informed the [Catholic priests] that the celebration of mass was an offense was worthy of death……By the beginning of 1525 the mass was at an end in Wittenberg…….**Such changes aroused in the papists intense antagonism, and Pope Hadrian addressed [Prince] Fredrick the Wise [whose territory included Wittenberg] a veritable manifesto of the Counter Reformation.
“Beloved in Christ, we have endured enough and more than enough. Our predecessors exhorted you to desist from corrupting the Christian faith through Martin Luther, but the trumpet has sounded in vain. We have been moved by mercy and paternal affection to give you a fatherly admonition. The Saxons have ever been defenders of the faith. **But now who has bewitched you? Who has wasted the vineyard of the Lord? Who but a wild boar? We have you thank that the churches are without people, the people without priests, the priests without honor, and Christians without Christ. The veil of the temple is rent. Be not beguiled because Martin Luther appeals to Scripture. So does every heretic, but Scripture is a book sealed with seven seals which cannot be so well opened by one carnal man as by all the holy saints. The fruits of this evil are evident. For this robber of churches incites the people to smash images and break crosses. He exhorts the laity to wash their hands in the bloods of the priests. He has rejected or corrupted the sacraments, repudiated the expunging of sins through fasts, and rejects the daily celebration of the mass. He has committed the decretals of the holy Fathers to the flames. Does this sound to you like Christ or Antichrist? ** Separate yourself from Martin Luther and put a muzzle on his blasphemous tongue.” Bainton, pg. 252
Of course there will be howls here from those who are followers of Martin Luther, but the question that the Pope asked Fredrick in the second to last sentence deserves to be considered.
I have always believed that the key to understanding which side was ‘right’ in the early 16th century can be found in the arguments that each side used against the other – at the time. What else was the Pope supposed to have thought? Did not Luther’s behavior and writings justify the Pope’s question?
This of course was even before, but in the same year as, Luther’s recommendation that the Peasants be slaughtered without mercy.
What I find interesting here is the Pope’s comments about how heretics always ‘appeal to Scripture’. But if nothing else, the results of the Reformation, in the countless number of doctrinally competing communions, has proven that Sola Scriptura has been completely unable to provide doctrinal assurance to ANY of the traditions who hold to it.
The Catholic Magisterium can provide a single authoritative teaching on a particular subject as necessary. As demonstrated on virtually every issue imaginable, the various Sola Scriptura traditions cannot produce a unified doctrine - only doctrinal dissension and confusion.
God Bless You PR, Topper
M
MaryT777
Guest
Topper,
The final paragraph of your post speaks volumes. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Catholic Church Jesus founded as society increasingly follows the ways of Satan with the approval of abortion and same sex marriage etc. It is an abomination.
Mary.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Gabe,
I’m not sure I understand here. I posted the actual text of the ELCA policy statement on abortion and followed that by a self-evident statement, as follows:
[the position of the ECLA on abortion] “is also evidence that **Sola Scriptura cannot ‘protect’ Christian teachings on issues of faith and morals,"
Confessional Lutheranism has NEVER taught that the allowance of abortion was an acceptable Christian teaching. Prior to 1930 or so, NO Protestant communion taught that artificial birth control was acceptable, and now, virtually all if not all do. Either they were all wrong prior to 1930 on this matter of Christian morals, OR, they are all wrong now. Either way, they have all proven that they cannot be relied on. On that particular issue they have ALL gone the way of the secular culture on this, a matter of Christian morals. Personally I think this is a matter of no small importance.
For the record, I am not exactly the only ‘non ELCA’ Christian who have made statements about their beliefs and teachings:
Here we learn that the LCMS does not even consider the ELCA to be an ‘orthodox Lutheran church body’. That’s pretty harsh don’t you think?
On this, I find myself in agreement with JonNC, who said:
“When the church - choose any tradition within it - moves away from its teachings, as the ELCA clearly has, then people must speak up.”
I spoke up - the same way that the above three non-ELCA Lutherans did.
BTW, for the record, I have seen ‘a lot’, but I have never seen anyone suggest that Roe vs. Wade any anything to do with the fact that there was a Catholic in the White House at the moment.
God Bless You Gabe, Topper**
M
MaryT777
Guest
T
Topper17
Guest
First of all, the issue at hand is not whether Lutherans or the Lutheran church teach that Catholics are Christian. The issue at hand is whether Luther and the Lutheran Confessions consider the Catholic Church to be ‘the Church’, or the ‘church’, or even part of it. That is a totally different matter.
Since we are discussing The Smalcald Articles:
Part II, Article II: Of the Mass.
1] That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious. For it has been held that this sacrifice or work of the Mass, even though it be rendered by a wicked [and abandoned] scoundrel, frees men from sins, both in this life and also in purgatory, while only the Lamb of God shall and must do this, as has been said above. Of this article nothing is to be surrendered or conceded, because the first article does not allow it.
Part II, Article IV: Of the Papacy.
10] This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. 11] This is, properly speaking to exalt himself above all that is called God as Paul says, 2 Thess. 2:4. Even the Turks or the Tartars, great enemies of Christians as they are, do not do this, but they allow whoever wishes to believe in Christ, and take bodily tribute and obedience from Christians……
**12]……. Therefore, just as little as we can worship the devil himself as Lord and God, we can endure his apostle, the Pope, or Antichrist, in his rule as head or lord. **For to lie and to kill, and to destroy body and soul eternally, that is wherein his papal government really consists, as I have very clearly shown in many books.”
“THE VERY ANTICHRIST! That’s pretty “personal”. No mention of the ‘office’ of course, or the Pope as being “an” antichrist, one of many, but THE antichrist. Elsewhere Luther makes it very clear that the Catholic Church is a ‘false church’ and is also ‘Satan’s whore and synagogue’.
“But I will prove that you are the new false church, which is in everything apostate, separated from the true, ancient church, thus becoming Satan’s whore and synagogue [Rev. 2:9].” Against Hanswurst, Luther Works, Vol 41, p 193, (c) Fortress Press , 199
It is extremely clear what Luther thought about the Catholic Church. We Catholics are not part of the Church overall, but are separated from the true ancient church, thus becoming Satan’s whore and synagogue. It was on this ‘doctrinal foundation’ that Lutheran theology was built. This is the context in which to understand Luther’s INTENT in the Smalcald Articles. Modern Lutheranism can put a ‘positive reformulation’ on what Luther wrote, but what he meant is obvious. In fact, what he MEANT became part of the Lutheran Confessions. When all of those early Lutherans signed on to the Smalcald Articles, then meant it exactly as Luther meant it when he wrote it.
If we assume that the Lutheran Confessions allow for the Catholic Church to be part of the Church overall, or church overall, we have to conclude that there is a place within that Church for the 'false church, which is in everything apostate, separated from the true, ancient church, thus becoming Satan’s whore and synagogue." That doesn’t seem plausible, but if you can demonstrate otherwise, I look forward to reading your explanation.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ok.
Then I am confused by the assertions you’ve made in the past that Lutherans need to be obedient to their communion. That is, to their church leaders.
Respectfully, it seems like you’re embracing contradictory paradigms. Luther was permitted to divorce himself from the Church because he said the Church is those gathered around the Word and Sacrament.
But then it seems like you’re also saying that you are not permitted to divorce yourself from your communion.
Do you see the conflict here?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
But ben, this is what you lutherns claim, the church is in error, the CC is in error, and the Lutherans are not in error…hence the existence of the Lutherans.
If you claim the CC has errors, then it should follow the lutherans are not in error and are therefor, have exercised infallibility.
P
pablope
Guest
okay…so there are errors in the RCC.
Would you say then that there are no errors in the Lutherans Churches or the confessions?
Should they then be treated as documents without error, on par with the Biblle, or error free documents?
B
benjohnson
Guest
I could be mistaken, but we would view our position more as keeping the faith given to us rather than having any exemplary discernment of our own.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mary,
Thanks for your response.
Of course a LOT of Catholics deny some of the teachings of the Church, but there is a significant difference. There is no foundational tenant in Catholicism which actually PROMOTES the idea that the individual CAN interpret. For the first 7 years of his Revolt, Luther taught that it is the INDIVIDUAL who was responsible for interpreting Scripture and determining doctrine, for themselves. Even though many of those who actually bear his name have attempted to walk that one back, that ‘right’ is still just below the surface, ready for use ‘when necessary’. You see it all the time here on CA:
“In our communion, it is the church which determines doctrine. Of course, if it has strayed from Scripture, it must be corrected.”
This means that it is not really the church which determines doctrine at all. All that one needs to do to defy that church is decide that another competing communion be established, one which (of course) will do a better job of teaching the Truth. It is very much in the hands of man. The net result of that is that we now have an uncountable number of doctrinally competing and conflicting traditions, with each one of them claiming to do the best job of teaching God’s Absolute Truth.
Of course, the Catholic Church does NOT hold to Sola Scriptura. We don’t have the ‘out’ that Luther established and that has caused such destruction to Christian unity.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
Thanks for your response.
None of the Sola Scriptura communions have the actual practical authority to hold their people to their teachings. The example of Luther’s Revolt is always there to be replicated, but only when necessary of course. The proof of this is the number of doctrinally independent communions which include the name of Martin Luther in their names.
Of course a LOT of Catholics deny some of the teachings of the Church, but there is a significant difference. There is no foundational tenant in Catholicism which actually PROMOTES the idea that the individual CAN interpret. For the first 7 years of his Revolt, Luther taught that it is the INDIVIDUAL who was responsible for interpreting Scripture and determining doctrine, for themselves. Even though many of those who actually bear his name have attempted to walk that one back, that ‘right’ is still just below the surface, ready for use ‘when necessary’. You see it all the time here on CA:
“In our communion, it is the church which determines doctrine. Of course, if it has strayed from Scripture, it must be corrected.”
This means that it is not really the church which determines doctrine at all. All that one needs to do to defy that church is decide that another competing communion be established, one which (of course) will do a better job of teaching the Truth. It is very much in the hands of man. The net result of that is that we now have an uncountable number of doctrinally competing and conflicting traditions, with each one of them claiming to do the best job of teaching God’s Absolute Truth.
Of course, the Catholic Church does NOT hold to Sola Scriptura. We don’t have the ‘out’ that Luther established and that has caused such destruction to Christian unity.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
That “out” you speak of is not by a Sola Scriptura that leads to the multiple splinter groups interpreted from a Sola Scriptura. A pope gave your “out” a name and called it poison. That poison is called (a false) freedom.
That false freedom ultimately led to what historians called " The great experiment" founded upon a new country that is younger than the reformation in the United States of America. From this false freedom led to the many different splinter groups from the Protestant mainline Church’s. Sola Scriptura is what united them, it did not create a disunity among non-Catholic Christians.
I only introduce this to you, to expose to you that the many independent “freedom” Sola Scripturalist do not hold to the same Lutheran Sola Scriptura theology, there is a difference.
It was the pope’s description of a " poison they are calling freedom in the U.S " that originally created your “out” for Martin Luther and the many faces of a Sola Scriptura. In fact most new Sola Scripturalist were founded within the borders of that poison called freedom.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Hi Mary. If the Concord book is proven to be made by men? it can change when exposed to Truth. Truth is the weapon that can overcome the evil powers and principalities. Books written by men for men infected by the evil powers and principalities will not withstand the test of time.
Martin Luther a dead man is the least of our problems today. It remains the evil powers and principalities which infected a separated communion made by men (on both sides), that continues to plague our full communion with our separated brethren.
The wound from our separated communion with our Lutheran brethren caused by the evil powers and principalities cuts much deeper than the man Martin Luther could ever do.
That evil which infected (both sides) men during Martin Luther’s time brought about two world wars, communism, atheism, secularism, relativism to name a few derived from the pope’s naming it a “false freedom”. Pride from men (on both sides) ultimately gave in to this evil power and principality.
Christ gave us the weapons of warfare to battle these evil powers and principalities, when we do not fight against the flesh of a dead man in likes of Martin Luther.
Peace be with you
- Status