Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[JonNC]

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?

Where does Luther say that this is, in fact what gave Luther “permission to divorce himself” from communion with the Bishop of Rome?

I am currently embroiled in a controversy in my parish, and with the Synod at large, because I believe the Synod is allowing our parish (and others) to do something that appears to violate the confessions. What do I do? I take it to the Church.

Clearly, conscience can drive some to “divorce” themselves from the communion they are in, and join another. There are Catholics who actually post the date that they did this in their profile (“Tiber Swim Team …”). And there are a few Lutherans who have made it clear that they were once Catholics. OTOH, over the years here, I’ve had a few Catholics contact me privately about becoming Lutheran, and I have always encouraged them to first go to their priest, or another priest, and be sure, be certain. It is at least as important to know what you are leaving behind, as it is to know where you are going.

Russell Saltzman has been mentioned in this forum before,
***“What I have always sought—since seminary on—is to be in a church that finally gives expression to the catholicity of the Augsburg Confession.” *** If I get to the point that Saltzman got to, yes, I will give myself permission to act on conscience, to seek out the catholicity I expect from the Church of the Augsburg Confession.

To say that Luther gave himself permission to divorce himself for the Church seems, at least to me, to be a rather simplistic explanation of the history (noting, of course, that on a forum such as this, brief explanations are often necessary).

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Where does Luther say that this is, in fact what gave Luther “permission to divorce himself” from communion with the Bishop of Rome?

I am currently embroiled in a controversy in my parish, and with the Synod at large, because I believe the Synod is allowing our parish (and others) to do something that appears to violate the confessions. What do I do? I take it to the Church.

Clearly, conscience can drive some to “divorce” themselves from the communion they are in, and join another. There are Catholics who actually post the date that they did this in their profile (“Tiber Swim Team …”). And there are a few Lutherans who have made it clear that they were once Catholics. OTOH, over the years here, I’ve had a few Catholics contact me privately about becoming Lutheran, and I have always encouraged them to first go to their priest, or another priest, and be sure, be certain. It is at least as important to know what you are leaving behind, as it is to know where you are going.

Russell Saltzman has been mentioned in this forum before,
***“What I have always sought—since seminary on—is to be in a church that finally gives expression to the catholicity of the Augsburg Confession.” *** If I get to the point that Saltzman got to, yes, I will give myself permission to act on conscience, to seek out the catholicity I expect from the Church of the Augsburg Confession.

To say that Luther gave himself permission to divorce himself for the Church seems, at least to me, to be a rather simplistic explanation of the history (noting, of course, that on a forum such as this, brief explanations are often necessary).

Jon

If Luther wasn’t claiming for himself the right to disobey the Church, why did he do it?

 

[Topper17]

Hi PR,

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?

Maybe the following will be of help in gaining an understanding of Luther’s self-perception of his role in (or really, AS) the Church, and also who was ‘authorized’ to establish doctrine.

“They accuse me of setting myself up all alone to be everybody’s teacher. I answer, I have not set myself up, but have preferred at all times to creep into a corner. It is they who have drawn me out by wile and force, that they might win glory and honor at my expense. Now that the game is going against them, they think me guilty of vainglory. And even if it were true that I had set myself up all alone, that would be no excuse for their conduct. Who knows but that God has called me and raised me up? They ought to fear lest they despise God in me.

**Do we not read in the Old Testament that God commonly raised up only one prophet at a time? Moses was alone in the Exodus, Elijah was alone in King Ahab’s day, Elisha, after him, was alone, Isaiah was alone in Jerusalem, Hosea alone in Israel, Jeremiah alone in Judaea, Ezekiel alone in Babylon, and so forth. **Even though they had many disciples, called “children of the prophets,” **God never allowed more than one man alone to preach and rebuke the people. **…

I say not that I am a prophet, but I do say that the more they despise me and esteem themselves, the more reason they have to fear that I may be a prophet . . . If I am not a prophet, yet for my own self I am certain that the Word of God is with me and not with them, for I have the Scriptures on my side, and they have only their own doctrine. This gives me courage, so that the more they despise and persecute me, the less I fear them. There were many asses in the world in the days of Balaam, but God spake by none of them save only by Balaam’s *** . . .” “An Argument in Defense of All the Articles of Dr. Martin Luther Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull, 1521; from: Works of Martin Luther [PE], Vol. III, 12-14,17; translated by C. M. Jacobs”

Here we learn that God only sets up one Prophet at a time. Obviously, he considered himself to be that Prophet. The problem though is when you look at all of those ‘lesser known’ teachings, Luther’s ridiculous claims to personal authority look more he was not being led by God at all.

“I have said repeatedly: Assail my person if you will, and in any way you will; I do not claim to be an angel. But I will allow no one to assail my teaching with impunity, since I know that it is not mine, but God’s. For on this depends my neighbor’s salvation and my own, to God’s praise and honor.” Reply to the Answer of the Leipzig Goat, 1521; from PE, Vol. III, 293-294; translated by A. Steimle

If his neighbor’s salvation depends on following his teachings – well, that is a LOT of authority, self-proclaimed though it was.

“In order to get things started, I call myself an ecclesiastic by the grace of God in defiance of you and the devil, although you call me a heretic with an abundance of slander. And even if I called myself an evangelist by the grace of God, I would still be more confident of proving it than that any one of you could prove his episcopal title or name. **I am certain that Christ himself, who is the master of my teaching, gives me this title and regards me as one. Moreover, he will be my witness on the Last Day that it is not my pure gospel but his. **Thus your raging and raving is not going to help you at all. Rather, the more you rage and rave, the haughtier we shall be toward you, with God’s help, and shall despise your disgrace.” “Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, July 1522; LW, Vol. 39: Church and Ministry I; translated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch, and appears on pp. 239-299; this citation is from pp. 247-248

Personally, I would like to see that ‘proof’ that Luther was an evangelist by the grace of God, rather than what he was judged to be by the Church.

To be continued……………

 

[Topper17]

Continued:
**
“Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it.** For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, it is God’s and not mine. **Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s.” I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world - I Pet. 3:15. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says *) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved…“*Ibid., 248-249”

Accept my teaching or your may not be saved!

In was with this ‘sprit’ that Luther Rebelled against the Catholic Church, which was formed by Christ and founded on the Apostles.

“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.

Here we see complete disrespect for all those who came before him, and again, an astonishing degree of certainty.
**
“Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God, and must be a child of Hell.” ** Luther’s Own Statements, O’Connor, page 15

This of course would make all Catholics of the last 2000 years, children of hell. This of course is not to mention all of the ‘other’ Protestants whose communions have been founded on Luther’s ‘authority’ to create doctrines as he ‘found necessary’.
**
“God has appointed me for the whole of the German land, and I boldly vouch and declare that when you obey me in this [the founding of Evangelical schools] you are without a doubt obeying not me but Christ, and that, whoever obeys me not, despises, not me, but Christ** [Luke xx. 16]. For I know well and am certain of what and whereto I speak and teach.” Grisar VI, pg. 33

Being Christ’s mouthpiece on earth is though quite at odds with all of the ‘recommendations’ that various groups be executed by the state (among other things of course).

It seems to me that when you view yourself as THE Prophet of your time, it falls on YOUR shoulders to decide which is the True Church, and which Church is the Satan’s. The above statements are only a smattering of the dozens of statements where Luther exhibits an astonishing degree of certainty in his own infallibility. That kind of completely over the top arrogance I think, is extremely revealing.

All of these quotes prompt the question as to the foundation of Luther’s self-professed 'Authority". What was that unprecedented degree of authority actually based, other than Luther’s self-proclamations? If there were a compelling answer here from Protestantism we would all have to think twice as to why we are not all Protestants. However, in my experience, there is no answer at all as to why we should believe that Luther rightfully held the massive amount of authority he claimed.

It seems to me that there are two possibilities here. Either Luther actually DID have the kind of authority he claimed, or he DID NOT. If he actually did not, then what does it say about his overall credibility as a Christian Leader, or Reformer, or Exegete, etc?

God Bless You PR, Topper**

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13116226]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.

No, it is not a different matter. It is the exact, same matter. From the Augsburg Confession, we recognize that the Church is the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.
Even the Catholic Catechism alludes to this:

• I. NAMES AND IMAGES OF THE CHURCH
  751 The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose. 139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people. 140 By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means “what belongs to the Lord.”

752 In Christian usage, the word “church” designates the liturgical assembly, 141 but also the local community 142 or the whole universal community of believers. 143 These three meanings are inseparable. “The Church” is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ’s Body*.

Since we are discussing The Smalcald Articles:

No, we are supposed to be discussing “A Sola Scriptura Question”.

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."

What there is room for in the Church is sinners, and those who err. Our communions also agree on that. We agree that, via our baptism, we are brought into the Church. There is grace, we agree on that, necessary because God knows we are a fallen race, capable of error, and in need of grace.
I encourage you to go back and read what A.L. Barry and Pastor Weedon wrote.

Of course, personal salvation is not merely a matter of external membership in or association with any church organization or denomination (including the LCMS), but comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone. **All those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior are recognized as “Christians” by the Synod—only God can look into a person’s heart and see whether that person really believes. It is possible to have true and sincere faith in Jesus Christ even while having wrong or incomplete beliefs about other doctrinal issues. **-LCMS

That sounds remarkably like the CCC 818, which says: “All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Jon

 

[JonNC]

If Luther wasn’t claiming for himself the right to disobey the Church, why did he do it?

If my Synod steps away from Lutheran orthodoxy, in a way that some others have, do I have not only a right, but a responsibility, to speak out against heterodoxy?

And if they continue in their movement away from Lutheran orthodoxy, am I obligated to stay?

*“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”
*
Should he have recanted? Could the Church have handled him differently?

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

If my Synod steps away from Lutheran orthodoxy, in a way that some others have, do I have not only a right, but a responsibility, to speak out against heterodoxy?

Of course. You would be obligated to do so.

And if they continue in their movement away from Lutheran orthodoxy, am I obligated to stay?

I don’t know. I don’t understand what your communion’s position is.

Are they the infallible Church started by Christ?

If so, even when they are led in the wrong direction, one would think you should follow them, otherwise you risk being part of Korah’s Rebellion (see Numbers).

But if they don’t claim to be infallible, nor the church Christ started, then I suppose you should leave and start your own church.

 

[MaryT777]

If my Synod steps away from Lutheran orthodoxy, in a way that some others have, do I have not only a right, but a responsibility, to speak out against heterodoxy?

And if they continue in their movement away from Lutheran orthodoxy, am I obligated to stay?

*“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”
*
Should he have recanted? Could the Church have handled him differently?

Jon

Your best option is to join a Church that will not step away from the truth regarding faith and morals. That church is the Catholic Church.

The Church handled Luther appropriately by excommunicating him. There was no other choice.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

=MaryT777;13118592]Your best option is to join a Church that will not step away from the truth regarding faith and morals. That church is the Catholic Church.

But the CC has changed its teaching on faith. You can call it “development of doctrine”, but it amounts to change. It was changes that caused the Great Schism. Did they step away from truth?

My best option, right now, is to be faithful, speak when I believe I need to, and allow the Spirit to guide me.

The Church handled Luther appropriately by excommunicating him. There was no other choice.

What about prior to that point?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;13118582]Of course. You would be obligated to do so.

Thank you.

I don’t know. I don’t understand what your communion’s position is.

Are they the infallible Church started by Christ?

If so, even when they are led in the wrong direction, one would think you should follow them, otherwise you risk being part of Korah’s Rebellion (see Numbers).

But if they don’t claim to be infallible, nor the church Christ started

Well, we are part of the Church started by Christ, that’s for sure.

then I suppose you should leave and start your own church.

I think you know me better than that.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Well, we are part of the Church started by Christ, that’s for sure.

Then you would be obligated to stay.

If you continued to declare the communion wrong, and they told you to keep silent, you ought to do so.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your kind words.

Well said, Topper.

I wonder if the Concord book will ever be updated to note the antiChrist doctrines of the liberal Lutherans?

As we all know. the Concord book still holds to the fact that the Pope is in the office of the AntiChrist and yet it seems the Church that holds the name of Luther such as the ELCA would be more of a concern.

I have asked Lutherans here on CA several times if they think that the anti-Catholic statements in the Formula of Concord could ever be officially erased from the text and have never gotten an answer. Mostly I get silence.

I have come to the conclusion that those anti-Catholic statements in the Formula are there to stay. To eliminate them would be to admit that the Formula was not actually ‘authoritative’ after all – ever, not now and not when it was written and approved. Eliminating even one paragraph or sentence, or even changing one word, would be FAR too much to admit. It would call the WHOLE of the Formula into question. Furthermore, who is it, specifically and exactly, that would actually make the decision to eliminate those statements? Could any particular Lutheran Communion eliminate specific wording from the Formula? Granted, they COULD do so, but it would only apply to their particular communion. It would not mean anything to the plethora of other doctrinally independent Lutheran traditions. In addition, it would draw attention to those anti-Catholic statements, which I don’t think they would want to do.

The only thing that the Lutheran communions can do is to attempt to ‘positively reformulate’ those offensive statements. The problem with this though is that the language in question is SO clear as to its meaning and intent. Any such ‘reformulations’ would obviously be an attempt to evade the true meaning and intent of the Formula as it was written and approved. As we have seen from the statements of Luther, it is extremely clear as to what he meant when he wrote those things, and it is also extremely clear that the Formula was approved as part of the Lutheran Confessions as meaning exactly what Luther meant.

My own PERSONAL opinion is Luther never imagined there would be an ELCA like Lutheran Church. He never dreamed anyone would wearing the name of Lutheran would dare disagree with him.

As you mentioned,Luther never allowed people to correct him. In fact, he would very quickly decide that this opponents were liars. Given that Scripture was SO CLEAR (to him at least), it was simply not possible (to him) that they actually disagreed with him. The only explanation possible was that they actually did agree with him but were lying in claiming that they didn’t. Since they were liars, and were lying about their religious beliefs, they were obviously working in league with Satan. As such NO AMOUNT of abuse was enough in dealing with them.

**“I cannot deny that I have been more vehement than is seemly. But since they knew then, they ought not to have stirred up the dog.” **Arthur Cushman McGiffert, “Martin Luther”, pg. 153-4

At least in Luther’s mind, people should have decided to be silent rather than face his extreme abuse. That tactic didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now. His calling people liars only made them that much more certain that he had to be opposed.

Protestant Theologian and Seminary President Arthur Cushman McGiffert continues on, offering a ‘non-Catholic perspective, (speaking initially of the time prior to Luther’s excommunication):

“The attacks upon him during these months (speaking primarily of 1519), were many and severe. Though he frequently expressed regret at being obliged to waste so much time in controversy and interrupt more important work, he really welcomed the attacks as invitations to let his views be known, and many a reply was rather a statement of his own doctrines than an answer to his antagonists. For the later, he often contented himself with personal abuse instead of reasoned argument……His treatment of opponents, which grew more bitter with passing years, has always been a ground of offense to his enemies and confusion to his friends…….From the beginning profoundly convinced of his own divine call, he identified his cause with God’s and always attributed the hostility of his enemies with the promptings of Satan, who filled their hearts with hatred for God and all His works …… ” McGiffert

What I find interesting here Mary is that Luther often didn’t really respond to the arguments of his opponents. He simply restated his opinions, relying on ‘personal abuse instead of reasoned argument’. I find that interesting that he set that kind of a precedent almost 500 years ago.

To be continued:

 

[Topper17]

McGiffert continues:

“In 1531, more than ten years after his final break with Rome, in a pamphlet entitled ‘Against the Traitor at Dresden,’ he wrote:

‘…….they (his opponents) are obdurate and have determined to do nothing good, but only evil, so that there is no longer any hope, I will hereafter heap curses and maledictions upon the villains until I go to my grave, and no good word shall they hear from me again. I will toll them to their tombs with my thunder and lightening. For I cannot pray without at the same time cursing. If I say ‘Hallowed be Thy name,’ I have to add, ‘Cursed, damned, reviled be the name of the papists and of all who blaspheme Thy name.’ If I say, ‘Thy kingdom come,’ I have to add, ‘Cursed, damned, destroyed be the papacy, together with all the kingdoms of the earth, which oppose Thy kingdom,’ If I say, ‘Thy will be done,’ I have to add, ‘Cursed, damned, reviled, and destroyed be all the thoughts and plans of the papists and of every one who strives against Thy will and counsel.’ Thus I pray aloud every day and inwardly without ceasing, and with me all that believe in Christ. And I feel sure than my prayer will be heard. Nevertheless I have a kind, friendly, peaceable, and Christian heart toward every one, as even my worst enemies know.’ (Luther)

(McGiffert comments)** His violence has been excused by appealing to the prevailing tone of contemporary polemics, but the excuse is insufficient. Though his form of expression might have been different in another century, the man he was would have been violent and vituperative in any.** Passionate and high-tempered, to speak and write calmly about an antagonist was an impossibility to him…….Anger he always recognized as his greatest fault. **He liked to be angry and in a good cause, he once remarked. It refreshed him like a thunderstorm, and he could write much better for it. As a matter of fact, he seldom deliberated over his controversial productions, but dashed them off while his wrath was at its hottest, and, printing always as he wrote, he never had the opportunity or took pains to revise and moderate his language after the first flush of indignation had passed.” **McGiffert, pg. 150-3

I don’t know about you Mary, but I find this shocking. I think that the fact that Luther could not pray without cursing the papists, and the papacy is extremely disturbing.

Responding to McGiffert’s point, I don’t think that there has been a Christian Theologian in 2000 years who was as hateful, angry, and abusive as Martin Luther. If anyone would like to propose another name…

I think that that kind of ‘platform’ is not exactly one from which a ‘Reformation’ should be founded.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Topper17]

To say that Luther gave himself permission to divorce himself for the Church seems, at least to me, to be a rather simplistic explanation of the history (noting, of course, that on a forum such as this, brief explanations are often necessary).

I would agree Jon. That is a simplistic explanation, as are all which are confined to a few paragraphs. However, PR makes an excellent point about “Luther’s giving himself permission to divorce himself from the Church.

As you know, the Catholic Church does not ‘give permission’ to anyone to separate themselves and begin their own tradition. Neither does the Lutheran church. So the question becomes very simple:

By what Authority did Luther rebel against the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church? Specifically and exactly where did he ‘obtain’ that Authority? Given that Luther claimed that HIS Authority was greater than any man alive at the time (to say the least), then what rational explanation can be given for his authority? By this of course I mean an explanation that cannot be used by just about anyone to justify THEIR Rebellion against THEIR church.

Personally, I think that PR’s point is the most important one we face and I look forward to your response. If you think it is ‘simplistic’ to simply state that Luther ‘gave himself permission’ to disobey the Church, and there is a more complex explanation, I am ready to hear it. Personally I have been asking for exactly this explanation for years and have never received one that is not completely full of contradictions.

If Luther wasn’t claiming for himself the right to disobey the Church, why did he do it?

Precisely PR. If Protestantism cannot defend Luther’s Rebellion and explain his authority to do so, then they have no choice but to question the foundation for Protestantism.

 

[PRmerger]

I would agree Jon. That is a simplistic explanation, as are all which are confined to a few paragraphs. However, PR makes an excellent point about “Luther’s giving himself permission to divorce himself from the Church.

As you know, the Catholic Church does not ‘give permission’ to anyone to separate themselves and begin their own tradition. Neither does the Lutheran church. So the question becomes very simple:

By what Authority did Luther rebel against the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church? Specifically and exactly where did he ‘obtain’ that Authority? Given that Luther claimed that HIS Authority was greater than any man alive at the time (to say the least), then what rational explanation can be given for his authority? By this of course I mean an explanation that cannot be used by just about anyone to justify THEIR Rebellion against THEIR church.

Personally, I think that PR’s point is the most important one we face and I look forward to your response. If you think it is ‘simplistic’ to simply state that Luther ‘gave himself permission’ to disobey the Church, and there is a more complex explanation, I am ready to hear it. Personally I have been asking for exactly this explanation for years and have never received one that is not completely full of contradictions.

Precisely PR. If Protestantism cannot defend Luther’s Rebellion and explain his authority to do so, then they have no choice but to question the foundation for Protestantism.

Yes. If what Luther did = good, then every Lutheran should be able to do that to their own church.

But it seems that the Lutheran communion does not give permission for its own members to do what Luther did to the CC.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13121066]I would agree Jon. That is a simplistic explanation, as are all which are confined to a few paragraphs. However, PR makes an excellent point about “Luther’s giving himself permission to divorce himself from the Church.

The CCC 817 mentions blame on both sides, which is why I say its simplistic, and I recognized, if you recall, that sometimes that’s the nature of the forum.

As you know, the Catholic Church does not ‘give permission’ to anyone to separate themselves and begin their own tradition. Neither does the Lutheran church. So the question becomes very simple:

Some could claim it gave itself permission to separate for Holy Orthodoxy

Personally, I think that PR’s point is the most important one we face and I look forward to your response.

And personally, I don’t. I think the most important question is how we return to unity.

Precisely PR. If Protestantism cannot defend Luther’s Rebellion and explain his authority to do so, then they have no choice but to question the foundation for Protestantism.

And the same can be asked regarding the Great Schism. At some point, the answer is there is no authority for division within His One Holy Church. My dad used to say it takes two to tango. It takes two (or more) to reconcile. But of course, there are those on both sides who choose to ignore good suggestions, such as those found in post 491 by Gabriel of 12, and prefer to maintain the era of hostility.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Yes. If what Luther did = good, then every Lutheran should be able to do that to their own church.

But it seems that the Lutheran communion does not give permission for its own members to do what Luther did to the CC.

Yep. Instead they disagree and start their own Synods, such as ELCA, WELS, and LCMS.
Last I checked the LCMS didn’t have altar and pulpit fellowship with the WELS even who consider themselves true to the confessions as do the LCMS. That’s what sola Scriptura will get you. A Divided Lutheran Church.

Mary.

 

[benjohnson]

Yes. If what Luther did = good, then every Lutheran should be able to do that to their own church.

But it seems that the Lutheran communion does not give permission for its own members to do what Luther did to the CC.

You’re viewing us Lutherans through Roman Catholic eyes in that you think we’ve split from the church.

We Lutherans think we’ve preserved the church and practice the faith of our forefathers.

From an outside viewpoint, that probably seems silly as your church is much larger. My remark to that (and to other Lutherans who are abandoning the faith recently) is that the Ark held 8 people.

 

[Topper17]

No, we are supposed to be discussing “A Sola Scriptura Question”.

That’s true Jon. We are talking about Sola Scriptura, a teaching which Martin Luther developed and a teaching which had never been ‘noticed’ in Scripture prior to him. Given that this was a brand new ‘Christian doctrine’ and the fact that it was used by Luther to proclaim his teachings to be true, we have a responsibility to investigate the issue of Luther’s ‘relationship’ with the Church and his claims to authority. After all, Protestantism is in large part based on Luther’s claims to the authority, the personal authority to disobey the doctrinal teachings of the Church. If Luther’s authority is found to be illegitimate, the implications for Protestantism overall, and Lutheranism specifically, are profound.

Understanding Luther’s self-proclaimed authority and his accusations against the Church are crucial in sorting all of this out.

Martin Luther wrote the Smalcald Articles, which later were judged to be ‘confessional’ or authoritative, by the Lutheran Church. As you know, in that text Martin Luther makes it VERY clear how he feels about the Catholic Church. He also makes some VERY strong claims about his personal authority. The Smalcald cannot be swept under the carpet. It is a key piece of evidence in the investigation into Luther’s thinking about Sola Scriptura.

To use your term, eliminating the Smalcald Articles or any of the other writings of Luther than you might find to be embarrassing from this conversation would lead to a ‘simplistic explanation’, although I can certainly understand why you would want to avoid discussing the details.

As part of the Lutheran Confession, the Smalcald Articles are very much a part of the discussion of how Martin Luther defied the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church.

In fact, Jon, the Lutheran Confessions stand on the foundation of Martin Luther’s Authority. If his authority is found to be illegitimate, then the same is true of the Lutheran Confessions. If you disagree with this statement, please explain specifically and exactly why.

 

[alchemon]

And personally, I don’t. I think the most important question is how we return to unity.

Returning to unity on earth is simple, Jon. We are waiting

On a lighter note, it will be refreshing when we get to heaven and see the fullness of God and realize how little and insignificant our differences on earth were.