Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[KjetilK]

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.

That has nothing to do with Lutheranism as such, and everything to do with a faulty hermeneutic.

 

[KjetilK]

What I see here Gab is a reluctance, and in fact, even an inability, to recognize the role that Martin Luther and his radical Sola Scriptura played, and continues to play, in the doctrinal dissension that Western Christendom suffers.

No, what you see are Lutherans who refuse to play your games and agree with your faulty premises.

In fact, Luther’s assault against the Christian Sacrament of marriage has had reached it’s ‘logical conclusion’ in a decision by the Supreme Court that nobody could justify from Scripture or Christian Tradition.

Yes, that Luther fellow. He must have been responsible for the Catholic country of Ireland choosing to allow gay marriage.

 

[PRmerger]

FTFY

No, Kj. I am looking at it from the POV of Lutherans.

Was what Luther did permissible in your eyes?

It would appear so.

Yet, it also appears that were a modern day Luther to appear in your communion he would be…excommunicated as well. Or, at least, the Lutheran equivalent to excommunication.

Yes?

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Topper17
In fact, Luther’s assault against the Christian Sacrament of marriage has had reached it’s ‘logical conclusion’ in a decision by the Supreme Court that nobody could justify from Scripture or Christian Tradition.

Yes, that Luther fellow. He must have been responsible for the Catholic country of Ireland choosing to allow gay marriage.

It must also be noted that not a single Lutheran, not a single protestant of any type, sits on the Court today. In fact, there are 6 Roman Catholics on the Court, and three Jews.
Of the six Catholics, Sonia Sotomayor voted in favor of SSM, and Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion!!

Jon

 

[commenter]

Originally Posted by KjetilK View Post
Yes, that Luther fellow. He must have been responsible for the Catholic country of Ireland choosing to allow gay marriage.

It must also be noted that not a single Lutheran, not a single protestant of any type, sits on the Court today. In fact, there are 6 Roman Catholics on the Court, and three Jews.
Of the six Catholics, Sonia Sotomayor voted in favor of SSM, and Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion!!

Jon

Individuals in Ireland, or the US, are influenced by many factors. One of those factors, the Magisterium only guides those who choose to be guided by it. Whether 1%, or 99%, of Christians - judges, voters, or whoever - choose to trust the Magisterium is irrelevant as to whether the Magisterium is trustworthy.

Actually Catholics are often influenced by Sola Scriptura - in the American culture, it’s almost a given in many places. Slippery Sola Scriptura doesn’t exactly force people (Catholics, Protestants, etc) into following secular peer pressure, but it sure leads them (including voters and judges) into the neighborhood where that surrender to “the World” is more likely. With SS, judges can have their religious cake and eat it too.

And some Protestants are more or less influenced (unconsciously) by the Magisterium. Haven’t you known Lutherans, Anglicans, and others who say: “this proposal by my denomination is filled with Bible quotes and references to Traditional Documents, but I know in my heart that it is not orthodox”? The template for “orthodoxy” in 2015 for many Protestants is the Magisterium. But they call it something else.

So some Protestant individuals and denominations do benefit from the Magisterium indirectly. But they could benefit from it more, and help spread that benefit to others, by uniting with it.

 

[Stilldreamn]

No, Kj. I am looking at it from the POV of Lutherans.

Was what Luther did permissible in your eyes?

It would appear so.

Yet, it also appears that were a modern day Luther to appear in your communion he would be…excommunicated as well. Or, at least, the Lutheran equivalent to excommunication.

Yes?

Recently, we saw something like this happen. Although of course, ahem, he actually excommunicated himself.

 

[commenter]

That has nothing to do with Lutheranism as such, and everything to do with a faulty hermeneutic.

Without a Magisterium, every hermenuetic is good, every hermenuetic is faulty, depending on who’s looking. Sure you can say, that work was written by a reliable scholar, but some other Protestant will say your favorite scholar is unreliable, they like this other guy, who you consider a fool or charlatan. Who’s to say?

 

[JonNC]

=commenter;13140741]

Individuals in Ireland, or the US, are influenced by many factors. One of those factors, the Magisterium only guides those who choose to be guided by it. Whether 1%, or 99%, of Christians - judges, voters, or whoever - choose to trust the Magisterium is irrelevant as to whether the Magisterium is trustworthy.

I agree 100%. The Magisterium is not responsible for the vote in Ireland, or the vote of two Catholics on the Supreme Court.

Actually Catholics are often influenced by Sola Scriptura - in the American culture, it’s almost a given in many places. Slippery Sola Scriptura doesn’t exactly force people (Catholics, Protestants, etc) into following secular peer pressure, but it sure leads them (including voters and judges) into the neighborhood where that surrender to “the World” is more likely. With SS, judges can have their religious cake and eat it too.

Not if they understand and allow their communion to properly employ the principle. And this is precisely the point of the thread: what do Lutherans and Reformed do. How does Tradition play into the principle of sola scriptura? These were answered, at least from the Lutheran perspective (I don’t recall Reformed Christians participating in any number) earlier in the thread.
But you have, with this post, done a remarkable job of refocusing it. We can see here that, whether Catholic or Lutheran, there is a tendency on the part of some to pick and choose what they wish to be held accountable to. When two Catholics cast the deciding votes regarding the constitutionality of SSM, it seems ludicrous and simply polemic to blame Martin Luther. It is also simplistic to blame the Magisterium.

And some Protestants are more or less influenced (unconsciously) by the Magisterium. Haven’t you known Lutherans, Anglicans, and others who say: “this proposal by my denomination is filled with Bible quotes and references to Traditional Documents, but I know in my heart that it is not orthodox”? The template for “orthodoxy” in 2015 for many Protestants is the Magisterium. But they call it something else.

So some Protestant individuals and denominations do benefit from the Magisterium indirectly. But they could benefit from it more, and help spread that benefit to others, by uniting with it.

Of course we benefit from the orthodox teachings of the Magisterium. I think Lutherans can even benefit when we disagree, because it makes us think about the faith, beyond our own four walls, as it were.
And if our communions could find a way to full reconciliation, imagine the strength of our joint message.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Actually, the title of this topic and thread is Sola Scriptura aimed at Lutherans

Mary.

No Mary. You are wrong. You are very far off topic and you should return to the topic. You might think that that these things can be discussed because the title of the thread includes the words “Sola Scriptura” and “Lutheranism”, but you are wrong.

Obviously one criticism of sola scriptura is that it eventually leads to a million different interpretations of the same text, with everyone in the debate insisting his or her own interpretation is the best.

You might think that this comment from the OP means that we are allowed to discuss the ‘results’ of Sola Scriptura as it has manifested itself in doctrinal dissension and confusion, but again, you are wrong. Worst of all, you would be wrong to believe that the OP makes it ‘permissible’ to discuss the actual historic facts about the actual origins of Sola Scriptura, whatever in the world that combination of those two words means.

Speaking of ‘whatever in the world’, what in the world could your ‘intent’ be here Mary?

For the record Mary, ‘permissible topics’ on this thread would include the following:

1. The universal jurisdiction of the pope.
2. The fact that two Catholic Supreme Court, specifically Sonya Sotomayer and Anthony Kennedy voted for Same Sex Marriage.

Obviously these subjects (and there are others) are very much in keeping with the opening post and are not in the least bit ‘off topic’. They are very much ‘implied’ in the OP. You should not use your Private Interpretation again in ‘deciding’ what is in keeping with the OP and what is not. Opening posts don’t always mean what they seem to very clearly say.

As Always Mary, May God Bless You

 

[Topper17]

Hi Father K,

Thanks for your response.

Luther did not found my Church. My particular Church, the Church of Norway, was founded in 995, by king Olav Tryggvason and the bishops who accompanied him. In 1537 there was a reform in Norway, but it was not led by Luther. In fact Luther had no direct authority in the Church of Norway at all. He was, and still is, seen as a theologian, as a ‘church father.’

The term ‘Lutheran’ was made by the Roman Catholic Church, and it stuck, probably the same way people tend to embrace derogatory terms as a sign of strenght. But the name Lutheran is not any official name. The Church of Norway is not called the Lutheran Church of Norway. It is simply ‘the Church of Norway,’ as it has been since 995.

I am sure that you know 100 times more about the history of your church than I do. No, make that 1000. I am sure that you know 100 times more than Wiki about the history of your church. Maybe you should set them straight though, because they certainly are giving the wrong impression about the Church of Norway. They say that your church traces its history back to the 9th century and that it was founded as a result of a mission from Britain, which of course was Catholic at the time, and in communion with Rome.

It also mentions that in 1537 the Reformation in Norway was ‘accomplished **by force **when Christian III of Denmark declared Lutheranism as the official religion of Norway and Denmark sending the Roman Catholic Archbishop into exile.”

Father, is this all factual? Was Norway in communion with Rome until Lutheranism was brought to Norway by force, and installed as the official state religion? Was the Church of Norway something of an ‘arm of the state’ (my term) until only 3 years ago? After centuries of being outlawed in Norway, what year did it become ‘legal’ to be a Roman Catholic in Norway? I ask because I have forgotten the actual date.

God Bless You Father, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Still,

From watching recent developments in the LCMS, it appears that there is increasing support for a magisterium of sorts in our Lutheran synod. Certainly, one with sharper teeth and more authority than our current system. It is not without a sense of irony that I reflect that perhaps, just perhaps, this is the practical framework that Christ’s church on earth NEEDS in order to last from generation to generation.

It appears that you might also conclude, if not now, then at some point, that possibly Christianity would be better off today if The Magisterium had been obeyed in the 16th century.

As for the establishment of a potential future LCMS magisterium, it seems that the practical aspects of such an implementation almost preclude it as a successful reality. It also seems that it would be fraught with massive internal political politics, which could possibly be more divisive than unifying. All that being said, I do see it as a positive sign that some in the LCMS now recognize the need for a magisterium, but would suggest that they only way that it can really work is to return to The Magisterium rather than creating another one from scratch.

Something to think about possibly.

God Bless You Still, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi PR,

:sad_yes:

If indeed it does come to pass that the LCMS does develop a magisterium, it would not claim the charism of infallibility, I’m assuming.

And that would mean that Lutherans could not be certain that their magisterium’s decisions were correct.

Now, of course, infallibility is not a requirement for any of us to follow a legitimate authority.

I am just proposing this thought as we all muse together about the possibility of a Lutheran magisterium.

Whilst we are musing - what about the possibility that only part of the LCMS agrees to the creation of a magisterium and that this causes another split. Then we have one more Lutheran communion to add to the list, and only maybe 1% or so of all of Lutheranism which is ‘covered’ by a magisterium. What do you think the long term prospects of that 1% would be? Do you think it would be the rallying point around which a much greater portion of Lutheranism would gather, or do you think that it would gradually shrink due to the ‘human condition’.

I think I have an equally sound suggestion. I would like to see each and every Lutheran communion come together in an all-Lutheran Ecumenical Council, with each communion being represented proportional to its share of Lutheranism worldwide. Each representative would come to this council with the authority to vote on doctrinal and moral matters, AND each communion would agree to abide by the doctrinal and moral decisions of the Council.

If Lutheranism can pull this together and call this Council, please let me know and I will bring it up with the Pope the next time we talk. I am sure that I can convince him to allow this council to use the Vatican. It is already very well set up for these kinds of meetings. I think we will need at least 6 months notice, so Lutherans, the time to start is now.

This way Lutheranism could be fully united and could approach ecumenical efforts with the Catholic Church from a position of strength rather than a position of - not strength.

In fact, this is not the first time that I have made this proposal, and shockingly, it has not been implemented yet, even though it is the ONLY way that Lutheranism will EVER be unified.

If you can think of anything that would enhance this proposal, please post it.

God Bless You PR, Topper

 

[KjetilK]

Without a Magisterium, every hermenuetic is good, every hermenuetic is faulty, depending on who’s looking. Sure you can say, that work was written by a reliable scholar, but some other Protestant will say your favorite scholar is unreliable, they like this other guy, who you consider a fool or charlatan. Who’s to say?

I learn something new every day. Today I have learned that Roman Catholics are postmodernists.

 

[KjetilK]

Originally Posted by KjetilK View Post
Yes, that Luther fellow. He must have been responsible for the Catholic country of Ireland choosing to allow gay marriage.

Individuals in Ireland, or the US, are influenced by many factors. One of those factors, the Magisterium only guides those who choose to be guided by it. Whether 1%, or 99%, of Christians - judges, voters, or whoever - choose to trust the Magisterium is irrelevant as to whether the Magisterium is trustworthy.

Actually Catholics are often influenced by Sola Scriptura - in the American culture, it’s almost a given in many places. Slippery Sola Scriptura doesn’t exactly force people (Catholics, Protestants, etc) into following secular peer pressure, but it sure leads them (including voters and judges) into the neighborhood where that surrender to “the World” is more likely. With SS, judges can have their religious cake and eat it too.

And some Protestants are more or less influenced (unconsciously) by the Magisterium. Haven’t you known Lutherans, Anglicans, and others who say: “this proposal by my denomination is filled with Bible quotes and references to Traditional Documents, but I know in my heart that it is not orthodox”? The template for “orthodoxy” in 2015 for many Protestants is the Magisterium. But they call it something else.

So some Protestant individuals and denominations do benefit from the Magisterium indirectly. But they could benefit from it more, and help spread that benefit to others, by uniting with it.

So when Lutherans do something wrong, it is because they are Lutherans, but when Roman Catholics do something wrong it is because they were fooled into it by Lutherans?

 

[KjetilK]

Hi Father K,

Thanks for your response.

I am sure that you know 100 times more about the history of your church than I do. No, make that 1000. I am sure that you know 100 times more than Wiki about the history of your church. Maybe you should set them straight though, because they certainly are giving the wrong impression about the Church of Norway. They say that your church traces its history back to the 9th century and that it was founded as a result of a mission from Britain, which of course was Catholic at the time, and in communion with Rome.

It also mentions that in 1537 the Reformation in Norway was ‘accomplished **by force **when Christian III of Denmark declared Lutheranism as the official religion of Norway and Denmark sending the Roman Catholic Archbishop into exile.”

Father, is this all factual? Was Norway in communion with Rome until Lutheranism was brought to Norway by force, and installed as the official state religion? Was the Church of Norway something of an ‘arm of the state’ (my term) until only 3 years ago? After centuries of being outlawed in Norway, what year did it become ‘legal’ to be a Roman Catholic in Norway? I ask because I have forgotten the actual date.

God Bless You Father, Topper

Yes, the Church of Norway was in communion with the Roman Pontiff. That doesn’t mean that the Church of Norway ceased being the Church of Norway, just like the Church of Russia didn’t cease being the Church of Russia after the big schism.

 

[PRmerger]

Recently, we saw something like this happen. Although of course, ahem, he actually excommunicated himself.

Source, please?

And what is his status now? Where does he (or, I suppose, she) go to receive the sacraments?

 

[Topper17]

Or the intent of dialogue, which should answer your questions above.

Jon

Since you have chosen to ‘address’ my ‘intent’, please allow me to make it very clear.

I will oppose Lutheranism for as long as it officially teaches that the Pope is the Antichrist, and that I, personally, am an ‘adherent’. I will also oppose it as long as your supposedly authoritative documents speak of the Mass as being something diabolical.

“Here I Stand – I Can Do No Other”

(which of course is that incredibly brave statement that Luther never really made)

When Lutheranism officially eliminates those ultra-offensive statements, I will reconsider my opposition. Until then, Lutheranism and those who hold to those ridiculous positions, will have my opposition, and will deserve it.

If you really want to heal the division between our communions, then first work within yours to have those irresponsible statements withdrawn from your confessional documents.

My intent is to reveal Lutheranism, and Protestantism overall, to be exactly what CA has deemed it is. If revealing the historical facts about the ‘early Reformation’, (Luther’s Revolt) show Lutheranism and greater Protestantism to be what CA has proclaimed them to be, then so be it. It appears that you agree that they do.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Father,

That has nothing to do with Lutheranism as such, and everything to do with a faulty hermeneutic.

OK, so which Lutheran communion then is the one which is responsible for defining what is and what is not a ‘faulty hermeneutic’ for all of the rest of Lutheranism?

God Bless You Father, Topper

 

[Topper17]

No, what you see are Lutherans who refuse to play your games and agree with your faulty premises.

Rather than simply proclaiming my premises to be ‘faulty’, why don’t people actually deal with them and actually demonstrate how they are ‘faulty’. After all, if they are that obviously that ‘faulty’ it should be extremely easy to poke holes in them. But rather than deal with what I actually say, what do we see?

Yes, that Luther fellow. He must have been responsible for the Catholic country of Ireland choosing to allow gay marriage.

 

[Topper17]

It must also be noted that not a single Lutheran, not a single protestant of any type, sits on the Court today. In fact, there are 6 Roman Catholics on the Court, and three Jews.
Of the six Catholics, Sonia Sotomayor voted in favor of SSM, and Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion!!

Jon

I really think that you should return to the topic of the thread which by the way is Sola Scriptura, and is AIMED especially at Lutherans…

If you want to discuss SSM, I think you should do that in another thread.

For the record though the Catholic Church will NEVER teach that SSM or abortion are acceptable. Lutheranism has already demonstrated that it has absolutely NO ability to hold the line on these important moral issues. The reason that it cannot is Luther’s 16th century innovation of Sola Scriptura.