Sola Scriptura...

[PRmerger]

While we are strident in our position on the definition and practice of sola scriptura, no where have we claimed “magisterial authority”, or ministerial authority, or any other kind of authority over any other communion.

Jon, you are not *claiming *magisterial authority. But you are invoking it. Each and every time you correct anyone here who says that SS means something other than what you (or your church) say it means.

We love them, believe they are Christian, but if their practice of sola scriptura significantly varies, we believe them to be wrong.

Jon

And this is nothing but what the CC proclaims regarding all of the Reformers, and those that followed them.

You reject what the CC teaches, and believe it is your right to do so.

Just like other Christians here reject what you profess SS to be, and ought to be their right to do this.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Ok. I actually have more trust in the leadership than you do, but be that as it may…

I take it from your open ended comment that you are in agreement that our leaders have not exactly set the world on fire attempting to get the core issues resolved.

The last statement is factually wrong. We are quite certain that, 1) Catholic Christians are led by Christ, and 2) that the term “anti-Christ” has to do with specific claims of the papacy.

Your representation of this issues is not the official teaching and it was not Luther’s position. The way that you present it is extremely watered down.

These have been listed before, and I do not wish to pursue them further here. I would remind you, again, as I did in another thread, that you have attacked specifically Martin Luther more in your brief stay here, than Lutherans as a group here have the papacy as antichrist.

My criticisms of Martin Luther are very specific and I criticize him for very specific things that he did or taught. It seems to me that a lot of people would prefer that we not talk about Luther at all, but that we should just skip past him and, sort of like Rip Van Winkle, just wake up as if the Lutheran Confessional documents fell of out the sky with no connection whatsoever to any specific person.

In fact, the things that Catholics and Protestants disagree on were almost all ‘developed’ by Martin Luther. The result of his Sola Scriptura and its Evil Twin, the “Right of the Individual” to (correctly) Interpret (SS+PI) - MASSIVE denominalization and a complete lack of doctrinal certainty. I hold Luther personally responsible.

I might remind you again, however, that you, sir,

Sir??

I might remind you again, however, that you, sir, are not the first to bring these attacks against Luther up. It is not news. You are not exposing some hidden for 500 years information. I’ve heard it all before you came along, as most Lutherans who participate in these kinds of forums and others have.

OK Jon, what would you like me to do here? Would you like me to stop posting what I believe here? What would you like me to post? Maybe you would prefer me to post what you believe? Are you suggesting that you know everything I have posted so far? Are you suggesting that nothing I post is new to anyone here? Are you suggesting that everything that I WILL post is already known to all here? Or is the point that you would simply prefer that I not reveal embarrassing facts about Luther and his connection to Protestantism’s doctrinal confusion by way of Sola Scriptura +Private Interpretation (BTW both of which he refuted himself on later on).

There’s no surprise here, as your style of apologetics comes up once in a while. What is surprising is you seem to think that this will build bridges instead of driving wedges.

Jon, the wedges are there. What I am NOT doing is overly emphasizing the agreements that we have and ignoring the differences. Sometimes when I read things here on these threads it seems as though people are portraying Lutherans and Catholics as being in agreement on virtually everything, or at least on the most important things. People here actually paint a picture that would have us believe that we are in agreement on Salvation! Ignoring those wedges is NOT working to resolve them.

The rhetoric of that time went both ways, as you know. But the fact is we don’t live in that era. The leadership of our communions do not speak to each other in those terms anymore, so I’m not sure why you would justify your style of apologetics based on 500 year old, and long abandoned polemics.

Jon, the fact of the matter is that our division is for the most part on Luther’s head. While he was right to chastise the Church for their abuses on matters of practice, there is NO WAY that that should have translated to a complete repudiation of several dozen important doctrines. The reason that Luther HAD to do that is because he HAD to believe Salvation by Faith Alone, and he HAD to find it in Scripture. I would suggest that what you are really upset by is the revealing of so many embarrassing facts about Luther.

 

[Topper17]

Part 2

Part 1 is post number 915 on the previous page.l

You are correct about one thing, however, the term “anti-Christ” is now so changed that the message of the Reformers in it is missed. Your claim that the issue of the papacy has not been addressed in incorrect.

You are correct that the papacy has been addressed. But Jon, that is NOT what I said. What I said, specifically and exactly, was that the issue of “papal infallibility” has not been addressed. It has not, not in more than 50 years. From the Joint Dialogue “Differing Attitudes Toward Papal Primacy”:

“In discussing the papacy as a form of Ministry within the universal church we have limited ourselves to the question of papal primacy. No attempt had been made to enter into the problem of papal infallibility. While this issue must be faced in the discussions between our churches, we believe that this limitation of the scope of our present discussion is justified since papal primacy was a doctrinal issue long before papal infallibility became a major issue.”

If you know of any agreement (as if) on papal infallibility, I would LOVE to hear it. I will also tell you that the issue of papal primacy is only about 10% of the way to solving the matter of papal infallibility. What exactly do you think will come about that will allow for this matter to be resolved?

Tim, you’re the first one here I’ve seen equate Holy Orthodoxy to Arians. The Arians were heretics, and according the Catholicism, Orthodoxy is simply schismatic.

I don’t think you or anyone else here believes that I equate the Orthodox with the Arians.

Not sure I understand the point of all this, relating to sola scriptura.

It was at Leipzig that (under pressure) Luther first took the position that neither the pope nor Councils were infallible. At Worms he proposed a way to replace those authorities:

“Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right or safe. God help me. Amen.” Luther, in Bainton, pg. 180

In replacement for popes Luther substituted Scripture, plain reason, and of course, his individual conscience. The authority of Scripture became Scripture Alone, but only for a few years until Luther realized what we ALL know now, that Scripture Alone is a completely unreliable way to determine doctrine. Plain reason became ‘the Devils whore’. In addition, when you look at Luther’s recommendations that peasants, Jews, Anabaptists, Catholics, and of course ‘reluctant wives’ be either executed by the state, or in the case of the peasants, ‘slaughtered without mercy,’ the ONLY intelligent conclusion is that Luther had a very poorly developed Christian conscience. So – Luther jettisoned a “system” which actually COULD work for setting doctrine infallibly, and instead put in its place a system which could not possibly lead to correct doctrine AND Luther had been a decent Theologian, he would have known that it couldn’t. Unfortunately he was so motivated by hatred for the Church at the time, that he was charging ahead without thinking about the possible ramifications (or “Uninteded Consequences”) of which there were MANY and MANY of them were HUGE (and not in a ‘good way’).

But I digress - The point is that you cannot suggest that the Lutherans should not attend an Ecumenical Council because it won’t be Ecumenical until the EO attends. So – why don’t the Lutherans sign up for a binding Council and then maybe the EO will be inspired to join also. I would suggest that the reason is that the Lutherans have inherited something of Luther and would have absolutely no interest in joining an Ecumenical Councils in which they have pledged to abide by the doctrinal decisions of the majority.

Luther recommended to the Protestants that they not attend Trent and for the most part, they didn’t. Presumably they would have had a larger share (maybe 35%) than they would have now (roughly 29%), with Lutheranism having a total of 3 votes out of the hundred. Remember that the Councils always pray to the Holy Spirit so that they will be precluded from teaching error.

Let’s say for the sake of our hypothetical, that ALL of Christianity COULD be assembled into a Council in which ALL parties were to agree that they would abide by the doctrinal decisions of the Council. This Council COULD repair all of the damage that Luther did to Christianity by way of his radical SS+PI.

Would you think that the Lutherans SHOULD and WOULD attend such a Council and then, if they would, would they be willing to abide by the decisions. Reminder, they have 3 of the 100 votes, proportional to their percentage of Christendom.

What do you think?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And Who is deciding on what the important beliefs Are?

Your answer to this is found on Matthew 28:18-20 and 1 Timothy 3:15.

The first one will show you the Magisterium (Teaching Authority) and the second one will show you how we are to tell the truth from non-truth. The old argument of made up by man comes crumbling down when faced with Christ choosing of men > books and by Paul saying to go to the Church, if he is delayed - because Paul know that there is something bigger than himself in the Church. After all, Paul obeyed - he did not go on his own and made his own authority and his own denomination. He went to the Church already established by Christ. And Paul flourished in the Church, not away from the Church.

 

[spina1953]

Part 2

Part 1 is post number 915 on the previous page.l

You are correct that the papacy has been addressed. But Jon, that is NOT what I said. What I said, specifically and exactly, was that the issue of “papal infallibility” has not been addressed. It has not, not in more than 50 years. From the Joint Dialogue “Differing Attitudes Toward Papal Primacy”:

“In discussing the papacy as a form of Ministry within the universal church we have limited ourselves to the question of papal primacy. No attempt had been made to enter into the problem of papal infallibility. While this issue must be faced in the discussions between our churches, we believe that this limitation of the scope of our present discussion is justified since papal primacy was a doctrinal issue long before papal infallibility became a major issue.”

If you know of any agreement (as if) on papal infallibility, I would LOVE to hear it. I will also tell you that the issue of papal primacy is only about 10% of the way to solving the matter of papal infallibility. What exactly do you think will come about that will allow for this matter to be resolved?

I don’t think you or anyone else here believes that I equate the Orthodox with the Arians.

It was at Leipzig that (under pressure) Luther first took the position that neither the pope nor Councils were infallible. At Worms he proposed a way to replace those authorities:

“Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right or safe. God help me. Amen.” Luther, in Bainton, pg. 180

In replacement for popes Luther substituted Scripture, plain reason, and of course, his individual conscience. The authority of Scripture became Scripture Alone, but only for a few years until Luther realized what we ALL know now, that Scripture Alone is a completely unreliable way to determine doctrine. Plain reason became ‘the Devils whore’. In addition, when you look at Luther’s recommendations that peasants, Jews, Anabaptists, Catholics, and of course ‘reluctant wives’ be either executed by the state, or in the case of the peasants, ‘slaughtered without mercy,’ the ONLY intelligent conclusion is that Luther had a very poorly developed Christian conscience. So – Luther jettisoned a “system” which actually COULD work for setting doctrine infallibly, and instead put in its place a system which could not possibly lead to correct doctrine AND Luther had been a decent Theologian, he would have known that it couldn’t. Unfortunately he was so motivated by hatred for the Church at the time, that he was charging ahead without thinking about the possible ramifications (or “Uninteded Consequences”) of which there were MANY and MANY of them were HUGE (and not in a ‘good way’).

But I digress - The point is that you cannot suggest that the Lutherans should not attend an Ecumenical Council because it won’t be Ecumenical until the EO attends. So – why don’t the Lutherans sign up for a binding Council and then maybe the EO will be inspired to join also. I would suggest that the reason is that the Lutherans have inherited something of Luther and would have absolutely no interest in joining an Ecumenical Councils in which they have pledged to abide by the doctrinal decisions of the majority.

Luther recommended to the Protestants that they not attend Trent and for the most part, they didn’t. Presumably they would have had a larger share (maybe 35%) than they would have now (roughly 29%), with Lutheranism having a total of 3 votes out of the hundred. Remember that the Councils always pray to the Holy Spirit so that they will be precluded from teaching error.

Let’s say for the sake of our hypothetical, that ALL of Christianity COULD be assembled into a Council in which ALL parties were to agree that they would abide by the doctrinal decisions of the Council. This Council COULD repair all of the damage that Luther did to Christianity by way of his radical SS+PI.

Would you think that the Lutherans SHOULD and WOULD attend such a Council and then, if they would, would they be willing to abide by the decisions. Reminder, they have 3 of the 100 votes, proportional to their percentage of Christendom.

What do you think?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

I think that you are making very good points on the matter. yet, from it seems that without the tradition that was passed on by the Apostles that was not written down but nonetheless passed on means that Scripture can not possibly be the means to an end in understanding what Scripture means and what it says. To think that Scripture is the last word, when in fact Scripture does not say it is the final word nor does it say that it can somehow interpret itself say that the thinking of those who promote SS is so far in left field that they no longer see the real light of understanding of Scripture.

 

[crochet_lady]

Seems that some of us would rather trust another human being who we can actually See and Hear speaking to us – about what ‘he’ thinks God is saying to us – Rather than Really trust in The God who really Did give us His Word. People didn’t just sit down and write some books that sounded good – like a good Christian novel.

Martin Luther did what he did Because he was led of the Holy Spirit TO do it. At that time in history – he saw things in The Church that were practiced / taught that were Not in actual Scripture. So he Spoke Up. The Church authorities Didn’t like being contradicted. So he was persecuted /burned at the stake / for his beliefs.

So – how is it that we have so many different ‘interpretations’ of God’s Word? Because ‘we’ like to ‘cherry pick’ Scripture to suit Our preferences. If a person Wants to practice the homosexual life-style , he simply says that That particular part of Scripture is ‘out of date with Society’. If a person Wants to divorce – just because – he’s tired of his wife or falls in love with someone else – well – maybe just ignore That part of Scripture – After all God knows your heart / He sure Does. Or we don’t agree with Genesis creation facts. Because- after all – it doesn’t match up with evolutionary theory. Well – God Told Moses what to write. That’s what ‘inspiration’ IS. God Told people He chose to Write down what He told them to write. And That was passed down from generation to generation.

Sometimes people don’t like God’s Word because He tells us we’re Sinners. But He’s Also given a way to have our sins Forgiven. Through the birth, death, burial and bodily resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ. It’s Christianity. Calvary plus Nothing.

And there Are lots of different churches – many denominations – God didn’t make us ‘puppets’. My step Dad was Lutheran and my mom started out as Presbyterian and changed to being Baptist. Mom has been living with my sister and husband. They are both Baptist but go to different Baptist churches, Why? Because one of those churches has praise and worship music and the other uses more of the ‘old-fashioned’ Gospel music. . One is stronger with Doctrine than the other. My Mother is 95 and prefers the church that uses the ‘old-fashioned’ Gospel music. Those songs contain Lots of doctrine – almost not Needing much more from the pastor. The other church using the praise and worship songs , the people don’t really like the old-fashioned Gospel songs – so the pastor does the praise and worship And teaches the doctrine. So - Both groups of people are getting Bible teaching in two different churches.

But to say that One Church has All the answers and No one is to contradict IT – is it possible that Too much emphasis is being placed on The Church ‘group’ / The Church’s interpretation of… which amounts to a human being somehow having ‘infallible interpretation’ of… When a ‘church group’ writes how many hundred’s of pages of what They interpret Scripture to say and the people are to accept That as ‘the truth’. Why not just go to Scripture itself and read It?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Seems that some of us would rather trust another human being who we can actually See and Hear speaking to us – about what ‘he’ thinks God is saying to us – Rather than Really trust in The God who really Did give us His Word.

Funny you should say something like this.

After all it was Christ who said this about Peter:

*Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” *

And we believe Him.

It was Christ who said about us taking up our cross and follow Him:

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

And we believe Him.

It was Christ who said this about children:

*Matthew 18:5 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me;

Matthew 19:3 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; 14 but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And he laid his hands on them and went away.*

And we believe Him.

It was Christ who said this about the authority to forgive sins:

John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

And we believe Him.

It was Christ who said this about the Real Presence:

Luke 22:14 And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

And we believe Him.

It was Christ who said this about a teaching authority on earth:

*Matthew 28:16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
*
And we believe Him.

And it was Peter, the same one Christ talked to before, who said:

*2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. *

And guess what? We believe Him as well.

We believe Christ and we strive to be faithful to Him - according to His purpose and to the way He determined things to be.

 

[PRmerger]

Seems that some of us would rather trust another human being who we can actually See and Hear speaking to us – about what ‘he’ thinks God is saying to us – Rather than Really trust in The God who really Did give us His Word. People didn’t just sit down and write some books that sounded good – like a good Christian novel.

Martin Luther did what he did Because he was led of the Holy Spirit TO do it. At that time in history – he saw things in The Church that were practiced / taught that were Not in actual Scripture. So he Spoke Up. The Church authorities Didn’t like being contradicted. So he was persecuted /burned at the stake / for his beliefs.

So – how is it that we have so many different ‘interpretations’ of God’s Word? Because ‘we’ like to ‘cherry pick’ Scripture to suit Our preferences. If a person Wants to practice the homosexual life-style , he simply says that That particular part of Scripture is ‘out of date with Society’. If a person Wants to divorce – just because – he’s tired of his wife or falls in love with someone else – well – maybe just ignore That part of Scripture – After all God knows your heart / He sure Does. Or we don’t agree with Genesis creation facts. Because- after all – it doesn’t match up with evolutionary theory. Well – God Told Moses what to write. That’s what ‘inspiration’ IS. God Told people He chose to Write down what He told them to write. And That was passed down from generation to generation.

Sometimes people don’t like God’s Word because He tells us we’re Sinners. But He’s Also given a way to have our sins Forgiven. Through the birth, death, burial and bodily resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ. It’s Christianity. Calvary plus Nothing.

And there Are lots of different churches – many denominations – God didn’t make us ‘puppets’. My step Dad was Lutheran and my mom started out as Presbyterian and changed to being Baptist. Mom has been living with my sister and husband. They are both Baptist but go to different Baptist churches, Why? Because one of those churches has praise and worship music and the other uses more of the ‘old-fashioned’ Gospel music. . One is stronger with Doctrine than the other. My Mother is 95 and prefers the church that uses the ‘old-fashioned’ Gospel music. Those songs contain Lots of doctrine – almost not Needing much more from the pastor. The other church using the praise and worship songs , the people don’t really like the old-fashioned Gospel songs – so the pastor does the praise and worship And teaches the doctrine. So - Both groups of people are getting Bible teaching in two different churches.

But to say that One Church has All the answers and No one is to contradict IT – is it possible that Too much emphasis is being placed on The Church ‘group’ / The Church’s interpretation of… which amounts to a human being somehow having ‘infallible interpretation’ of… When a ‘church group’ writes how many hundred’s of pages of what They interpret Scripture to say and the people are to accept That as ‘the truth’. Why not just go to Scripture itself and read It?

Crochet lady, would you mind using the “quote” feature so we can know to which posts you are resonding?

The CAFs is a dialogue. As such, when you post in response to someone, it is better to include that post so that continuity can be visualized.

Also, it is considered to be in poor taste to be a “hit and run” poster–that is, someone who posts in different threads their objections to a particular Catholic thought, and then never returns to dialogue.

I am not saying that you are a “hit and run” poster. I am only offering examples of some ways in which dialogue can be fostered.

 

[betsybug354]

Martin Luther did what he did Because he was led of the Holy Spirit TO do it. At that time in history – he saw things in The Church that were practiced / taught that were Not in actual Scripture. So he Spoke Up. The Church authorities Didn’t like being contradicted. So he was persecuted /burned at the stake / for his beliefs.

With all due respect, Ma’am, Martin Luther was NOT burned at the stake. He died of a stroke at age 62 and was buried in the Castle Church at Wittenberg. And as for the Holy Spirit’s leading - well, I’m not convinced.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Martin Luther did what he did Because he was led of the Holy Spirit TO do it. At that time in history – he saw things in The Church that were practiced / taught that were Not in actual Scripture. So he Spoke Up. The Church authorities Didn’t like being contradicted. So he was persecuted /burned at the stake / for his beliefs.

betsybug already cleared this gross misconception and erroneous fact.

We lose credibility and transparency when we post false accusations and facts.

But to say that One Church has All the answers and No one is to contradict IT – is it possible that Too much emphasis is being placed on The Church ‘group’ / The Church’s interpretation of… which amounts to a human being somehow having ‘infallible interpretation’ of… When a ‘church group’ writes how many hundred’s of pages of what They interpret Scripture to say and the people are to accept That as ‘the truth’. Why not just go to Scripture itself and read It?

Can you please point to the Book, Chapter and Verse where Christ says that the Church is not one?

You say to go to Scripture and read it.

[bibledrb]1 Timothy 3:15[/bibledrb]

Scripture is clear enough. The Church (singular) is the (singular) pillar and ground of the truth (singular).

What you are presenting is your individual interpretation and in direct contradiction of Scriptures.

 

[steido01]

But I digress - The point is that you cannot suggest that the Lutherans should not attend an Ecumenical Council because it won’t be Ecumenical until the EO attends. So – why don’t the Lutherans sign up for a binding Council and then maybe the EO will be inspired to join also. **I would suggest that the reason is that the Lutherans have inherited something of Luther and would have absolutely no interest in joining an Ecumenical Councils in which they have pledged to abide by the doctrinal decisions of the majority.

Luther recommended to the Protestants that they not attend Trent and for the most part, they didn’t.**

I’m Lutheran, and I reject the notion that we “have absolutely no interest in joining an Ecumenical Council.” The responses of the Lutherans on this board should be evidence that I’m not alone. I’d also contend that you’re not accurately portraying Luther’s thought on the matter either. I’d recommend taking a read of his Preface to the Smalcald Articles. Pay close attention to his thoughts regarding the ‘Council of Mantua.’ In a way, we Lutherans are still “waiting for Mantua” - that is, a truly free and ecumenical council.

This Council COULD **repair all of the damage that Luther did **to Christianity by way of his radical SS+PI.

I’m humbly, sincerely asking as a fellow Christian - can you please tone down the polemics? We’re all on the same team here, and there’s no reason to be so combative. We Lutherans come to CAF to answer questions that Roman Catholics have about us, and vise versa - this helps in understanding each other. We don’t come here to be proselytized or berated for our beliefs (or, in some cases, Straw Men of our beliefs).

Would you think that the Lutherans SHOULD and WOULD attend such a Council and then, if they would, would they be willing to abide by the decisions.

If a truly free and ecumenical council were called - how could any who seek and serve God deny it? But Christendom is nowhere near ready or able, and may not be for some time. So we engage in dialogue - even if it “is only 10% of the way to solving” what separates us. Baby steps, in charity. This is what we poor, sinful beings are capable of doing at this point in history - and let it be so for the present! After all, we do well to conform now with all the God requires - namely that we confess the Lord our God, the Lord, to be One, that we love Him with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind and with all our strength, and that we love our neighbor -even if that neighbor be Martin Luther or Pope Leo X- as ourself.

Edit: Better translation of Preface to the Smalcald Articles: bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#preface

 

[spina1953]

Funny you should say something like this.

After all it was Christ who said this about Peter:

*Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” *

And we believe Him.

It was Christ who said about us taking up our cross and follow Him:

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

And we believe Him.

It was Christ who said this about children:

*Matthew 18:5 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me;

Matthew 19:3 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; 14 but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And he laid his hands on them and went away.*

And we believe Him.

It was Christ who said this about the authority to forgive sins:

John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

And we believe Him.

It was Christ who said this about the Real Presence:

Luke 22:14 And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

And we believe Him.

It was Christ who said this about a teaching authority on earth:

*Matthew 28:16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
*
And we believe Him.

And it was Peter, the same one Christ talked to before, who said:

*2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. *

And guess what? We believe Him as well.

We believe Christ and we strive to be faithful to Him - according to His purpose and to the way He determined things to be.

I have to agree with you and you have made very strong points in your post. I would like to add that the sacred Scriptures were written by men, so if CL’s thinking is correct than how is one to know that the sacred Scriptures can be believed? How do we know that what was written in the NT is true? WE do not know with any certainty, it is because we believe as St. John the Apostle wrote these things were written that you might come to believe. so we either believe or we don’t.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11662988]
I take it from your open ended comment that you are in agreement that our leaders have not exactly set the world on fire attempting to get the core issues resolved.

No, just that we see their work differently and I don’t expect one or the other of us to change our mind.

My criticisms of Martin Luther are very specific and I criticize him for very specific things that he did or taught. It seems to me that a lot of people would prefer that we not talk about Luther at all, but that we should just skip past him and, sort of like Rip Van Winkle, just wake up as if the Lutheran Confessional documents fell of out the sky with no connection whatsoever to any specific person.

It isn’t the criticisms of Luther, but the language you use in your efforts.

In fact, the things that Catholics and Protestants disagree on were almost all ‘developed’ by Martin Luther. The result of his Sola Scriptura and its Evil Twin, the “Right of the Individual” to (correctly) Interpret (SS+PI) - MASSIVE denominalization and a complete lack of doctrinal certainty. I hold Luther personally responsible.

This is what I mean. You could very easily talk about the two without the adjectives.
The only doctrinally disunity involving Luther is whatever disunity the Lutheran community is dealing with, and even that isn’t the result of Luther.

OK Jon, what would you like me to do here? Would you like me to stop posting what I believe here? What would you like me to post? Maybe you would prefer me to post what you believe? Are you suggesting that you know everything I have posted so far? Are you suggesting that nothing I post is new to anyone here? Are you suggesting that everything that I WILL post is already known to all here? Or is the point that you would simply prefer that I not reveal embarrassing facts about Luther and his connection to Protestantism’s doctrinal confusion by way of Sola Scriptura +Private Interpretation (BTW both of which he refuted himself on later on).

Do whatever you want, Tim. I try my best no to use polemics against Catholicism, and I believe I represent my position well enough. IOW, I try to represent my position without attempting to demean others. That apparently isn’t your style, however. I get. I will do my best, however, not to return in kind. If I already have, I apologize.
As for the part I bolded, you just did: *“Your representation of this issues is not the official teaching and it was not Luther’s position. The way that you present it is extremely watered down.” *

Jon, the wedges are there.

No need to drive them deeper when our communions are trying to remove them.

What I am NOT doing is overly emphasizing the agreements that we have

You don’t seem to emphasize them at all

and ignoring the differences.

Who is ignoring them?

Sometimes when I read things here on these threads it seems as though people are portraying Lutherans and Catholics as being in agreement on virtually everything, or at least on the most important things. People here actually paint a picture that would have us believe that we are in agreement on Salvation! Ignoring those wedges is NOT working to resolve them.

There are some who want to ignore the differences completely, that is true. Oddly enough, I see a similarity between us (the reason I have not ignored you completely already) and that is we both seem to come from a position of doctrine first. Unity will not come from glossing over doctrinal differences. The wedges I refer to, however, are not doctrinal differences, they are the polemics that have haunted our communions regarding each other for hundreds of years. For those hundreds of years, our communions worked on the wedges, and not on the doctrines. That changed in large part because of Vatican II. We can disagree about doctrine without name-calling, and polemical language.

Jon, the fact of the matter is that our division is for the most part on Luther’s head. While he was right to chastise the Church for their abuses on matters of practice, there is NO WAY that that should have translated to a complete repudiation of several dozen important doctrines. The reason that Luther HAD to do that is because he HAD to believe Salvation by Faith Alone, and he HAD to find it in Scripture. I would suggest that what you are really upset by is the revealing of so many embarrassing facts about Luther.

Justification by faith alone has always been the biggest issue between the communions, that is true. As I told you, there’s nothing new in what you say. I am not embarrassed by what Luther said. He passed away almost 500 years ago.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11663007]Part 2

You are correct that the papacy has been addressed. But Jon, that is NOT what I said. What I said, specifically and exactly, was that the issue of “papal infallibility” has not been addressed. It has not, not in more than 50 years. From the Joint Dialogue “Differing Attitudes Toward Papal Primacy”:

“In discussing the papacy as a form of Ministry within the universal church we have limited ourselves to the question of papal primacy. No attempt had been made to enter into the problem of papal infallibility. While this issue must be faced in the discussions between our churches, we believe that this limitation of the scope of our present discussion is justified since papal primacy was a doctrinal issue long before papal infallibility became a major issue.”

Your argument isn’t with me, Tim. Take your argument to Cardinal Dolan, or Pope Francis, or the appropriate commission.

If you know of any agreement (as if) on papal infallibility, I would LOVE to hear it. I will also tell you that the issue of papal primacy is only about 10% of the way to solving the matter of papal infallibility. What exactly do you think will come about that will allow for this matter to be resolved?

I have no way of knowing.

I don’t think you or anyone else here believes that I equate the Orthodox with the Arians.

Good to hear. That sounds much better than the comparison you made before.

It was at Leipzig that (under pressure) Luther first took the position that neither the pope nor Councils were infallible. At Worms he proposed a way to replace those authorities:

“Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right or safe. God help me. Amen.” Luther, in Bainton, pg. 180

And they have contradicted each other. We know this be the divisions within the Church prior to the Reformation.

But I digress - The point is that you cannot suggest that the Lutherans should not attend an Ecumenical Council because it won’t be Ecumenical until the EO attends. So – why don’t the Lutherans sign up for a binding Council and then maybe the EO will be inspired to join also. I would suggest that the reason is that the Lutherans have inherited something of Luther and would have absolutely no interest in joining an Ecumenical Councils in which they have pledged to abide by the doctrinal decisions of the majority.

I certainly can suggest it, but dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics need not be a council. Lutherans, perhaps more than any communion, have participated in dialogue with Rome, so I’m not sure where you get this idea.

Luther recommended to the Protestants that they not attend Trent and for the most part, they didn’t. Presumably they would have had a larger share (maybe 35%) than they would have now (roughly 29%), with Lutheranism having a total of 3 votes out of the hundred. Remember that the Councils always pray to the Holy Spirit so that they will be precluded from teaching error.

Luther is dead, almost 500 years ago.

Let’s say for the sake of our hypothetical, that ALL of Christianity COULD be assembled into a Council in which ALL parties were to agree that they would abide by the doctrinal decisions of the Council. This Council COULD repair all of the damage that Luther did to Christianity by way of his **radical **SS+PI.

Here’s the polemics again.

Would you think that the Lutherans SHOULD and WOULD attend such a Council and then, if they would, would they be willing to abide by the decisions. Reminder, they have 3 of the 100 votes, proportional to their percentage of Christendom.

Because Lutherans believe, as a general rule, that the Reformation is not successful or complete without reconciliation with Rome.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;11662638]Jon, you are not *claiming *magisterial authority. But you are invoking it. Each and every time you correct anyone here who says that SS means something other than what you (or your church) say it means.

PR, this is an internet forum, and a Catholic one. there are those non-Catholics who present what I believe is a misunderstanding of what sola scriptura is. There are Catholics who also portray an understanding of sola scriptura that doesn’t fit the historic practice. Were I to not to respond to those portrayals and misunderstandings, my membership here would be worth nothing. It isn’t a magisterial authority, but a willingness to make our position known.

And this is nothing but what the CC proclaims regarding all of the Reformers, and those that followed them.

Well, sure. I would never dispute that.

You reject what the CC teaches, and believe it is your right to do so.

Don’t overstate it. As you know there a great deal your communion teaches that I believe. I couldn’t be Lutheran if I didn’t, ironically enough.

Just like other Christians here reject what you profess SS to be, and ought to be their right to do this.

Agreed. I’m not disputing their right to believe what they wish, just the accuracy of the belief.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

PR, this is an internet forum, and a Catholic one. there are those non-Catholics who present what I believe is a misunderstanding of what sola scriptura is. There are Catholics who also portray an understanding of sola scriptura that doesn’t fit the historic practice. Were I to not to respond to those portrayals and misunderstandings, my membership here would be worth nothing. It isn’t a magisterial authority, but a willingness to make our position known.

Fair enough.

So you aren’t telling another Bible Alone Christian what the correct definition of SS is.

What you are doing is only saying, “This is the Lutheran understanding of SS.”

I can accept that.

But then you must accept when I say, “If you believe in SS then you must necessarily believe A, B, and C” that I may not be addressing your communion’s particular definition of SS, but rather another denomination’s.

 

[rfournier103]

Seems that some of us would rather trust another human being who we can actually See and Hear speaking to us – about what ‘he’ thinks God is saying to us – Rather than Really trust in The God who really Did give us His Word. People didn’t just sit down and write some books that sounded good – like a good Christian novel.

We ALL trust a human every Sunday morning when we go to worship. If you can’t trust your priest/minister, that is VERY sad indeed. However, your insinuation that ANYONE would rather put their trust in a man instead of God is kind of insulting.

Martin Luther did what he did Because he was led of the Holy Spirit TO do it.

Says YOU. Did the Holy Spirit tell you that? You have no proof of that whatsoever. WHAT has led you to that assumption? The Church needed REFORM, NOT REBELION.

At that time in history – he saw things in The Church that were practiced / taught that were Not in actual Scripture.

Like what? Can you educate me on that?

So he Spoke Up. The Church authorities Didn’t like being contradicted. So he was persecuted /burned at the stake / for his beliefs.

Martin Luther was NOT burned at the stake. Whoever told you that was -]a liar/-] incorrect.

Sometimes people don’t like God’s Word because He tells us we’re Sinners. But He’s Also given a way to have our sins Forgiven. Through the birth, death, burial and bodily resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ. It’s Christianity. Calvary plus Nothing.

So, CALVARY PLUS NOTHING? Everyone goes to heaven? We’re all set? That’s a relief!!! WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT? I’ll save you the trouble of looking and tell you that it’s not in there!

Why did Jesus confer Binding and Loosing? Why did Jesus tell the Apostles “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” (see John 20:22-23) This was AFTER THE RESERECTION. Can you tell me, CrochetLady, WHY WHY WHY would Jesus have ANY need of saying this IF your view of theology is right; and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is wrong???

And there Are lots of different churches

Too bad that Jesus only founded one…

But to say that One Church has All the answers and No one is to contradict IT – is it possible that Too much emphasis is being placed on The Church ‘group’ / The Church’s interpretation of… which amounts to a human being somehow having ‘infallible interpretation’ of… When a ‘church group’ writes how many hundred’s of pages of what They interpret Scripture to say and the people are to accept That as ‘the truth’. Why not just go to Scripture itself and read It?

Because the CHURCH is the pillar and ground of truth. (1 Tim 3:15)

Because there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)

Because we NEED the Church to explain Holy Scripture to us. (Acts 8:30-31)

And because Jesus founded the Church. (Matt 16:18)

If all we needed was a Bible, why would Jesus found a Church? Despite what you may think, CrochetLady, it’s aaalll Biblical.

I await your rebuttal.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Fair enough.

So you aren’t telling another Bible Alone Christian what the correct definition of SS is.

What you are doing is only saying, “This is the Lutheran understanding of SS.”

I can accept that.

But then you must accept when I say, “If you believe in SS then you must necessarily believe A, B, and C” that I may not be addressing your communion’s particular definition of SS, but rather another denomination’s.

PRmerger–

I think that churches which don’t use the Lutheran definition of SS should pick another term to describe their beliefs—and they often do, if they’re knowledgeable.

For example, what the Church of Christ poster (a few pages back) was calling Sola Scriptura is more correctly called Solo Scriptura. This distinction has been made here before. I suppose this particular principle, which is notably different than Sola Scriptura, could also be called “Bible Alone”.

Then there’s the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (I’m physically wiped out from having the flu, so I’m too tired to post an explanatory link) which is sometimes considered a form of Prima Scriptura. That’s what I grew up with. I’m familiar with Sola Scriptura from Lutheran friends and my own reading, but Wesleyan Methodism was much more formative in my Evangelical upbringing.

I don’t see any magisterial authority being invoked by Lutherans here. It’s helpful to everyone if people try to keep definitions clear. I think it’s regrettable that various groups, including at times some of my fellow Evangelicals, have appropriated Luther’s term instead of coming up with their own.

 

[nmgauss]

PRmerger–I think that churches which don’t use the Lutheran definition of SS should pick another term to describe their beliefs—and they often do, if they’re knowledgeable.

For example, what the Church of Christ poster (a few pages back) was calling Sola Scriptura is more correctly called Solo Scriptura. This distinction has been made here before. I suppose this particular principle, which is notably different than Sola Scriptura, could also be called “Bible Alone”.

If this is supposed to be a Latin term, then by using “solo” instead of “sola”, you are departing from the proper use of Latin. There cannot be a “Solo Scriptura”, because it is incorrect grammatically. No matter what the ending is, the “Sola” or “Solo” modifies the Scriptura to mean “only”.

 

[Kliska]

If this is supposed to be a Latin term, then by using “solo” instead of “sola”, you are departing from the proper use of Latin. There cannot be a “Solo Scriptura”, because it is incorrect grammatically. No matter what the ending is, the “Sola” or “Solo” modifies the Scriptura to mean “only”.

Instead of it being a correct Latin phrase, the mixed term “Solo Scriptura” is instead an attempt to describe a particular view that is not expressed by “Sola Scriptura,” grammar aside. Sola Scriptura does not actually mean “Scripture by itself” when used by a majority of protestants, but that is what is captured by “Solo Scriptura.”