Why I could never follow Luther.

[dogknox]

Hello Oldtimer_7 you said…

posting 95 theses on the door** if the church is not exactly introducing secret heresies. ** Luther was not a totally original thinker. Many of the theses were matters of common concern in the Catholic academic world.

In answer to your comment about Luther being among the church, rather than the reverse, would not the same pertain to my fellow Bavarian, Pope Benedict XV!? In fact, the comparison is more apt than meets the eye. Luther was a professor at one of the leading Catholic universities in Germany, and so was the Pope.

I reply… Martin Luther was a “Priest”! Priests make VOWS… To be obedient to God and to his Church! Church> Corrects, Rebukes, Trains & TEACHES< it is up to the Priest to teach what the Church has declared as TRUTH!
It is not the Job of the Priest to correct or rebuke the Church!

Do you understand? Martin Luther rejected his Vows to God, and God’s Church!
The Difference is The Pope is a Bishop & Luther is a Disobedient Priest who broke his VOWS to God and to God’s Church!
Oldtimer_7 Your comparison of the two men is unbalanced,** Bishops make Doctrine, Priests don’t! **

Now as for your assertion that there was only one church until the Reformation, I will point to two things. First, Paul and the Apostles’ meeting in Jerusalem in which there was Apostolic approval** for two churches, one of which held that to be Christian, one had to follow Jewish law and practice, **and the other not held to these practices. Second, the existence of the Orthodox church, That split occurred 500 years before Luther. If we are to consider that you have spoken prophetically, how are we to view you?

I reply… Both Churches answered to the Pope (until 1054 A.D.)… Both have roots back to Peter and thus Christ!
The Lutheran has roots back to Martin Luther then the roots of the Lutheran stop. They can’t trace their roots back to Christ as the Orthodox or Catholic can!
Oldtimer_7 Your Martin Luther, came from AMONG the Church Jesus formed, the Prophesy fits Martin Luther…
The Church Jesus formed did not come from the Lutheran Church! It can only work in one direction!

Martin Luther TAUGHT “Man does NOT need to listen to the Church, all Man needs is scriptures”!
Oldtimer_7 NOTE: The scriptures say…“LISTEN TO THE CHURCH”!
Martin Luther was forced to Reject the scriptures to TEACH…“Don’t listen to the church!”
Do you understand? The Lutheran Church was formed by a MAN who rejected the scriptures! Scriptures is very very clear… Jesus said…“The person who REJECTS me, does NOT accept my words”!

Now, I have not been posting scripture, since among this elect group, an allusion is all that is needed in most cases, but here is one from Saint Paul.
DRC: Philippians Chapter 1
[14] And many of the brethren in the Lord, growing confident by my bands, are much more bold to speak the word of God without fear.
[15] Some indeed, even out of envy and contention; but some also for good will preach Christ.
[16] Some out of charity, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
[17] And some out of contention preach Christ not sincerely: supposing that they raise affliction to my bands.
[18] But what then? So that by all means, whether by occasion, or by truth, Christ be preached: in this also I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

As an outworking of this verse, I rejoice in my Catholic brethren, my Evangelical Protestant brethren, my Orthodox brethren, and anyone else who preaches the good news of Christ. risen.

**I reply: **So should I believe your verse means…“God wants TEACHING of error and half truth?”
One Protestant TEACHES: there is NO Trinity; another, there is a Trinity; another Jesus is NOT God; another, Jesus is only a man; Communion is symbolic; another, Can’t loose salvation; another, Can loose salvation; another, Satan is the Brother of Jesus; another, Alter Call saves; another, truth is relative to each person; another, only so many are to be saved; another, there is no place as hell and eternal damnation; another, Jesus can’t take the form of bread; another, Saturday sabbath; another, Jesus left his bride for the Protestant bodies… etc!!
Oldtimer_7 Question… Do you truly believe God likes man twisting his words and forming thousands of churches, all claiming to to have the ONLY truth, but no two the same??!

Oldtimer_7 God cannot lead into error, if he did then he would not be perfect, he would** NOT** be God! To say what you say, you are forced to believe the Church Jesus formed was defeated by Satan, that Jesus lost his bride to Satan!

Brother Dogknox, God knows where we are even when we feel we are lost. That you have found a good home in the Catholic Church is a reason for me to rejoice. Our differences are real, but the overarching reality is that we follow Christ and are claimed by Him. This why I felt the love when Newbie2 made his comment and why I feel it in your spirited debate.

**I reply: **With all respect…
Jesus formed ONE Church… It is the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope…No others!

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Hello Oldtimer_7 you said…
I reply… Martin Luther was a “Priest”! Priests make VOWS… To be obedient to God and to his Church! Church> Corrects, Rebukes, Trains & TEACHES< it is up to the Priest to teach what the Church has declared as TRUTH!
It is not the Job of the Priest to correct or rebuke the Church!

Agreed.

Do you understand? Martin Luther rejected his Vows to God, and God’s Church!
The Difference is The Pope is a Bishop & Luther is a Disobedient Priest who broke his VOWS to God and to God’s Church!
Oldtimer_7 Your comparison of the two men is unbalanced,** Bishops make Doctrine, Priests don’t! **

Unbalanced, maybe. But accurate to a point. Luther simply attempted to renew/revise Catholic Doctrine in the only way he saw possible (misguided as it may have been).

I reply… Both Churches answered to the Pope (until 1054 A.D.)… Both have roots back to Peter and thus Christ!
The Lutheran has roots back to Martin Luther then the roots of the Lutheran stop. They can’t trace their roots back to Christ as the Orthodox or Catholic can!
Oldtimer_7 Your Martin Luther, came from AMONG the Church Jesus formed, the Prophesy fits Martin Luther…
The Church Jesus formed did not come from the Lutheran Church! It can only work in one direction!

You can track the history of Lutheranism back to the apostles, you just merge with the Catholic Church at some point.

Martin Luther TAUGHT “Man does NOT need to listen to the Church, all Man needs is scriptures”!
Oldtimer_7 NOTE: The scriptures say…“LISTEN TO THE CHURCH”!
Martin Luther was forced to Reject the scriptures to TEACH…“Don’t listen to the church!”
Do you understand? The Lutheran Church was formed by a MAN who rejected the scriptures! Scriptures is very very clear… Jesus said…“The person who REJECTS me, does NOT accept my words”!

Luther never rejected Christ, nor did he reject (what he saw as) Christs words and teaching. Luther had a problem with pride and disobedience, but he DID have very good points. Vilifying the man 500 years later does not help our cause of bringing our schismatic brethren home.

**I reply: **So should I believe your verse means…“God wants TEACHING of error and half truth?”
One Protestant TEACHES: there is NO Trinity; another, there is a Trinity; another Jesus is NOT God; another, Jesus is only a man; Communion is symbolic; another, Can’t loose salvation; another, Can loose salvation; another, Satan is the Brother of Jesus; another, Alter Call saves; another, truth is relative to each person; another, only so many are to be saved; another, there is no place as hell and eternal damnation; another, Jesus can’t take the form of bread; another, Saturday sabbath; another, Jesus left his bride for the Protestant bodies… etc!!
Oldtimer_7 Question… Do you truly believe God likes man twisting his words and forming thousands of churches, all claiming to to have the ONLY truth, but no two the same??!

I will attempt to answer this question even though it is not addressed to me. No, God does not approve, like, enjoy, or hold any other good feeling regarding our twisting and misuse of scripture. But we are man. We are fallen. I do not hold to the complete depravity Luther ascribed to, but as broken vessels we have a hard time keeping ourselves full, if you get my meaning. One of the reasons we have been given an infallible interpreter of scripture (The Church) is to avoid just such abuses of scripture as listed above. But even then we can make some mistakes. The early attacks on judaism for instance, or the use of scripture by some Catholics to exclude, insult, or deride homosexuals for instance.

Oldtimer_7 God cannot lead into error, if he did then he would not be perfect, he would** NOT** be God! To say what you say, you are forced to believe the Church Jesus formed was defeated by Satan, that Jesus lost his bride to Satan!

**I reply: **With all respect…
Jesus formed ONE Church… It is the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope…No others!

Absolutely Christ formed but one Church. That does not mean that no other Church can hold any truths. And you can make a logical leap to say that Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, or any of the other sects are a return to the true Christianity instituted in 33 AD. I disagree, but I can understand that stance. And the argument would go more like “Christs bride became adulterous and abandoned him to join Satan and thus Luther HAD to exit the Church to bring Christians back to Christ”.

Perhaps you should attempt to make arguments for Catholicism instead of attacking Luther and his Church?

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Dogknox, Luther did not post the 95 theses as a priest, but as a professor. The church door was the functional equivalent of the Internet. Since most of the people could not read even German, only the university community would know its contents. The question of the role of academics continues to evolve in the Catholic Church even today. We Lutherans have had our own differences with our academicians, but we do not have the power of excommunication. The closest we can come is to deny tenure.

As for Luther breaking his vows, let me ask you to tell me how he could faithfully keep them after his excommunication? Also, what is the mechanism when the vows come into conflict with current church practices? Are you willing to defend a position that the priest (and I use this for the sake of argument, not that I accept the idea that Luther was only acting in his capacity as a priest) should go along with any practices even if they violate what he understands as his role. I say this in the light of the beatification of Mary McKillop, who was excommunicated for exposing a pedophile priest.

As for your criticism of Saint Paul’s words, I do not come to his defense. It would make a mouse defending a lion look formidable. I will note that the church in the first century of its formation was quite varied. The canon was in the act of being written. The faith of people to believe in the spoken word or the contents of a couple of epistles was awe inspiring. Compared to the mix of Marcionites, Ebionites, Gnostics, and what Bart Ehrman has called the proto-orthodox, we are almost homogenous.

What is the essential message of Christianity? What are the differences that matter and the ones that do not. One of the jokes about Lutherans is that when they bring Jello to a church supper, they make sure it is the proper liturgical color. I would be willing to bet that many of our practices, common and peculiar to our denominations have no effect on the essential message of salvation through Christ.

I do not defend other denominations. It is more than my poor ability to defend my own positions. I doubt that you defend those other Catholic movements such as those who reject the current Pope. I would hope that some of those others would join us in this lively discussion.

Please note that I did not refer to the Orthodox and Catholic Churches when I spoke of Paul’s charge from the Apostles. As far as I know, circumcision is not a requirement for men joining the Catholic Church. I have been to Synagogue on Friday night, and even though there are Friday night Masses, I can’t imagine ever having to go out the the signboard to see if I were at Temple Beth Shalom or Sacred Heart Catholic Church. Catholics do not hold all things in common, as did the church in Jerusalem. We instead share our common heritage through the church as Saint Paul developed it for the Gentiles. And yes, I recognize that the Lutheran experience melds with Catholic and see that a point of contact and something to be celebrated.

Now I will finish on a point of agreement. We both agree that Jesus instituted one catholic church. Note that you and I only differ in the use of capitalization of the initial letter. I will point out in Greek that there were no mixed lower and upper case manuscripts.

Have a blessed day. I thank God for your thoughtful and thorough consideration of my small contributions.

 

[dogknox]

Dogknox, Luther did not post the 95 theses as a priest, but as a professor. The church door was the functional equivalent of the Internet. Since most of the people could not read even German, only the university community would know its contents. The question of the role of academics continues to evolve in the Catholic Church even today. We Lutherans have had our own differences with our academicians, but we do not have the power of excommunication. The closest we can come is to deny tenure.

As for Luther breaking his vows, let me ask you to tell me how he could faithfully keep them after his excommunication? Also, what is the mechanism when the vows come into conflict with current church practices? Are you willing to defend a position that the priest (and I use this for the sake of argument, not that I accept the idea that Luther was only acting in his capacity as a priest) should go along with any practices even if they violate what he understands as his role. I say this in the light of the beatification of Mary McKillop, who was excommunicated for exposing a pedophile priest.

As for your criticism of Saint Paul’s words, I do not come to his defense. It would make a mouse defending a lion look formidable. I will note that the church in the first century of its formation was quite varied. The canon was in the act of being written. The faith of people to believe in the spoken word or the contents of a couple of epistles was awe inspiring. Compared to the mix of Marcionites, Ebionites, Gnostics, and what Bart Ehrman has called the proto-orthodox, we are almost homogenous.

What is the essential message of Christianity? What are the differences that matter and the ones that do not. One of the jokes about Lutherans is that when they bring Jello to a church supper, they make sure it is the proper liturgical color. I would be willing to bet that many of our practices, common and peculiar to our denominations have no effect on the essential message of salvation through Christ.

I do not defend other denominations. It is more than my poor ability to defend my own positions. I doubt that you defend those other Catholic movements such as those who reject the current Pope. I would hope that some of those others would join us in this lively discussion.

Please note that I did not refer to the Orthodox and Catholic Churches when I spoke of Paul’s charge from the Apostles. As far as I know, circumcision is not a requirement for men joining the Catholic Church. I have been to Synagogue on Friday night, and even though there are Friday night Masses, I can’t imagine ever having to go out the the signboard to see if I were at Temple Beth Shalom or Sacred Heart Catholic Church. Catholics do not hold all things in common, as did the church in Jerusalem. We instead share our common heritage through the church as Saint Paul developed it for the Gentiles. And yes, I recognize that the Lutheran experience melds with Catholic and see that a point of contact and something to be celebrated.

Now I will finish on a point of agreement. We both agree that Jesus instituted one catholic church. Note that you and I only differ in the use of capitalization of the initial letter. I will point out in Greek that there were no mixed lower and upper case manuscripts.

Have a blessed day. I thank God for your thoughtful and thorough consideration of my small contributions.

Protestant= One who protests.
&
All who do NOT accept the Authority of the pope.

Oldtimer_7 I hate to break it to you but you are Protestant. You are NOT Catholic!
Your roots go back to a heretic… A man removed from the body of God!
Scripture…
“If they do not even Listen to the Church, treat them as a Pagan”!

Oldtimer_7 Pagan: “A person NOT in the Body of God!”
Oldtimer_7 Martin Luther was placed OUTSIDE as Pagan, he refused to LISTEN to scriptures!! If OUTSIDE then he can’t be INSIDE at the same time!

The roots of the Lutheran go back to the sixteenth Century to a MAN… Martin Luther! Your roots are cut off from the Church Jesus formed, they are growing from Protestant Soil!
One more time…If you are OUTSIDE you can’t be Inside at the same time!

Dogknox

 

[SnakeMauler]

I wouldn’t follow Luther because his actual intentions were to remove EVEN MORE books from the Bible, which he only didn’t end up doing because no one would have followed him.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

It will come as a great shock to the Orthodox that they are Protestants. I will watch from a safe distance as you tell them. Now about those other points that you did not address?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Of course. Sadly, it doesn’t seem like those in authority were very willing to reform their ways.

David Noonan,

Did you ever read about the great saints and their followers Christ called to overcome corruption?

St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Simon Stock, and the beginnings of their monastic orders–the Franciscans, Dominicans, and Carmelites as well as the many saints Christ gave the Church to remedy it???

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Dave, I love Carmina Burana. It is one of the pieces that I have to listen to with headphones, because it is so rich in texture. You must be really into the music to be reading church history to get a feel for the the background of the work.

The music was actually composed in the 20th Century for selected texts from an 11th-12th century manuscript of poetry-as I recall, there are about 250 poems in all. The first section of the collection consists of some pretty harsh critiques and parodies of clerical practices of the 11th century–some of the poems are actually quite bawdy. Most of the poems are in Latin, although a few are in Middle High German. Some of the language in the poetry is of the same type of hyperbole that Luther sometimes employs and at times I was really struck by the similarity of the rhetoric, even though the Carmina Burana predates Luther by 400 years.

My point was that people in this part of Europe were putting up with a lot of “stuff” for a very, very long period of time.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

There were a number of literary works in the same vein. I can think of the Decameron and The Canterbury Tales offhand. Even Dante’s Inferno contains some passages that could be seen as critical.

 

[rinnie]

This was my thought when I read the top of the thread. To say that Lutherans are followers of Luther would be something like accusing Roman Catholics of being followers of St. Thomas Aquinas.

One interesting thing that I learned by studying parts of the Carmina Burana last spring was the extent of corruption in the continental Church already in the 12th and 13th centuries. No wonder people were pretty frustrated by the time Luther rolled along.

Well it depends how you look at it. Would it have been any different if I would say that Lutherans follow the teaching’s of Luther, the same as Roman Catholic’s follow the teaching’s of the Pope. Would that not be fair to say?

I think it would, because the Pope’s teaching’s come from Christ. The same that Luthers teaching’s come from Christ also.

But then the problem comes in. Just because the Popes of the past have sinned did it change the teaching’s.

But then where the problem came in was this. The scripture states to stick with the teaching’s of the Early Fathers of the Church! Correct? Now did the Pope turn away from any of the teaching’s of the Early Fathers of the Church? If so when and how? I do not recall any.

ANd the next questions is Did Luther stray from some of the Early teachings of the Early Fathers of the church and when and how?

Would that not be a fair question?

 

[rinnie]

FidesSC, Now you said that Luther did not reject Church words and teaching. Now just asking if he did not reject Church words or teaching, but he would not accept the teachings of the Pope and the Bishops, that are taught with authority passed down, how could that be accepting them.

Now if his problem was and ONLY was the wrong doing in the Church with the sins of Man, I could agree with your statement.

But what about the Sacraments? What about the other things that he did not agree with. Because in my eyes. (now this is just in my opinion now) Either:

A. Jesus gave the authority to the Apostles to speak in his name, and the CC is truly led by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Or:

B. When Jesus said that the CC was led by the Power of the Holy Spirit and he would give them the words, (are you saying he didn’t then?). Because either the Bishops or Pope had and still have that authority or Luther is right. And this power was taken away from them, which would makes Jesus words not true then, according to you, Right?

Again, no accusing, Just asking?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

FidesSC, Now you said that Luther did not reject Church words and teaching. Now just asking if he did not reject Church words or teaching, but he would not accept the teachings of the Pope and the Bishops, that are taught with authority passed down, how could that be accepting them.

Now if his problem was and ONLY was the wrong doing in the Church with the sins of Man, I could agree with your statement.

But what about the Sacraments? What about the other things that he did not agree with. Because in my eyes. (now this is just in my opinion now) Either:

A. Jesus gave the authority to the Apostles to speak in his name, and the CC is truly led by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Or:

B. When Jesus said that the CC was led by the Power of the Holy Spirit and he would give them the words, (are you saying he didn’t then?). Because either the Bishops or Pope had and still have that authority or Luther is right. And this power was taken away from them, which would makes Jesus words not true then, according to you, Right?

Again, no accusing, Just asking?

Well, if I said that he did not reject Church Teaching I apologize. What I meant to say was that he THOUGHT he did not reject Church teaching. From what I have read, he honestly believed that he was reinvigorating the Church and correcting what he saw as heresies within the Church.

A) Absolutely Correct.

B) Absolutely incorrect. If I gave that impression I apologize. Christ told us time and again to obey. to be obedient. A quick search yields this

[BIBLEDRB]John 14:15[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]John 14:21[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]John 15:10[/BIBLEDRB]

My point was that to vilify him as a man out to destroy the CHurch and set himself up as a false pope is incorrect. That may have been what he actually DID, but it is not what he set out to do, nor is it (IMHO) what he believed he was doing.

FSC

 

[rinnie]

Well, if I said that he did not reject Church Teaching I apologize. What I meant to say was that he THOUGHT he did not reject Church teaching. From what I have read, he honestly believed that he was reinvigorating the Church and correcting what he saw as heresies within the Church.

A) Absolutely Correct.

B) Absolutely incorrect. If I gave that impression I apologize. Christ told us time and again to obey. to be obedient. A quick search yields this

[BIBLEDRB]John 14:15[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]John 14:21[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]John 15:10[/BIBLEDRB]

My point was that to vilify him as a man out to destroy the CHurch and set himself up as a false pope is incorrect. That may have been what he actually DID, but it is not what he set out to do, nor is it (IMHO) what he believed he was doing.

FSC

No need to apologize sweetie I was just making sure that I did not misinterpret you is all. Just wanted to let you have the opportunity to explain it better. Thanks, and on that account we both are in agreement:thumbsup:

 

[JonNC]

=rinnie;7202518]Well it depends how you look at it. Would it have been any different if I would say that Lutherans follow the teaching’s of Luther, the same as Roman Catholic’s follow the teaching’s of the Pope. Would that not be fair to say?

Not exactly. Luther’s position within Lutheranism could not be compared to the Pope. Luther’s teachings, while influenctial in many ways, are not influential in all ways. In fact, there are things he said and wrote, positons he held, that are not accepted as anything more than “his opinions”. Lutherans are bound to scripture, and how they are rightly reflected in the Book of Concord, not Luther the man, nor any other Lutheran reformer.

I think it would, because the Pope’s teaching’s come from Christ. The same that Luthers teaching’s come from Christ also.

I really appreciate this comment. Thanks.

But then the problem comes in. Just because the Popes of the past have sinned did it change the teaching’s.

and this is why some of Luther’s writings are not accepted.

But then where the problem came in was this. The scripture states to stick with the teaching’s of the Early Fathers of the Church! Correct? Now did the Pope turn away from any of the teaching’s of the Early Fathers of the Church? If so when and how? I do not recall any.

I don’t like the term “turn away”. But I do think that papal supremacy, universal jurisdiction, and infallibility when speaking ex cathedra, are at least an exaggeration of the Rome the Bishop of Rome played in the early Church.

And the next questions is Did Luther stray from some of the Early teachings of the Early Fathers of the church and when and how?

Some might say that sola fide is an innovation not found in the early teachings. While I disagree with that perception, it does seem to me that the way Lutherans define terms such as “sanctification”, “justification”, and “sacrament”, are different today than that of the CC.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

David,

You can’t every Catholic ecclesiastic with one sweeping brush, otherwise the Catholic Church would have failed to exist back at Luther’s time. There were many ecclesiastics working to restore the integrity of Christ in that time as well, and many Catholics were forced to leave the Church for a protesting one.

It is the Holy Spirit at work in those who are open to Him that the Church continues on.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Dogknox, I need to make a couple of points of clarification. I do not claim to be Catholic. When I use the term in the upper case, I refer to the church led by the Bishop of Rome. I do not use Roman Catholic for two reasons. First, it is my understanding that the term is seen as somewhat demeaning to Catholics, and I do not mean any offense. Second, qualifying the word Catholic by modifying it with the adjective Roman creates an oxymoron.

When I use the term in the lower case, I refer to the idea of the body of all believers, both living and dead, who have ever existed. This is an abstract concept, not a description of any existing denomination. I have at times used the term " the church universal" in order not to confuse people about which one I am talking about.

I certainly did not mean any offense or slight to you or to anyone else in my comments.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Well it depends how you look at it. Would it have been any different if I would say that Lutherans follow the teaching’s of Luther, the same as Roman Catholic’s follow the teaching’s of the Pope. Would that not be fair to say?

I think it would, because the Pope’s teaching’s come from Christ. The same that Luthers teaching’s come from Christ also.

But then the problem comes in. Just because the Popes of the past have sinned did it change the teaching’s.

But then where the problem came in was this. The scripture states to stick with the teaching’s of the Early Fathers of the Church! Correct? Now did the Pope turn away from any of the teaching’s of the Early Fathers of the Church? If so when and how? I do not recall any.

ANd the next questions is Did Luther stray from some of the Early teachings of the Early Fathers of the church and when and how?

Would that not be a fair question?

Actually, the writings of Luther have nowhere the level of authority for Lutherans that the teachings of the popes have in the Catholic Church, so the analogy doesn’t really work.

 

[rinnie]

Not exactly. Luther’s position within Lutheranism could not be compared to the Pope. Luther’s teachings, while influenctial in many ways, are not influential in all ways. In fact, there are things he said and wrote, positons he held, that are not accepted as anything more than “his opinions”. Lutherans are bound to scripture, and how they are rightly reflected in the Book of Concord, not Luther the man, nor any other Lutheran reformer.

I really appreciate this comment. Thanks.

and this is why some of Luther’s writings are not accepted.

I don’t like the term “turn away”. But I do think that papal supremacy, universal jurisdiction, and infallibility when speaking ex cathedra, are at least an exaggeration of the Rome the Bishop of Rome played in the early Church.

Some might say that sola fide is an innovation not found in the early teachings. While I disagree with that perception, it does seem to me that the way Lutherans define terms such as “sanctification”, “justification”, and “sacrament”, are different today than that of the CC.

Jon

Hi Jon, Well lets see sola fide I believe is not found in the early teachings. First of all because it is not scripture based or Tradition based.

To make sola fide simple is to say here is a million dollars and your job is to make it into 2 million, but you can;t use the it. What good is the first million then?

So now we have faith, now I want you to do good works, but you can’t use your faith to do good works, what good is the faith then?

So to make things simple if you have a million and can’t use it what good is that million doing you. The same with faith, if you have faith but do not use it what good is that faith.

So to say that you can have faith and still not use that faith to do good works here on earth, you can still obtain salvation, I don’t see it. Simply because Jesus told us, many will call out my name and I will say I do not know you.

And you see this every single day in this world. You will see it in your own family. Like a simple example is I want to leave my husband today, pack up and take off with another Man and live in sin because he has alot of money and I want to have fun.

Now I have just as much faith in God when I left my husband as when I took off with that man. But I did not want to live according to Gods rules, I wanted to do mine now.

But no one can ever say my faith in God is not just as strong. But my works are doing the opposite of what God tells me to do.

So you can never separate faith from works ever. But with faith alone you can, And with faith alone my justification is simple. I LOVE God and have complete faith in him. But can I love and trust him completely and still sin. You bet I can. Because if not then there is no true believers in Christ because we all sin.

But now we come to faith and works. Can my faith save me by the works that I do in this world? Or we could go to the other argument if I had true faith I would only have good works. Okay, can you show me that person?

So now according to Catholic teaching you can have faith and not do good works. Because Faith comes from God. So it is a free gift that we can all have. But do we accept the free gift and use it, or do we not open the gift. So what good is the faith? How is that faith put to work, and how can it be used for our salvation if we never even opened it?

Now lets hit SS. Okay lets say Luther is right and the CC is wrong. Okay then why if the Holy Spirit leads us all in our heart to define scripture are we not ONE. Because there is only ONE truth. So now according to Luther ALL belivers can define scripture.

Okay now you come back later and give me a scripture. Any scripture. Now you define it one way, and I define it my way, Who is correct. You? Me? Are we not both belivers? So then what do we have a draw? Can we both be right? You say it says this, so you live it your way, and I say it means that so I live it my way. And thats okay right? But then how can the Holy Spirit say that he will guide us into ONE truth then? Because these are clearly to us 2 different truths. Do you not agree?

So now back to SS how can it possibly work. To me its simple we do not have the gift of the HS to define scripture as scripture itself tells us. And the Scripture and the HS is correct. or Luther is. What is your take.

By the way Jon, I think you are awesome and love to debate with you, because you do not take everything I say persomal and I also do the same with you. We can talk to eachother and realize we are only asking things. I pray we can all be like this on the site someday.

 

[rinnie]

Actually, the writings of Luther have nowhere the level of authority for Lutherans that the teachings of the popes have in the Catholic Church, so the analogy doesn’t really work.

Yes I am beginning to see this. But my question to you is (no disrespect) then what is the purpose of studing his writings or some that I may show you? What would make his writing’s anymore worthy then what I decide to write, or you write or Jon decides to write.

Because beings that we all agree ( I hope) that by our Baptism we all receive the gift of the Holy Spirit right? Without authority from God on this earth, then where are we?

Because see I believe that when the POPE explains something his authority comes straight from God, or I would not be Catholic for one second. See what I mean?

 

[rinnie]

Dogknox, I need to make a couple of points of clarification. I do not claim to be Catholic. When I use the term in the upper case, I refer to the church led by the Bishop of Rome. I do not use Roman Catholic for two reasons. First, it is my understanding that the term is seen as somewhat demeaning to Catholics, and I do not mean any offense. Second, qualifying the word Catholic by modifying it with the adjective Roman creates an oxymoron.

When I use the term in the lower case, I refer to the idea of the body of all believers, both living and dead, who have ever existed. This is an abstract concept, not a description of any existing denomination. I have at times used the term " the church universal" in order not to confuse people about which one I am talking about.

I certainly did not mean any offense or slight to you or to anyone else in my comments.

Hi Oldtimer, I am a bit confused on this myself anymore. See to me I am a RC and its not demeaning to me at all. Been called it my whole life. Actually not until I started on this site was I even told this?

I was always told RC means you go by ALL of the teachings of the Pope. We believe that he has complete authority from God and when he says do this or that we obey because we believe it came from God. Not that he is by any means God but he has the keys.