Posted on 10/04/2005 7:51:36 PM PDT by JohnRoss
Luther's Luciferian personal behaviors and teachings eschewed me of being a Lutheran.
Reading Luther cured me of my Lutheranism.
***Is this Protestant bashing week on Free Republic?***
Why should you care about an article about Sola Scriptura? You don't believe in Sola Scriptura. At least your postings indicate that you don't practice Sola Scriptura.
Of course, this article is probably really not bashing Sola Scriptura, but Solo Scriptura, which is what the vast majority of so called Protestants practice anyway. When I have time today, I hope to read it and see what all the fuss is about.
No king but Jesus!!!
I cannot count the times I have seen the Blessed Virgin Mary referred to as the whore of Babylon, or the Pope equated with the Antichrist. In the post you are referring to, there is no implication of any relation between Luther and Lucifer, so perhaps you are overreacting a bit.
If Christ was visible and the Church is Christ's body, then accordingly the Church must also be visible.
JohnRoss,
Let's stick to the topic. You cannot offend fellow Christians and expect to have them want to continue a discussion with you.
If scripture alone is sufficient, why do hundreds of people disagree on parts of scripture - whether the disagreements are minor or major? That, to me, appears to be the essence of your question.
The question must be answered thusly: Because scripture must be interpreted, and people (including church leaders) will interpret scripture diversely. The breadth of the differences is material - minor points mean less, major points mean more. But people are fallible.
Have a little humility about Luther. He was hardly a worthy individual. The man condoned the bigamy of the Elector of Hesse and said human beings were animals who couldn't control their sexual impulses.
I am not about to tone down my language about one of the greatest villian in Christian history: Martin Luther.
There are no "sectlets" in the Catholic Church. The Faith of the Church is the same everywhere, for all time. There are different emphases on some aspects of the Faith from rite to rite within the Catholic Church, as well as different emphases on certain doctrines. But the entirety of the doctrinal deposit is acknowledged by all, and the different emphases represent a healthy diversity based more on culture than anything else.
But I suspect you don't have that so much in mind. What you doubtless refer to as "sectlets" take their shape in the arguments - almost exclusively in the West - between "liberals" and "conservatives" that all western Christians plainly see in the media on a daily basis. I would state that this is not quite the intradenominational battle that it seems to outsiders. The fact is that western liberal Catholics invariably hold to one or more doctrinal aberrations that the orthodox Catholic would consider heretical, that is, not part of the teaching of the Church through either Scripture or Tradition as explicated by the magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church). In this sense, these folks are not really Catholics at all; they merely haven't the social graces necessary to just *leave*. Even Luther came to the point where he knew whatever he wanted to "reform" couldn't be accomplished with his own continued presence in the Church, and he had the sense ( in a human way of looking at it) to leave.
The large majority of those people you hold up as examples of "sectlets" within the Catholic Church are simply neo-Protestants who do not, or simply will not, own-up to the fact. They are facilitated in this by a Church hierarchy that, for reasons that almost always escape the likes of myself, does not think it expedient to formally excommunicate them. They are, in reality, no more a part of the Catholic Church than you are yourself, though they do not share your own intellectual honesty about the fact!
To the extent that such people do not recognize the God-given authority of the Catholic Church to preach the Gospel authentically as the "pillar and ground of truth," (1 Timothy 3:15), they have cut themselves off from it just as surely as Luther, Calvin or Knox ever did. For orthodox Catholics, they are not our responsibility as "Catholic sectlets"; as Cafeteria Catholics, they are the embodiment of what St. James had in mind in James 2:10. With the current pope, I believe that they will see, in short order, that "the cafeteria is closed!" As will be your argument.
Nothing happens that is outside God's will.
The fact is that the Church is not an individual organization but is the corporate body of believers in Christ be they Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Coptic, whatever.
The idea that there is no salvation outside the organization of the Roman Catholic Church is one of those traditions that is clearly not founded on scripture. The idea that there is no salvation outside of Jesus and that the corporate body of those who are saved is the church is based upon scripture alone.
Are you going to deny that I am a member of the body of Christ? Are you going to deny that people who believe in Christ and attend Lutheran churches are not members of "the church"?
***All Protestant groups (with some minor qualifications) believe that their group has rightly understood the Bible, and though they all disagree as to what the Bible says, they generally do agree on how one is to interpret the Bible — on your own! — apart from Church Tradition.***
Just as I thought. This article has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura, but the Arminian anti-Reformation warping of Sola Scriptura into the doctrine of Solo Scriptura.
When I have time, I may have something to say to straighten out the shoddy scholarship of this article. At least if you are going to shoot arrows at we nasty Calvinists, and I say Calvinist because we are the only true Protestants clinging to the core beliefs and the 5 battle cries of the Reformation (I'm generally lumping those good Lutherans who also cling to their historic faith generally in with the term Calvinist even though they really aren't true Calvinists), then at least have the honesty and integrity to shoot at what we really believe.
Oops! "...some aspects of the Faith..." in paragraph one: "Faith" should be "liturgy."
By the traditional definition, there are very few churches that are still protesting. There are many who will not claim the name Protestant. I am protesting, therefore I am a Protestant.
You make a very good point GC, one that is often overlooked or misunderstood by those in the Orthodox or Catholic camps. What you call Protestant is IMO synonymous with the phrase Reformed. There are other churches and denominations that sprang out of the Reformation era (and since) to be sure, but they did not form out in protest of the excesses of the institutional Catholic Church. Most of the others formed as a protest of the creeds, confessions, and doctrinal distinctives of the Reformed churches.
Following in their footsteps were the Restorationist (Cambellite) movement of the 19th century that sought to reject any prior reforms or formal creeds, returning us to a "first century church" experience, and today we're faced with the Emergent Church phenomenon that also seeks to throw off historic traditions and orthodoxies that might color how the Bible is understood. They are not protesting in favor of a particular doctrine over another - they are apparebtly protesting any institutionalizing of traditions, creeds, and exegesis altogether. It is protest born of the (false) beliefs that all institutional authority must be corrupt, and that the larger/older the institution is, the more corrupt it is. Thus, the Restorationist desire to not form (institutionalise) their congregations into a denomination, to limit ecclesiastical authority to the local church body only, to avoid formulating any binding creeds or statements of faith to be held accountable to. "No Creed but Christ, No Law but Love, No Book but the Bible". To re-write a familiar proverb in Restorationist terms, "you might successfully tie two strands into a cord, but binding three together weakens the whole."
IMO most of those churches that are called "Protestant" aren't deserving of that historic title. If we are to give them that label, IMO it should be altered to indicate their protestations against the Protestant Reformation..
Yet, Christ also clearly grants powers to Peter, saying that he could "bind things in Heaven."
I don't believe it is vanity for Protestants (early Reformers) to say they represent Bible teaching. I trace my information to Augustine-not Luther. I find Luther and Calvin to be consistent with the early western church fathers and believe later leaders strayed from sound doctrine.
Yes "Lucifer" (a name never used in scripture) knows how to twist scripture. He also knows how to add or subtract from it as well. Even Satan's name has become a "tradition of men".
And I asked that you put your unstated beliefs on the table for all to see. What are they disagreeing on? What common ground remains between them?
Is any disagreement, on any issue for any reason, permitted in your view?
You are outside the Church. The Church is built upon the Apostolic preaching, both written (the Bible) and oral (Tradition).
Protestantism is built upon the traditions of men from the 16th century.
This was not a Calvinist/Arminian thread until you showed up. I'd suggest if you want to start that flame war, start it on another thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.