Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I'm baffled by what you're arguing. If you are saying Luther taught that only HE (Luther) was the final arbitor I would have to agree with taxes. I don't believe Luther was saying that at all. If you are saying the conscience of every man is the final arbitor this, as I read taxes remarks, is what he is saying. Would you as a Protestant disagree?
While Luther may have been assertive in many of his views his famous statement before King Charles, ("Unless I am convinced by clear reasoning from the scriptures...") would seem to indicate Luther was opened to changing his mind based upon the word of God-not by what was dictated by Prince, Popes, and Councils. This is one of the sola of the Protestant Reformation. There is something to be said that clear reasoning from the scripture could not be provided to Luther so that he could recant.
I would also hasten to add for our Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends that sola scriptura was nothing new and didn't just pop up with Luther. This what the early church father Iraeneous taught when he stated that if a new believer were to hear heresy being spoken from the pulpit the Holy Spirit would move him to plug his ears and go running from the church. IMHO, this is precisely what Luther did. It is the Holy Spirit that leads us to all truths.
>>What, exactly, do you believe God's purpose was in creating us?<<
To give Him glory.
Please note the churches of Revelation 2-3 (persumably all Catholic Churches). If memory serves me correctly they all except one held some sort of error or failed to deal with a problem. One has to believe the Lord Jesus established those Churches and was quite upset with their teachings and behavior.
BTW-The scripture shows that our Lord Jesus looked at these churches individually-not collectively under some Pope.
Neiher - His choice, His selection of us, is irresistable. I did not "choose" my salvation. It was given to me, and as such it showed me my sin for what it truly is. I was filled with a godly sorrow for my transgression and repented.
My only "choice" after salvation is whether or not to obey. Before salvation, there is no choice, as a dead man can't choose life.
>>Oh, yes He does choose -- to give us blesisngs and to let us accept or reject them<<
Even when the Old Testament saints faltered, they were still commanded to "Go!". I sumbit that they did not choose their position or calling, but only obedience to it.
>>but He helps us if we ask<<
The unregenerate heart is at a natural enmity with God - and cannot pray, worship, or ask properly without the intercession of Christ.
>>And even when they transgressed He offered them a chance to repent<<
Adam and Eve were made perfect, and were the only ones made with true Free Will. In their sin, all fell, and we are now born into sin. We are not born spiritually neutral.
Scripture mandates sound doctrine
Titus 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
There was a lot of unsound doctrine in the RC church back then, wouldn't you say?
Luther set up his own conscience as his standard for Christianity. Whether Luther intended to or not, the end result was that his own personal interpretation of Scripture became his standard. While Calvin and other subsequent reformers cited the ECF as pursuasive authority, Protestantism (largely because of Luther) evolved to the point of Alexander Campbell's argument that all he needed to do was read the Bible with fresh eyes, with absolutely no deference to creeds, councils, or traditions. Alexander Campbell is hardly extreme in Protestantism today - indeed, I would argue that he is mainstream (much to my own dismay). His argument is rooted in the alleged perspecuity of the Scriptures - that the Bible is supposedly completely clear. As a Presbyterian who adheres to the Westminster standards, I do not believe in complete perspecuity, but only that "all things pertaining to salvation" are clear.
Luther, to the extent that he set himself up as his own (perhaps not final, but his own) arbitrator as the meaning of the Scriptures (and, indeed, what the Scriptures were - throwing out James - and almost Revelation - was incomprehensible, and should disqualify him from ever being cited as any sort of authority. His stand against the abuses of indulgences was noble, as even Campion might concede, but his sheer hubris in thinking he had the right to exclude a book from the New Testament set himself up as his own Magisterium.
The verse were this is found is:
No. He leads the Apostles into all truth. A critical exegetical difference. Every Christian ever claimed that the Holy Spirit led them into all truth, even while holding simultaneously divergant viewpoints. Such is not the work of the Spirit. Jn. 14 does not speak directly to Christians per se, but specifically to the Apostles. It is relevant to us only because we believe the message handed down to us from the Apostles.
Do you KNOW God??? God has revealed Himself through His Son Jesus Christ. We know Him through The Holy Spirit and His Word. Jesus is The Word made flesh. When we have seen Him, we have seen the Father. God did not leave us clueless. He left us with an accurate account of all that we need to know about Him in The Bible. When we are His and obey Him he reveals Himself to us. In our spirit we call out to Him as our Father. We are called the children of God. What an intimate knowing relationship this is. It is the rightful quest of life to get to know The LORD better and better. We can have a relationship with Him and yes He does reveal Himself to us. It seems that you do not KNOW Him or really very much about Him except that you think He is unknowable except perhaps esoterically. The Muslims, also, believe that God is unknowable. One of the greatest things about Christianity is that God chooses to reveal Himself to us and desires to have a close, loving, and intimate relationship with us. He is our Father.
Wonderful post, Bell. You started my day on that high note!
If you have never walked in a country with a people who are at least 95% Christian, you can only imagine the difference between life there and here. I have spent time walking in such a country, where monastics are everyday sights on the streets, and where the very air itself is filled with the love of Christ.
Amen, Harley
Also - a blessed Luther Excommunication Day (01.03.1521) to you!
I've never been to Lancaster PA myself, but I did just get back from Utah.
If it were not for Luther you would not have your Westminster Standards. Also the Westminster Standards have been modified since they were originally promulgated, have they not? Under what authority were they modified? Indeed, under what authority were they promulgated?
If the drafters of the Westminster Confession or (Calvin or Luther) were not led by the Holy Spirit, then they had no authority whatsoever to set down any standards. They might as well have just closed their minds and bowed to the Pope.
Even I [gasp] would concede that his stand against the abuses of indulgences (though not against indulgences themselves) was noble. ;-)
And there are plenty of legitimately orthodox Catholics who would agree with me; Peter Kreeft for one. I daresay the Pope would be another.
I don't know about "closing their minds," but now you're getting close to the fundamental problem I have with Protestantism. How do I know that the drafters of the Westminster Confession were led by the Holy Spirit, and the Council Fathers of Trent (or the ancient Fathers of the Church, most of whom have dramatic disagreements with one or more tenets of Protestantism) weren't?
Because I read Westminster and find it more agreeable, or more persuasive, or more in line with how I think I understand Scripture?
All that does is set me up as the ultimate arbiter of truth, and if I'm going to do that, I don't need a Bible, a Savior, or a Westminster Confession. Just me, and the "god" I've created in my own image.
Why would you celebrate a rift in the Body of Christ, in express contradiction to the desire of Jesus himself expressed in the Gospel of John?
I don't know how you get sola scriptura from that.
But Irenaeus also taught that, if you wanted to be sure your doctrine was sound, you should compare it to the doctrine taught in the See of Rome.
I have a lot of fundamental problems with Catholicism, but if I listed them and gave refutation of them, I suspect I would be flamed and banned.
Ultimately we are charged with working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. When you stand before God you will not have the excuse that Pope so-and-so said that what you did or what you believed was ok.
I would disagree that Luther relied solely upon his own personal interpretation of Scripture. Certainly his viewpoints were colored by the teachings from the Church fathers for he brought some of the Catholic teachings (e.g. infant baptism, Mary’s perpetual virginity) from the Roman Catholic Church. It's hard to believe Luther didn’t look back into many of these writings for guidance as well to ensure his interpretations were correct. After all, his eternal soul rested upon his accuracy. (BTW-Luther wasn’t the only one doing this during this time (e.g. Wycliffe, Hus)). The only difference between Luther and the Catholics was that Luther made his anchor the word of God instead of the “overall” Church interpretation.
John Calvin was the person responsible for putting together the Protestant’s theology. This wasn’t pulled out of the sky based solely upon scripture and personal interpretation. There was obviously much work based upon the writings of the church fathers as well as scripture. Calvin quotes liberally from these men. I came to the conclusion that John Calvin was correct not by reading his works but by reading the works of Augustine and many of the early western church fathers.
Heretics and heretical doctrines come in many sizes and shapes. Most of the early Protestant heretics such as Campbell came out of the Protestant Reformed churches just like Pelagius came out of the Roman Catholic Church. To state Luther as the cause for Campbell is as wrong as saying Luther was responsible for Joseph Smith.
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.