Clarifying sola Scriptura

For those deep thinkers out there.

Moderator: tuttle

Post Reply
User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12643
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by tuttle » Fri May 11, 2018 7:03 am

Del wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 7:07 pm
j1n wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 1:19 pm
Jester wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 1:08 pm
j1n wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 1:03 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 12:13 pm
j1n wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 11:58 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 10:33 am
j1n wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 10:24 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 7:48 am
What altered scripture are you thinking about?
"alone"

the addition of that word could be compared to sending a man into a desert with food and telling him that "you'll be good with just this food and won't need any water". He'd be dead within days.
I'm still not picking up on what you're getting at. Are you saying that Luther added the word 'alone' to some passage of scripture (if so, what?). Orr are you just commenting on the 'Scripture Alone' slogan? And if so, what does that have to do with people believing in an altered Scripture? Just looking for clarification.
Yes...Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, added the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28. In my opinion, this concept of playing fast and loose with the Bible is hardly a foundation to build upon.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I'd hardly call this "fast and loose"
I'm not ok with a man changing the wording of the Bible.
WIKIPEDIA
Luther added the word "alone" (allein in German) to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: "So now we hold, that man is justified without the help of the works of the law, alone through faith"[8] The word "alone" does not appear in the Greek texts,[9] but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb "alone" was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul's intended meaning,[10] and that sola was used in theological tradition before him.

Apologist James Swan lists numerous Catholic sources that also translated Romans 3:28 with the word "alone," or testified to others doing so before Luther.[11] A Bible commentary published in 1864 reports that

“ Catholic translators before the time of Luther had given the same translation. So in the Nuremberg Bible, 1483, "Nur durch den glauben." And the Italian Bibles of Geneva, 1476, and of Venice, 1538, per sola fede. The Fathers also often use the expression, "man is justified by faith alone;" [12] ”
Some modern-day Roman Catholic translators, including the native German-speaking Pope Benedict XVI, have also expressed agreement with Luther's addition of "alone." [13]
I'm not sure how much I trust Wikipedia "facts", but... it is pretty interesting. Almost every RC apologist that I have read and/or listened to seems to point to this addition as a serious blemish on Protestant theology. I have never read/heard one of them agree with it.
It helps is you think of Luther as a Donald Trump type of character.
No...no it doesn't help to think of Luther like Trump.
Del wrote:Catholic apologists point to Luther's translation as an example of his pride.
Catholic apologists point to everything Luther ever did as an example of his pride. It's kind of in their favor to do so.

Please, j1n, by no means am I saying you shouldn't read what Catholics say about Luther, but at least look at him from a protestant perspective, or a neutral perspective. Or don't focus on Luther at all but on the Reformation as a whole. Catholics heap a lot on Luther and his character and act as if the entirety of the Reformation springing solely from one man. Yes, Luther was important, but he wasn't saying anything that hadn't already been said before in the history of the church, nor was/is he the arbiter of Protestant doctrine. I'd almost say that the context surrounding Luther, the environment of that period, was more important to the Reformation (in both positive and negative aspects) than Luther himself.
Del wrote:When he was questioned about his insertion of the word, he said, "Tell them Doctor Luther would have it so." It is his arrogance that still offends us.
I'll point you back to the previous page where I quoted Luther himself and his reasons for his translation.
Del wrote:Meanwhile, it isn't really a problem to translate Paul's statement as "We are justified by faith alone." That is not false.
Uh, thanks for vindicating Luther's interpretation of that Romans passage? Much ado about nothing or something?
"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 36899
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Del » Fri May 11, 2018 9:15 am

tuttle wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 7:03 am
Del wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 7:07 pm

It helps is you think of Luther as a Donald Trump type of character.
No...no it doesn't help to think of Luther like Trump.
It really does help. It invites us to sort Luther's bombast apart from any goodness and truth in Luther's thoughts.
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 7:03 am
Del wrote:Catholic apologists point to Luther's translation as an example of his pride.
Catholic apologists point to everything Luther ever did as an example of his pride. It's kind of in their favor to do so.

Please, j1n, by no means am I saying you shouldn't read what Catholics say about Luther, but at least look at him from a protestant perspective, or a neutral perspective. Or don't focus on Luther at all but on the Reformation as a whole. Catholics heap a lot on Luther and his character and act as if the entirety of the Reformation springing solely from one man. Yes, Luther was important, but he wasn't saying anything that hadn't already been said before in the history of the church, nor was/is he the arbiter of Protestant doctrine. I'd almost say that the context surrounding Luther, the environment of that period, was more important to the Reformation (in both positive and negative aspects) than Luther himself.
We point to the pride in Luther and Calvin because it is so evident in both of them. Luther thought he was the greatest.... he was huge! Calvin insisted that all who disagreed with him were deplorable.

It is not hard to find some writings of Luther on the internet, and Calvin's Institutes.

I just did a quick, random search and stumbled upon this sermon by Luther. A quick scan down the page, and paragraphs 11 & 14 caught my eye. Listening to Luther preach must have sounded a lot like Fred Phelps.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/luther/enemies.htm
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 7:03 am
Del wrote:When he was questioned about his insertion of the word, he said, "Tell them Doctor Luther would have it so." It is his arrogance that still offends us.
I'll point you back to the previous page where I quoted Luther himself and his reasons for his translation.
We are both right. Luther was full of pride, and he was full of excuses.
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 7:03 am
Del wrote:Meanwhile, it isn't really a problem to translate Paul's statement as "We are justified by faith alone." That is not false.
Uh, thanks for vindicating Luther's interpretation of that Romans passage? Much ado about nothing or something?
I am lending some charity toward Luther's translation.

Luther's unauthoritative opinions about Scripture remain a problem -- and would still be a problem, even if he had never dared to insert the word sola or remove books from the Bible.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18863
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by wosbald » Fri May 11, 2018 9:25 am

+JMJ+

Though I've posted this before, it's worth reposting, methinks.

A short (9 pages) and, IMO, exceedingly fair appraisal of Luther from a Catholic POV: The Luther Question




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12643
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by tuttle » Fri May 11, 2018 10:04 am

Del wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 9:15 am
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 7:03 am
Del wrote:Catholic apologists point to Luther's translation as an example of his pride.
Catholic apologists point to everything Luther ever did as an example of his pride. It's kind of in their favor to do so.

Please, j1n, by no means am I saying you shouldn't read what Catholics say about Luther, but at least look at him from a protestant perspective, or a neutral perspective. Or don't focus on Luther at all but on the Reformation as a whole. Catholics heap a lot on Luther and his character and act as if the entirety of the Reformation springing solely from one man. Yes, Luther was important, but he wasn't saying anything that hadn't already been said before in the history of the church, nor was/is he the arbiter of Protestant doctrine. I'd almost say that the context surrounding Luther, the environment of that period, was more important to the Reformation (in both positive and negative aspects) than Luther himself.
We point to the pride in Luther and Calvin because it is so evident in both of them. Luther thought he was the greatest.... he was huge! Calvin insisted that all who disagreed with him were deplorable.

It is not hard to find some writings of Luther on the internet, and Calvin's Institutes.

I just did a quick, random search and stumbled upon this sermon by Luther. A quick scan down the page, and paragraphs 11 & 14 caught my eye. Listening to Luther preach must have sounded a lot like Fred Phelps.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/luther/enemies.htm
Ok, I see what you're saying about Trump (I guess...to a small degree). Luther could be rough around the edges and doesn't beat around the bush. I'll grant you that.

But I'd challenge the fact that calling out corrupt church officials, even with mean names, isn't about pride. There's a ton of biblical precedent, from Elijah to John the Baptist and Jesus himself.

As to the link you provided, specifically paragraph 14, I'm kind of surprised you used it as an example of Luther's pride:
Martin Luther wrote: 14. I myself, and others with me, were dominated by such feelings when, under popery, we claimed to be holy and pious; we must confess the fact. If thirty years ago, when I was a devout, holy monk, holding mass every day and having no thought but that I was in the road leading directly to heaven--if then anyone had accused me--had preached to me the things of this text and pronounced our righteousness--which accorded not strictly with the Law of God, but conformed to human doctrine and was manifestly idolatrous--pronounced it without efficacy and said I was an enemy to the cross of Christ, serving my own sensual appetites, I would immediately have at least helped to find stones for putting to death such a Stephen, or to gather wood for the burning of this worst of heretics.
I'm not hearing pride, but humility. He's saying that he was formerly without hope and actually placing himself in the very position of his contemporary enemies! He's saying that left on his own, trusting his own merit, he would not have been outraged if someone like his later self (or the apostle Paul) told him he was an enemy of the cross of Christ. He's not saying here anything Paul himself didn't say about his self. That he was once lost, blind, and thinking he was working for God when he was really an enemy of God until the grace of God made him a new creation.
"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12643
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by tuttle » Fri May 11, 2018 10:05 am

wosbald wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 9:25 am
+JMJ+

Though I've posted this before, it's worth reposting, methinks.

A short (9 pages) and, IMO, exceedingly fair appraisal of Luther from a Catholic POV: The Luther Question
darn...blocked here at work. I'll try to read it sometime at home.
"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18863
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by wosbald » Fri May 11, 2018 10:28 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:05 am
wosbald wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 9:25 am
Though I've posted this before, it's worth reposting, methinks.

A short (9 pages) and, IMO, exceedingly fair appraisal of Luther from a Catholic POV: The Luther Question
darn...blocked here at work. I'll try to read it sometime at home.
You can read it on Wayback if you'd like.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 36899
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Del » Fri May 11, 2018 11:37 am

tuttle wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:04 am
But I'd challenge the fact that calling out corrupt church officials, even with mean names, isn't about pride. There's a ton of biblical precedent, from Elijah to John the Baptist and Jesus himself.
If Luther had named some officials and pointed to their corruption, we could agree. Catholicism admits that there was a problem with corruption -- and since the Reformation did nothing to fix, we had to set about our own, internal reform.

The Council of Trent had two problems to solve -- the errors and heresies and schisms of the Reformers, and the original money scandals that set them up.

Here is Luther, failing to be humble or specific, but painting his opponents with the broadest possible brush for the sole purpose of making himself look good.

He could have delivered his sermon without mentioning Catholics at all... He says so himself. But he just couldn't help himself. With a personality like Donald Trump, he makes even his good works look oafish.
THE SERMONS OF MARTIN LUTHER, VOL. VIII, PAGE 348
11. Of the sensual papistical dolts at Rome, cardinals, bishops, priests and the like, it is not necessary to speak here. Their works are manifest. All honorable secular authorities must confess they are simply abandoned knaves, living shameless lives of open scandal, avarice, arrogance, unchastity, vanity, robbery and wickedness of every kind. Not only are they guilty of such living, but shamelessly endeavor to defend their conduct. They must, then, be regarded enemies of Christ and of all honesty and virtue. Hence every respectable man is justly antagonistic toward them. But, as before said, Paul is not here referring to this class, but to eminent, godly individuals, whose lives are beyond reproach. These very ones, when Christians are encountered, are hostile and heinous enough to be able to forget all their own faults in the sight of God, and to magnify to huge beams the motes we Christians have. In fact, they must style the Gospel heresy and satanic doctrine for the purpose of exalting their own holiness and zeal for God.
Seriously? Like there wasn't a holy and honest Christian man to be found among any of the bishops, priests, or even his fellow monks in the monastery? He didn't know of a single Catholic man worth loving or admiring as an example of Christian virtue? "Every respectable man" knows that they are all deplorable?

No one should follow a guy who really believes like that. That's hate-speech.

When we read a guy like Luther -- and if we are trying to be charitable -- then it is good to consider him as a Trump. Just set his arrogance and bombast off to the side as showmanship, and look at his policies and ideas. Are some of his ideas still worth considering, apart from his actions?
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 33997
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by UncleBob » Fri May 11, 2018 12:13 pm

Enough about Trump. Please see the Rules of Use: app.php/rules
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
OldWorldSwine
rootle round the ear 'ole
rootle round the ear 'ole
Posts: 9525
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by OldWorldSwine » Fri May 11, 2018 1:17 pm

Are we getting to the clarifying part soon?
"There's what's right and there's what's right and never the twain shall meet."

Post Reply