What Luther Got Wrong on Friendship with God | Catholic Perspective on Protestant Reformation 

But are Lutherans also nutty?😎😇💒

@@owlnyc666 they seem pretty normal. Maybe in Europe, but in America protestants are so far removed from the reformation, it's silly that it's not one church

@@southpawhammer8644 I think it is because America is separated from Europe that there is not one church. There are thousands of different Christian churches. I watched this video today. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ce4G7DJkoBI.html.

He was not a nut. His biblical convictions were mostly true. The church was surely corrupt and sloppy.

@@TesterBoy I would agree that the church was and still is corrupt and sloppy. I also think the same applies to the Lutheran Church. His anti-semitic "The Jew And Their Lies:" were also "Biblical".

James P i

Every Sola Scriptura adherent should ask: Where is the Book of Concord in the Bible? ".I ask that men make no reference to my name and call themselves not Lutherans, but Christians. What is Luther? My doctrine, I am sure, is not mine (John 7:16)" Luther, "A Sincere Admonition" , in Works 3:176 To be Protestant means sincerely believing his own views are the word of God since he/she sincerely believes he/ she is "The person with the Spirit" that makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments". Why does 1 Tim. 3:15 not teach The Bible as the pillar and ground of truth? "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

So you follow a tradition rooted in a man you reject?

Chaddonal, surely some Catholic practice resists someone's fallible understanding of Scripture. Remember, when yany one says that this or that Catholic teaching is contrary to a particular passage of Scripture, what they are actually saying is that this or that Catholic teaching is contrary to their fallible understanding of that particular passage of Scripture. Sola Scriptura is a nice slogan but it contradicts Scripture ( i.e.2 Thess 2:15) and in practice means SOLA (my opinion and eisegesis about) Scripture plus my biases, plus my assumptions, plus my pride...Protestants believe that the Bible is their sole rule of faith, yet they submit to the authority of the Catholic Church that told them what was in their Bible. Pharisees who didn't believe Jesus rejected the deuterocanonicals which are in the Septugint version . Please, research where we got the written New Testament. We don't have the original writings, we have to trust the Church even for that. Many people state the Catholic Church manipulated the Scriptures. To trust the Bible faith alone in the Catholic Church is right. It is hard to defend the Protestant solas. There is a passage that has Protestant faith alone, but it rejects that (James 2:24) . Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, the core doctrines of the Protestant "Reformation" should be found everywhere in the Bible but nobody has found them anywhere , so far. God bless you

@@Alfredo8059 I am hearing you respectfully asserting a few things. 1. That fallible Bible interpreters will misinterpret RC theology. The clear implication is that where we cannot see biblical support, we (Non-RCC) are in error. But the specific questions I asked and specific scriptures I mentioned (which are among the primary Scriptures on the relevant topics) simply do not assert nor even provide the scaffolding for what is central to catholicism. At some point an honest RC has to conclude: it is true, the Scriptures simply do not teach nor affirm central RC tenets. This acknowledgment would be better than the deflection you offered. It is not a matter of my (or anyone's) faulty interpretations when Scriptural support is simply not available. One cannot interpret from silence. 2. So, you moved the goalposts to offer a better answer: RC theology is not actually based on teachings from the scriptural writings, but is rather presumed to be taken from the 2nd source of authority -- apostolic tradition, with your support verse given from 2 Thess. 2:18. I will admit this is plausible. The RCC position seems to be that there are 2 storehouses of authority: Scripture (written revelation) and Tradition (spoken or enacted practice). How does Scripture itself attest to the priority of the 2 categories? For example, how many times does Jesus offer a corrective to the Pharisees by answering, "It is written"? Or, "But I say..." to affirm the interpretive meaning of what has been written? By contract, are there any times where Jesus will appeal to inherited practice that overrules or corrects what has been officially written by biblical prophets? It seems clear that whenever there is a conflict between what God officially ordained in Scripture and how people have variantly practiced and developed their own traditions (elsewhere called "traditions of men" -- which are deviations) that written Scripture is given priority. Every time. 3. That the Scriptures protestants trust were authorized by the RCC, which seemingly affirms the Church's authority as the foundation of the Scriptures. This is specious. In short, the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures comes from the OT prophets who spoke (as Peter describes) as the Lord carried them, and (as Paul affirms) as the outbreathing (outspiration) of God, and we're deemed canonical prior to the arrival of Jesus. And the New Testament writers wrote similar revelatory letters under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with Apostolic authority. Meaning: the authority was given by God and inherent in the writings themselves. Matthew's gospel was "the Word of God" when penned in the 60s, as Galatians was apostolic truth around 50 AD when originally composed by Paul. Neither received new or additional authority at Nicea. These had been shaping Christian faith and thought for over 250 years prior to Nicea.

The irony is that the Reformation did not denounce any of the three principles you raised. Faith alone? Yes. Scripture alone? Yes, etc But not apart from the sacramental life of the Church. For Luther in particular, a theology of baptism saving us by placing us _into Christ_ was the driving core of the Reformation.

@@vngelicath1580 , " I for my part am certain that the words I speak are not mine, but Christ's. Then my mouth also must be his whose words it speaks" Martin Luther. Works3:174. you say: "But not apart from the sacramental life of the Church". The irony is that Luther rejected 5 of the 7 sacraments, including confirmation, Reconciliation, Anointing on the Sick, Matrimony, and Holy Orders, he rejected 7 books from the Bible, etc...he started a system based heavely on his opinions regarding the correct interpretation of Scripture. Yet, there are absolutely no examples in Scripture of private interpretation of Scripture being used or even recommended, as the proper way to determine and practice. The basic problem is one of authority. If Christians have a sincere disagreement. Who decides? Whose interpretation of Scripture? Martin Luther could not have stated more clearly the practical implication of Sola Scriptura when he wrote: "In these matters of faith, to be sure, each Christian is for himself pope and Church. There are million of different individuals that preach and teach different beliefs about Scriptura. Usually if one disagrees they just go and start their own "biblical" church. That is Luther's "Reformation". Do Luther and "Sola Scriptura" adherents have to obey Hebrews 13:7, 1 Tim. 3:15, etc? No, they can pick and choose what verses to obey literally and what verses to explain away so the Bible always, always agrees their "infallible, inspired " opinion . Scripture is never alone, unless quoted literally.The pride of Sola Scriptura, if it is even possible, is in its rejection of those who have taught us: our parents, our preachers, the saints, the councils, the Fathers, and through this, even the Apostles, those who learned everything directly from the mouth of Christ himself; in favor of a vain autobiography of self-interpretation. A self portrait painted with the colors of the Gospel so it appears to be the Gospel. That is Luther's Sola Scriptura, his opinion alone. That pride is surely very popular so Luther has got millions of followers. Blessings

@@vngelicath1580 True enough... with Luther. Reformations start somewhere -- with most pressing issues. Once salvation by faith is re-established and the Scriptures are re-established as the basis for authority -- well, then they begin to be studied differently. What else do they teach, model and assert that is at variance with practices which have been incorporated as tradition? The radical reformers (including anabaptists) continued far beyond Luther, and the Calvinists pursued the Regulative Principle. We have direct biblical warrant for the primary purposes of our gatherings: for biblical teaching, for singing to the Lord, for equipping and serving one another, and for participation in the Lord's Supper. Paul overtly calls Timothy to "preach the word" and calls other teachers to teach sound doctrine. He never calls budding pastors or priests to view their primary calling as administrating the sacraments. That is a post-biblical innovation.

@po18guy who would have uttered the very word "God" first?

Who ?

Just like Nicodemus didn’t know what Jesus was actually talking about most Protestants also take it out of context, like they do most of Sacred Scripture!

" We received everything from the Catholic Church" Martin Luther

@po18guy what a joke and arrogant comment.

Luther did basically nothing in strengthening the development of Christian faith or doctrine in the end. The Church reforming itself would have come anyway, and there were those calling for its reform before Luther. The filioque is simply explaining God in two different instances, the greeks explain God as the Father and first principle, so the Son and Spirit originate from Him, the Father. The latins explain how that came about in time, and so the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father as well as the Son since they were both responsible. Protestant theology is fragments of ideas, they do not fit together seamlessly, which is why it has not developed in hardly 500 years and they are still stuck in the first chapters of Romans. It is about translating the message of Jesus into a slogan, into one solitary verse which may be shared as easily as possible.

@@jlouis4407 Thanks for the reply. I think those kinds of quick dismissals are exactly what was wrong in the Catholic West and still is. If in fact reformism existed before Luther, and it did, though never in the same degree, it tended to fail, as a subsequent dolt of a pope could undo a lot. There was never a global Catholicism, the same in all places, with the pope at the top. That's a myth. The real history is much messier. The Orthodox didn't really split away from some Rome-centric beginning. There's zero evidence for that, though Rome does play a role even in the time of Acts. However, it's clear that Jerusalem is still the center of high command, Peter and James being there. So the Catholic narrative needs tightening up. As for the Filioque, it's more technical than that. There is no problem saying the Holy Spirit "comes" from the Father and the Son (after his ascension) as that is exactly what happens on Pentecost. There IS a problem saying the Spirit "proceeds" (extends from at ALL times) from the Son as well, because the Son, being man is not entirely spirit as "God" is said to be (John 4:24). I could have this wrong, but they call this doctrine "procession." Given the "consubstantiality" of all three members of the Trinity, again Catholic doctrine, nothing is amiss. I can't say what Orthodoxy believes, though I bet it's more nuanced and open. The Wikipedia article states that the words "Filioque" were added quite a while after the origination of the Creed, so you can see why this was seen by the East as a betrayal of received incontrovertible dogma. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque I think your final reference is to something like John 3:16. To say that Protestantism has often reduced the Christian faith to propositional statements is valid, but it's a methodology learned from Catholic history, even early church history--plenty of "anathematizing." Sloganeering is probably an American 20th century innovation a la Billy Sunday and the later televangelists. I would myself characterize the Reformed obsession with the new birth (regeneration) as the reason they remain babies in the faith. "The end of a matter is greater than its beginning." I hope that you have found the things I say intriguing. I respect your point of view. It would be wrong to adhere to anything in faith and not fight for it. We look to the unification of one holy faith sometime, hopefully soon.

@@carlosreira2189 , you say: "There was never a global Catholicism, the same in all places, with the pope at the top. That's a myth. The real history is much messier.". All Christians were in communion with the Church of Rome. All Christians were in communion with Peter. The basic problem is one of authority. If Christians had a sincere disagreement they had Councils and everyone was in communion with Rome. Saint Ignatius of Antioch (2nd century) wrote: "Church at Rome presides in love". Eastern Christians recognized the bishop of Rome as Peter, before the chism.

@@Alfredo8059 !Hermano Alfredo, gracias y bendiciones! A couple of points: 1. The practice of elevating the Bishop of Rome to some degree, and calling him "first among equals" is very ancient, but not first century, at least, we have no evidence for that 2. That Peter was crucified in Rome is not attested by scripture. It is again, an ancient tradition. 3. That Peter was married is attested by scripture (as a side note I mention that). 4. Global Christianity is almost impossible to quantify, even early on. There were Christians in the outskirts of the Empire, almost certainly, as well as the big urban centers, where Jews abounded and theological schools were long established. It is upon this pre-existing Jewish framework that the Church is built, by and large. Again, from what we know. 5. The Ecumenical councils are again early and ancient, but there is no evidence of them being truly ecumenical, that is, having bishops sent from all locales. They were as a rule commendably so, but some not so much. The councils therefore are evidence of both agreement and disagreement happening at the same time, with many "anathemas" having to be issued to combat what is coming into focus as heresy. 6. We see disagreement even in the book of Acts. We see Paul operating solo for long periods of time, sometimes with a sidekick, and then "going up" to Jerusalem to report in to the elders there and defend his unique ministry. James seems to rank first in Jerusalem, with no talk of Peter being in Rome or having anything to do with Rome. 7. Paul does not mention Peter in his epistle to the Romans. If Peter had jurisdiction there at that time, to not greet him in the salutation betokens an unthinkable situation. 8. I admit it is possible for Peter to go to Rome, establish the church there, preside, rise to precedence over all other bishops, and be crucified, according to tradition, as well as the words of the Lord--"when you are old, you will be taken where you do not want to go..." But, in my opinion, it's the exact sort of narrative which a church desiring hegemony would relate, and therefore has mythic elements, if not totally fabricated. Finally, we have the East-West schism which is showing tears even at the time of Augustine and Jerome, and finally ripping apart much later. The "Filioque" which Augustine supported, and which was added to the ancient Creed, is a great slap in the face to the Orthodox, who held a higher view of "procession" than that of the West. And in my opinion they are technically correct: 1. The Father may be said to be "spirit" 2. The Holy Spirit is incontrovertibly spirit 3. But the Son is both man and God and is said to be "flesh and bone" and not "spirit." 4. Therefore the Spirit cannot proceed eternally from the Father AND the Son, but from the Father alone. 5. We must affirm the preincarnate Word which is "made flesh" in space-time and "dwelt among us" 6. Christ rose bodily and will return bodily 7. There are other problems with the Western equation of these three terms: "substance," "essence" and "nature" which I don't think capture the more nuanced Greek view. Again, I blame Augustine, who was not very astute in Greek and doesn't seem to have cared much about what they thought, and had thought for a long time. 8. We ought to note that the Catholic Church today affirms "consubstantiality" between the Father and the Son, but does not specifically say the same regarding the Spirit in the Creed, though it is official doctrine. And they somewhat disingenuously use the untranslated Greek "hypostasis" when speaking of the nature(s) of Christ. 9. I would argue that much more work needs to be done in both theology and unity among all Christians, amen?

@@carlosreira2189 , un saludo hermano (¿Separado?) Carlos, gracias a ti. It is quite interesting to read different opinions. You say: "That Peter was crucified in Rome is not attested by scripture..." The canon of Scripture is not attested by Scripture either. Was the canon of Scripture determined before the Church councils decided it? There is evidence that the canon or official list of Scripture was only compiled by a visible , authoritative, hierarchical Catholic Church in communion with Rome toward the end of the fourth century, at Hippo in 393, Cartague in 397, whence it was sent to Rome for confirmation in 419. Everything in the Church is tradition (paradosis). The tradition of "Sola Scriptura" contradicts Scripture ( 2 Thess 2:15), but every Sola Scriptura adherent believes he/she is always in line with the truth (Scripture or whatever ). Each individual person becomes the ultimate arbiter of what Scriptures mean. You say: "That Peter was married is attested by scripture " , Whether St. Peter’s wife was alive at the time of Jesus’ ministry is an open question. What many have found strange is that Peter’s wife is not described as being by her dying mother’s side, and the tradition that Peter was a widower derives from this anomaly. Jesus extolled celibacy in service of the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:10-12), as did St. Paul. And like Jesus, Paul lived what he preached, opting for a God-ordained mystical marriage with the Church as an apostle/bishop (1 Cor. 7:7-8; 25-39; see Eph. 5:21-33). You say: "the Son is both man and God and is said to be "flesh and bone" and not "spirit." 4. Therefore the Spirit cannot proceed eternally from the Father AND the Son, but from the Father alone.". Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants , all believe Jesus is the incarnate Son of God or the Word, the pre-incarnate Word is an eternal person. That is Trinity. Filioque, according to Catholics in Romans 8:9, “the Spirit of God [the Father]” is then referred to as “the Spirit of Christ” in the same verse! to say there can hardly be a doubt, biblically speaking, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Indeed, theb Catholic Church argue, the Bible is very plain: “Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the lamb” (Rev. 22:1). In fact, there are some among Orthodox leaders today who acknowledge the essential agreement between Catholics and the Orthodox. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware is one of these. He has actually changed his mind on the matter: "Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Speech to a Symposium on the Trinity: Rose Hill College, Aiken, South Carolina, May, 1995). I would say the Orthodox are right when they insist the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as first principle of the divine life of the Trinity, and the Catholic Church has always agreed. They are wrong if they, along with the originators of the schism, create the novelty of ek tou monou tou Patrou (Greek, “from the Father alone”) in that “rigid” sense contrary to the ancient theological understanding of both the Creed and our trinitarian theology in both the East and West. I agree that much more work needs to be done in both theology and unity among all Christians. It is impossible for men, it will be a miracle since every individual holds fast to his/her opinions. The basic problem is one of authority. If Christians have a sincere disagreement, who decides? Whose interpretation of Scripture, whose assumptios are right? Martin Luther thought his "biblical" opinions would be "the truth", but so many followed his example : ""There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."- Martin Luther. Blessings

Deformation: neither sola fide nor sola scriptura are biblical teachings. Sola Fide means "my belief alone" , Sola Scriptura means "my sola (private interpretation of ) Scriptura"

he is wrong and it is obvious as Jesus said by their fruits you know them, so much destruction and loss of faith how anyone still talking about this judas

Luther gave the inspiration for every rebel to believe his sola opinion to be the word of God.

Theres a great catholic book called the Bible teaches otherwise. You should read it sometime. Also God clearly doesn’t agree with you since those things are all part of the church that Jesus established. Unless you’d like to explain why Christ’s promise that “the gates of hell will not prevail against you” is a lie.

No work can ever bring you closer to God?

Only Protestant ones

Never speak against the Papacy which Jesus ordained! For than you are speaking against His order!