[quote=roadrunner570]Well, I guess it would depend. Right now we all have a lot of freedom and can read the scripture ourselves and determine what lines up with what and so on.
This is just plain factually inaccurate.
If you think that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a good thing you have only to look as far as the myriad schisms that have occurred (and occur daily) to see that that is not the case at all.
At the time of Luther, laypeople could not even read the scriptures. And most people were very oppressed by the Church at the time, like I saw mentioned on another thread, people being coereced and frightened into buying indulgences, etc.
And just why couldn’t the average Joe at that time not read the scriptures?
Bibles had to be hand copied which made them extremely rare and too expensive for them to afford.
They were largely illiterate anyway, since education as we have it today did not exist and few could read in any language, their vernacular or Latin either one.
Factually: Prior to the birth of Martin Luther in 1493 there were 9 editions of the Bible in German and 27 editions in German before Luther published his own in 1520.
Before the first Protestant Bible was printed, more than 600 editions of the Catholic Bible had already been printed in Europe, of which 198 were in the languages of the people.
(Henry G. Graham, Where We Got the Bible, Catholic Answers, 1997)
Luther was not perfect and I don’t agree with all his teachings, but I do agree with a lot of them, especially salvation by faith alone (which I’m not going to debate on this thread lol) And also sola scriptura.
And we’re surprised by any of that?
I mean, if we want to say is it okay to follow Luther’s teachings because of this that or whatever,
The point is that Luther was the founder of the doctrines that you mention and particularly his Sola Fide doctrine is (and still is today) based upon his altered texts of scripture and taken out of the context of the New Testament as a whole. You can proof text Sola Fide til your head explodes and you still won’t be in line with what the NT teaches in it’s own total context.
then one could also ask is it okay to follow Catholic teachings when they allowed people to be toturtured, murdered and burned at the stake regardless of age, or gender, until they agreed with the authority of the Catholic Church. Does that mean that no one at all, ever should follow Catholic teachings?
This final remark is just a great example of the same old anti-Catholic rhetoric that we get all the time. The logic that holds us responsible for all that would also allow us to attack non-Catholic religions for their less than all-out opposition to abortion and artificial birth control, the death toll from which makes the Inquisition and any other such look like a garden party.
Furthermore…you prove that you would just as soon ignore the atrocities that Protestants have perpetrated upon Catholics both in Europe, England and even in this country. (Ever hear of the Ku Klux Klan and the Know Nothings?)
The resounding answer is YES…everyone should follow Catholic teaching since if I was not totally convinced that it was the fullness of Christian truth, then I sure as Vitam Aeternam wouldn’t follow it so I wouldn’t have to constantly field crazy allegations and misinformation that people like you have been led to believe and propound as the truth.
So… to answer the OP’s question:
But for Grace Say a man decides to do the following:
*Remove books from the canon of scripture,
*regulate other books to an unpaginated appendix,
*alter verses by inserting words to support his personal opinion,
*and teaches his opinion of the Gospel based off of this altered canon.
What should he be considered? Are these objective moral evils? Why?
- A heretic
- Yes they are.
- Because these are clearly efforts to teach the traditions of men as if they were the Word of God.