Reformers violated Scriptures

While they always regard Scriptures as their sole rule of faith, they, whether aware or not, violated the holy Scriptures by subtracting the other holy books from the original canon of the Bible.

Not only that, with the subtraction of the other books, they also started interpreting Scriptures by themselves and became their own “popes” and “magisterium.”

Pio

Very true, the best book ever on the topic is by St. Francis de Sales, called “The Catholic Controversy” put out by Tan Books. I recommend it to everyone.

I would HIGHLY recommend the book Not by Scripture Alone, by Robert Sungenius…great book! Also he writes another one called Not by Faith Alone…

“While they always regard Scriptures as their sole rule of faith…” hlgomez

Who are the they?

None of the Protties and non-align I know ever said Scriptures is the only rule of faith.

Just one example, Timothy G. Enloe indicated:
Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith;
Scripture is not the only rule of faith.

Prima is similar:
Scripture is first and foremost a rule of faith,
all other rules follow.

Roland
AmbassadorMan

One good book is “The Facts about Luther.” I’ve read it, more than once.

As far as the belief “Sola Scriptura,” it isn’t always put in those exact terms. But the catholic church believes that Sacred Traditions is as important, since they help interpret the Scriptures. But protestants reject all Tradition as being “traditions of man.”

“While they always regard Scriptures as their sole rule of faith…” hlgomez

Who are the they?

None of the Protties and non-align I know ever said Scriptures is the only rule of faith.

Just one example, Timothy G. Enloe indicated:
Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith;
Scripture is not the only rule of faith.

Prima is similar:
Scripture is first and foremost a rule of faith,
all other rules follow.

Roland
AmbassadorMan

Well, I have talked to many Protestants who reject a lot of things simply because its not mentioned in the bible…i point out that history they are often willing to deny history flat out in order to defend their doctrines

"Well, I have talked to many Protestants who reject a lot of things simply because its not mentioned in the bible.
I point out that history they are often willing to deny history flat out in order to defend their doctrines"
hlgomez

Ok, I totally agree with your first sentence as quoted above.
Thankfully, I do not reject things simply because it’s apparently or seemingly not in the Bible. You and I are alike here. :slight_smile:

I’m brain-drained tonight, so I don’t follow the 2nd sentence.
Can you give me an example or two of your 2nd sentence as quoted above?

Thanks for your patience!

Roland
AmbassadorMan

This is really quite incorrect. I wish you wouldn’t make unsubstantiated claims. The fact of the matter is that the truth typically lies in between the two extremes. You cannot just read Frances de Sales and believe every word he says to be the truth, just like you can’t read Luther and Calvin and believe every word they say.

Whether you like to admit it or not, most reformers did have at least some legitimate reasons for doing what they did. The church has commited many serious grievances over the years, and like any person or institution, they paid the price for it. I don’t think you’re naive enough to tell me that Luther simply wanted to “replace” the Pope and the Magesterium. If that was his goal, he certainly went about it the wrong way and did a terrible job. If memory serves me correctly, I’ve never read an Encyclical or Papal Bull by Luther.

I understand that it’s easy to go on a anti-protestant tirade on a forum where you know everyone is going to believe you, but next time think of the consequences of you blantantly ignorant remarks.

The thing is, Luther rejected the authority of the Pope. Mainly because he refused the correction he received for teaching heresy. Yes, the church had problems at the time. The church has always had problems because it is peopled by we sinful mortals. And, yes, he wanted to be his own pope. He wanted to be the one to decide what scripture meant. He taught that each of us can interpret scriptures for ourselves. Which goes against scripture.

1 Peter 1:20 says, “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation.” Protestants say that we CAN interpret for ourselves through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. But the apostles also had the Holy Spirit. Yet, here is Peter saying that it isn’t up to us.

Luther also taught that we are saved by faith alone. Again, this goes against scripture. Romans 3:28 says, “For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Luther interpreted this as say, "For we consider that a person is justified by faith ALONE. He had to add the word “alone” to have this verse say what he wanted it to say.

He also removed seven books full books out of the Old Testament. As well as parts of two others. He wanted to remove some from the New Testament as well. But was talked out of it. One of these was the book of James. In the second chapter of James, it clearly states that we are NOT saved by faith alone. This is why Luther wanted to remove it. He later called it “an epistle of straw.”

I have already mentioned an excellent book covering all of this. Luther wasn’t after reformation. Only rebellion. If he WAS after reformation, he went about it the wrong way. But the fact that he rebelled before being excommunicated should speak for itself. Maybe he had some good points. But I think his errors overrode any good he might have done.

[quote=Christy Beth]One good book is “The Facts about Luther.” I’ve read it, more than once.
[/quote]

Hi Christy,

That book is probably the worst book on Luther in print today. I did some research on it here:

ntrmin.org/The%20Roman%20Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Martin%20Luther%201.htm

Lest you think my research not worthy to be read, Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong valued this paper enough to link it off his website: ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ387.HTM (scroll down to external links).

Used as a strong dose of anti-Protestant prejudice, Roman Catholic laymen frequently refer to The Facts About Luther. This may be the single worst treatment of Luther in print today. Father O’Hare presents an entire chapter on “Luther and the Bible” in which he viciously attacks Luther’s treatment of the canon. O’Hare’s analysis reads like a continuing round of shot gun blasts:

“[Luther’s] was a most lamentable state whilst confined at the Wartburg. No wonder he produced a Bible full of malicious translations. A victim of fleshly lust and one in constant contact with Satan could hardly be expected to treat the undefiled Word of God with reverence. What reliance can be placed on a translation of the Bible made under such unfavorable circumstances?”

“[Luther] translated the Bible- or what pretended to be the Bible. His mutilation of the Holy Book, and the amputation of several of its members make little or no difference to his admirers.”

“[Luther] sacrificed accuracy and mistranslated the Bible with deliberate purport and intention, in order to fit to his false theories and to make it serve to buttress his heresies.”

“To call Luther’s version, which is a monstrous forgery, the Word of God is nothing less than criminal and blasphemous.”

These are but a few examples of the abject hatred expressed by Father O’Hare.

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm

[quote=Christy Beth]He also removed seven books full books out of the Old Testament. As well as parts of two others. He wanted to remove some from the New Testament as well. But was talked out of it. One of these was the book of James. In the second chapter of James, it clearly states that we are NOT saved by faith alone. This is why Luther wanted to remove it. He later called it “an epistle of straw.”
[/quote]

A few mistakes here.

1.It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books.

2.Luther wasn’t talked out of anything (Provide your reference on this).

3.As to the “epistle of straw” comment, Luther said it earlier rather than later. Rarely is Luther accurately quoted on this. Luther says James “is really an epistle of straw” compared to “St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle.” Luther wants his readers to see a comparison.

An interesting fact about this quote (hardly ever mentioned by Luther-detractors!) is that it only appears in the original 1522 Preface To The New Testament. John Warwick Montgomery points out: “Few people realize — and liberal Luther interpreters do not particularly advertise the fact — that in all the editions of Luther’s Bible translation after 1522 the—Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end, of his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an “Epistle of straw.” Montgomery finds that Luther showed a “considerable reduction in negative tone in the revised Prefaces to the biblical books later in the Reformer’s career.” For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.

Regards, James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm

Whether you like to admit it or not, most reformers did have at least some legitimate reasons for doing what they did. The church has commited many serious grievances over the years, and like any person or institution, they paid the price for it.

I agree with what you said–that the reformers did have legitimate greivances–like the abuses of priests–but not all were legitimate. It was the people who needed reform, not the Church doctrines. Luther chose to do the reform in the Church, not the members of the Church. But since he cannot do it (for no man can build on another’s foundation!) he chose to separate–which was his blatant mistake.

History will show us if Luther was right. Tell us, is anyone (Protestants) in our generation ever agree Luther’s teachings 100%? Are they any “original” followers of Luther today? Luther even have the devotion to Mary–which I doubt, present in Protestants today.

Pio

[quote=hlgomez]I Luther even have the devotion to Mary–which I doubt, present in Protestants today.Pio
[/quote]

Hi,

Not really. Luther’s Mariology deteriorated quite rapidly. Luther knew that prayers to, and faith in the saints violated the First Commandment. In his understanding, the role of faith or trust in the First Commandment determines whether one worships the true God, or an idol. Luther said,

No one can deny that by such saint worship we have now come to the point where we have actually made utter idols of the Mother of God and the saints, and that because of the service we have rendered and the works we have performed in their honor we have sought comfort more with them than with Christ Himself. Thereby faith in Christ has been destroyed.

See my paper’s here:

ntrmin.org/Luthers%20Theology%20of%20Mary.htm

ntrmin.org/Respone%20to%20Armstrong%20on%20Luther%20and%20Mary.htm

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.