thereselittleflower said:
An appeal to the "plain sense of scripture" within Protestantism has resulted in a plethora of divisions within Protestantism with no two groups agreeing on all that is supposedly the "plain sense of scripture" . . .
This is a nonsensical argument to use on a Lutheran. The reason for the divisions within Protestantism is that, as you say, no two groups within Protestantism agree on the 'plain sense of Scripture.'
But these Protestant groups are
not using Scripture to correct traditions within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (as we Evangelical Catholics intended to do). They are using Scripture as a
blueprint to
reconstruct the church from skratch.
So for instance, the Reformed see infants baptized in household baptisms and parallels between baptism and circumcision in the New Testament, whereas Baptists don't see infants being baptized at all, and so they disagree on the blueprint.
Lutherans, on the other hand, while we might agree with the Reformed position (or not at all), see nothing in Scripture to
contradict tradition, and therefore the tradition remains- even if the Scriptures don't say anything about infant baptism whatsoever and we could make no Scriptural argument for it.
Lutheran epistemology is quite different from Protestant epistemology. Please don't lump them in. As someone who as fled from Protestantism and the happy-clappy baptigelical Arminian dispensationalist of my parents and my own youth, I can personally attest to a love for tradition where tradition is
authentically apostolic (as known by its fidelity to the Scriptures).
thereselittleflower said:
GCC, but that's just it . .. it wasn't an appeal to scriptures per se . . . it was an appeal to Luther's personal interpretation of scripture, and when others followed suit and interpreted scripture differently than he, he had fits about it and denounced them.
And once again we come round to the question of personal inspiration vs. church teaching authority.
One again, the simple fact is that church doctrine does not suddenly appear from the papal office or the episcopacy. The papacy and the episcopacy confirm the individual interpretations of scholars and saints at ecumenical councils and declair their personal interpretation valid and true.
So how come Hildebert of Tours' understanding of the Eucharist was given a fair hearing at the Fourth (Great) Lateran Council, where Luther's was not? (admitedly this is a silly argument since this happens several hundred years before Luther was born; but since Luther did not question the real presence of the body and blood in the Eucharist, but only the Aristotelean metaphysic that explained how Christ became present, why couldn't the doctrine be brought up for review?)
So how come Thomas Aquinas' understanding of justification and merit and infused righteousness were givien a fair hearing at the Deit of Worms or the Council of Trent, where Luther was not? Why was not a single Lutheran allowed to represent their own position?
Who was the great heretic, Arius or Martin Luther? And yet Arius' position was given a fair hearing and represented by its own adherents at Nicea, whereas Dr. Luther was silenced.
Tell me, what do these verses mean?
Romand 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Am I misreading something here? Is my personal interpretation so fallible that I can't understand the plain meaning of Scripture??
And of course, lets say you come back with James 2:24. Lets even ignore the fact that verse 18 implies that James is talking about
evidence of justification, not the
establishment of justification. Lets even ignore the fact that verse 25, by mentioning Rahab, implies that James is talking not about justification before God, but justification before the covenant community.
Even still,
show me in Scripture the Catholic concept of infused righteousness. Show me in Scripture the Catholic concept that the presence of faith makes the works of the faithful a credit unto righteousness. Show me in Scripture.
When it comes to initial and countined justification and sanctification by faith alone, by grace alone, without works, the plain meaning of Scripture is
quite plain.