Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[JonNC]

=steve b;12396562] yes

What’s changed? Do protestants today follow the same rallying cry as the 16th century protestants? Sola fide, sola scriptura, etc? Yes. Protestantism

Lutherans first turn to word and sacrament, and the distinction of law and Gospel. Lutherans first turn to scripture, and its right reflection in the creeds of the Church, and our confessions.
As is often pointed out here, there are differing views of sola scriptura, and even sola fide. Few of the more recent vintages bare only slight resemblance to traditional Lutheran understanding.

For clarification, are you saying Lutherans who ordain women priests are not confessional Lutherans?

Yes.

That group came out of Germany during the Protestant revolt. Left the Catholic Church over Church authority particularly papal authority. Gee how novel!

That group came long after the Reformation era. The “Declaration of Utrecht” of 1889 is a response to the declaration of papal infallibility. Even in the broadest of definitions, they are not protestants.

What’s changed, to make the name Protestant not fit any longer? Protestantism

Your link reflects it well.

ORIGIN OF THE NAME.—The Diet of the Holy Roman Empire, assembled at Speyer in April, 1529, resolved that, according to a decree promulgated at the Diet of Worms (1524), communities in which the new religion was so far established that it could not without great trouble be altered should be free to maintain it, but until the meeting of the council they should introduce no further innovations in religion, and should not forbid the Mass, or hinder Catholics from assisting thereat. Against this decree, and especially against the last article, the adherents of the new Evangel, the Elector Frederick of Saxony, the Landgrave of Hesse, the Margrave Albert of Brandenburg, the Dukes of Lüneburg, the Prince of Anhalt, together with the deputies of fourteen of the free and imperial cities, entered a solemn protest as unjust and impious.

Does protestant today mean a “solemn protest” against civil authorities (except when it comes to recent events where good Catholics have joined the “protest”)?

It’s not meant to designate a “communion” as if they are perfectly together. It does designate however division and seperation in all it’s forms from the one True Church

So, Orthodox are protestant?

How so? Lutherans are just one form of

Lutherans believe in - sacraments, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence, confession to a pastor/priest, liturgical worship, confession of the creeds.
BTW, I’m not sure a Catholic cite is the place to look for a definition of what various other groups believe, anymore than a Baptist cite is to understand Catholicism.

How about, they ALL have one thing in common. God didn’t start them.

I can’t speak for others, but:

Article VII: Of the Church.

1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

So, as a member of that One Holy Church, God has only started one Church, of which I m a member.

Since Jesus wants perfect unity in His Church and those brought to faith from His Church, John 16:12-15 , and the Holy spirit doesn’t speak on His own but only what He hears from Jesus, John 17:20-23 , then we can say comfortably, neither Jesus nor the HS is the author of all the confusion and division we see as Protestantism.

What’s confusing, Steve, is after all of this conversation, and others we’ve had, why you would think that the existence of other non-Catholic communions would be confusing for me, anymore than the existence of the Old Catholics is confusing for you. They don’t confuse me at all.
But of course, the Spirit is not the author of division. Humans do that extremely well themselves, whether they be the Roman patriarchate in schism with/from the Orthodox patriarchates, or Lutherans in division from them.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

Augustine answered this in his day.

“.although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).
As I’ve said in previous posts, when a stranger comes into town, and asks direction to the Catholic Church, they will NOT be directed to the Lutherans, or the Baptists, or the Methodists, or Presbyterians, or Evangelical of some sort, etc etc. They will be led to the Catholic Church.

I’m not a heretic, even your communion recognizes that, but if someone asked where the Evangelical Catholics have mass, I would gladly point to my parish. If they simply ask about the Catholic church, I would gladly and with thanksgiving point them to St. John’s in town.

so few ever disputed the books. And the canon NT & OT didn’t change after 382. The OT was the Septuigint. That didn’t change from ~150 B.C.
Look at the Vulgate. That was Jeromes translation. No seperation of the OT books that Luther seperated. Jerome’s bible had all the OT books interspersed with the canon, no seperation.

And I respect it, highly, as you know. Here’s my question, is the desire by some (not you, you’ve been fair) to discredit Luther so great that they would or should throw under the bus the numerous great Catholics who did dispute them?

the canon of scripture, of the CC has been stable from 382 a.d. till today.

Well, unless you count the EO and OO.

I’ve asked this question before of anyone who might have the answer. I really WOULD like to have this answer. Can you quote for me where OO Church, or EO Church, or Orthodox Church, appears in writing? References please. I’ve asked this question in different ways for years on these forums. No answer yet. Maybe you’ve got the answer

Could you rephrase the question?

That as you can see didn’t matter. Did the canon change? No! Jerome’s Vulgate has 73 books in the canon. Jerome’s questions arose over Hebrew texts vs Greek texts of the OT. The Church went with the Septuagint and therefore so did Jerome.

But not all the Septuagint. Correct?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I draw your attention to Ch’s 4& 5
newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm

200 years prior to this I draw your attention to

• Bk 3 [Chapter 2 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103302.htm) vs 2-3
• Bk 3 [Chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) v 1-3

Bk 3 ch 3 v 1-3 identifies exactly who the Catholic Church is, and notice, 12 bishops from Peter are named down to his day, of the Church he’s writing about, just in case someone wasn’t getting the point, the bishops of the Church he’s refering to are named in succession…

And you, as a Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome, probably ought to accept that definition.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

For some reason, I was not startled by the bolded.

I’m not sure I understand what point it is that you are trying to make here. Could you please explain?

Well, I don’t know if they’d be “allowed” to or not, but you probably overlooked the part in this thread where I said I don’t agree with Luther’s assessment of the canon.

I appreciate that you don’t agree with Luther’s assessment of the canon. .

Yes, I agree with his assessment.

Ok. Whose assessment are you agreeing with, Luther’s of the canon, or that of Althaus about Luther’s evaluation of the NT books of the canon? If it is Althaus that you agree with, then do you also agree that Luther evaluated books of the NT on the basis of whether they preach “salvation……though faith alone” as Althaus put it?

I think Steve b and I had a pretty good idea of the "issue at hand, thank you.

I’m not sure what it is that you are saying here. Again, could you please explain?

Yes. This is my understanding of Luther’s view. Perhaps you missed it in the thread where I commented that I differ with Luther on his opinion of the canon.

I understand that but that does not mean that the Althaus quote should not be posted for the edification of the readers of this thread.

It needs to be made clear here that, while strategically buried between and around quotes by Althaus, this is the opinion of Topper17.

Jon, it wasn’t like I misrepresented my opinion as being that of the great Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus. When I quote the various scholars, I cite them properly, as you know well.

Yes. I understand that this was Luther’s approach. It also needs to be pointed out that there are also other measures that Luther used in his assessment of the canon, such as authorship.

The question of authorship is not sufficient to explain either Luther’s antilegomena, or, for that matter, the Lutheran antilegomena, which not coincidently, are identical. If you believe that authorship was a key to determining the antilegomena, then could you explain how the various NT books which were not written by an Apostle were included in the canon?

As we know, Luther didn’t believe that the book of James was written by an Apostle. Of course he was wrong.

**“However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac [2:21]; though in Romans 4:2–22] St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, **before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6]. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works [Jas. 2:23] of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15:6]. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. **This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.” ……
But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. **LW. Vol. 35, pg. 395-7

Here we see Luther making it extremely clear that his objection to James is not so much that it was questioned by some in the early Church, but that it disagreed with his opinion regarding Salvation by Faith Alone.

Further, Luther’s opinion of the Antilegomena reflect disputes about them, all the way back to Eusebius. None of these disputes did violence to Scripture.

Which of the Fathers did Luther concentrate on in his determination of the antilegomena? Which for Lutheranism?

If ‘did violence’ is a term that you won’t agree to, (noting that it is not my term), and knowing that you disagree with Luther’s handling of the canon, then what word or phrase would you prefer to use to use in its place?

Just as Cardinal Cajetan, or Erasmus, or Luther, were permitted their opinion on the canon, so is anyone else. Having an opinion is just that, having an opinion.

It is true that Cajetan and Erasmus, and a few others did question the canonicity of a few books. But then, they didn’t start their own communions. Which is exactly the point.

I don’t share all of Luther’s opinion of the canon, so I’m not going to defend his opinion. What I will defend is his right to hold that opinion, which is well within the range of historic Catholic views through history.

It is a matter of degree and magnitude Jon. Nobody in the 1000 year period prior to Luther was as disrespectful of Scripture as he was. Nobody questioned the authenticity of that many books and nobody made those kinds of statements about whole books of the NT. If you disagree, then please name that person and provide the quotes.

You yourself admit that Luther was wrong about the canon. In fact, his view of the canon was FAR outside of the historic view of the Church of the 1000 years between 500 and 1500.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12396828]

I’m not sure I understand what point it is that you are trying to make here. Could you please explain?

Tim, your disapproval of things Luther is legend here at CAF.
Had you written that what Luther wrote about the canon of scripture was just fine, I would have been startled.

Ok. Whose assessment are you agreeing with, Luther’s of the canon, or that of Althaus about Luther’s evaluation of the NT books of the canon? If it is Althaus that you agree with, then do you also agree that Luther evaluated books of the NT on the basis of whether they preach “salvation……though faith alone” as Althaus put it?

Yes. I agree with Althaus, that Luther’s view of the priority individual books is based, in part, on its focus on Christ.

I’m not sure what it is that you are saying here. Again, could you please explain?

This is pretty straight forward, Tim. Steve and I, it seems, had a pretty good idea already, before you ventured to qualify it.

I understand that but that does not mean that the Althaus quote should not be posted for the edification of the readers of this thread.

Of course.

Jon, it wasn’t like I misrepresented my opinion as being that of the great Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus. When I quote the various scholars, I cite them properly, as you know well.

Of course not, Tim. I just wanted to clarify for the edification of the readers of this thread.

The question of authorship is not sufficient to explain either Luther’s antilegomena, or, for that matter, the Lutheran antilegomena, which not coincidently, are identical. If you believe that authorship was a key to determining the antilegomena, then could you explain how the various NT books which were not written by an Apostle were included in the canon?

If you read the prefaces Luther wrote, particularly of the DC books, authorship is a regular focus.

As we know, Luther didn’t believe that the book of James was written by an Apostle. Of course he was wrong.

Kind of answers your above question. For Luther, authorship was important. It was also a concern he had with Hebrews, even though he was quite impressed with it. Authorship was important to him.

**“However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac [2:21]; though in Romans 4:2–22] St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, **before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6]. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works [Jas. 2:23] of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15:6]. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. **This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.” ……
But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. **LW. Vol. 35, pg. 395-7

Here we see Luther making it extremely clear that his objection to James is not so much that it was questioned by some in the early Church, but that it disagreed with his opinion regarding Salvation by Faith Alone.

He also said of it, “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God."

He also reflects back to the early Church, the ECF’s.

Which of the Fathers did Luther concentrate on in
his determination of the antilegomena? Which for Lutheranism?

One can start with Eusebius.

If ‘did violence’ is a term that you won’t agree to, (noting that it is not my term), and knowing that you disagree with Luther’s handling of the canon, then what word or phrase would you prefer to use to use in its place?

Opinion.

It is true that Cajetan and Erasmus, and a few others did question the canonicity of a few books. But then, they didn’t start their own communions. Which is exactly the point.

No. It is not the point. If Luther’s view of the canon were the only thing Luther differed on, or even if it was the main thing, it could be said to “be the point”.

It is a matter of degree and magnitude Jon. Nobody in the 1000 year period prior to Luther was as disrespectful of Scripture as he was. Nobody questioned the authenticity of that many books and nobody made those kinds of statements about whole books of the NT. If you disagree, then please name that person and provide the quotes.

It is just factually untrue. Check the various canons of some of the ECF’s. Check Eusebius. I

Jon

 

[steve_b]

We do enjoy a good laugh
J:

Lutherans first turn to word and sacrament, and the distinction of law and Gospel. Lutherans first turn to scripture, and its right reflection in the creeds of the Church, and our confessions.

Bare with me, I’ll try to give a cogent explanation.

For starters, where do you disagree on the following?

Historically and theologically speaking,

1. 
   *]The “Word” = Jesus & what He taught that was written down by, collected by, canonized by, the Catholic Church
   *]The sacraments = those that Jesus established and gave to His one and only Catholic Church that only He established on Peter and the apostles, that Peter is to lead, rule, serve, confirm, and strengthen.
   *]Division from His one Church is not allowed. John 17:20-23
   
   divisions from the Catholic Church occured from the beginning, but division from the Catholic Church was also condemned from the beginning. Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 , διχοστασίας dichostasia *= *division / dissension / factions /sedition is the same Greek word used in both Rom 16:17. And Gal 5:19… so we know the consequences for that sin if one dies in it, and there is no expiration date to those warnings or the consequences.
   
   Did divisions from the Catholic Church, end as a result of being condemned in scripture? No. Just look at all The Great Heresies in history.
   
   Thankfully, You and I are able to talk about this subject without the heat :coolinoff:
   J:
   

   As is often pointed out here, there are differing views of sola scriptura, and even sola fide. Few of the more recent vintages bare only slight resemblance to traditional Lutheran understanding.
   s:
   

   For clarification, are you saying Lutherans who ordain women priests are not confessional Lutherans?

   

   Jon:
   

   Yes.

   Could you further clarify
   
   ELCA claims to be confessional yet ordains women as priests and bishops
   
   elca.org/Faith/ELCA-Teaching
   womenoftheelca.org/ . note bishop Eaton on the front page
   
   Are they using the same confession the LCMS uses?
   
   What authority as a LCMS do you object to? Who has the authority to fix anything major?
   J:
   

   Does protestant today mean a “solemn protest” against civil authorities (except when it comes to recent events where good Catholics have joined the “protest”)?

   The web site I referenced shows a series of “ands” not either /or . Therefore "protestant " is covered by a wider understanding
   J:
   

   So, Orthodox are protestant?

   The term didn’t exist at the time of the great schism. But to give a quick answer, those who are united to and remain united to Peter, are in the Catholic Church.
   J:
   

   Lutherans believe in - sacraments, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence, confession to a pastor/priest, liturgical worship, confession of the creeds.
   BTW, I’m not sure a Catholic cite is the place to look for a definition of what various other groups believe, anymore than a Baptist cite is to understand Catholicism.

   I quoted a Catholic cite to show what the CC thinks of other groups definitionally that are not Catholic.
   J:
   

   So, as a member of that One Holy Church, God has only started one Church, of which I m a member.

   Jon
   
   God did not start Lutheranism. Luther did.
   J:
   

   What’s confusing, Steve, is after all of this conversation, and others we’ve had, why you would think that the existence of other non-Catholic communions would be confusing for me, anymore than the existence of the Old Catholics is confusing for you. They don’t confuse me at all.

   I’m making the point about heresy and schism. Protestantism is one of the great heresies and schisms in history. And if one is going to take scripture seriously, one can’t ignore or dismiss that.
   
   From the link above
   
   "Protestantism (16th Century)
   
   Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide (“by faith alone”— the idea that we are justified by faith only).
   The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church “against” the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.
   The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.

 

[steido01]

Jumping in to clear this one before we get sidetracked…

ELCA claims to be confessional yet ordains women as priests and bishops…

Are they using the same confession the LCMS uses?

The ELCA, as a body, is not confessional – if they have any semblance of Lutheran belief at all. But there is a fact that ought not to be dismissed: many faithful Lutherans do reside within that denomination despite --and sometimes to spite-- its leadership. God be with them.

No, they do not use the same confession. We, and other Confessional Lutheran bodies, hold the entirety of the Book of Concord to be the right reflection of Scripture. They hold only the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Small Catechism to be binding, which allows for an incredible range of beliefs and practices. That makes their beliefs and practices at least as motley as the Anglicans. Probably a reason they’re in full fellowship.

If you want to compare Confessional Lutherans, stick to the synods that are confessional in belief (and usually practice): LC-MS, WELS, ELS, ELDoNA, AALC and the other members of the International Lutheran Council and Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference.

 

[steve_b]

I’m not a heretic, even your communion recognizes that, but if someone asked where the Evangelical Catholics have mass, I would gladly point to my parish. If they simply ask about the Catholic church, I would gladly and with thanksgiving point them to St. John’s in town.

As for the definition of heretic, the CCC states 2089
“*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;”

Kinda shows the power of baptism…right?

I don’t think I ever asked you this. Are you a cradle Lutheran? If not, what tradition were you brought up in?
J:

And I respect it, highly, as you know. Here’s my question, is the desire by some (not you, you’ve been fair) to discredit Luther so great that they would or should throw under the bus the numerous great Catholics who did dispute them?

I’m saying this with all due respect. Certainly no heat intended or meant.

1. 
   *]I personally can’t put Luther in the same sentence or same company with great Catholics. I’m sure you know what I’m meaning by that.
   *]I’ve tried to keep my discussion of Luther as clinical as possible, avoiding as best I can anything personal.
   J:
   

   Well, unless you count the EO and OO.
   Could you rephrase the question?

   I didn’t ask the question properly. I left out one important word…“first”
   
   Can you quote for me where OO Church, or EO Church, or Orthodox Church, “first” appears in writing?
   
   It doesn’t deny they appear in writing. The question is, do you know the “first” time they appear in writing?. Don’t stress over it if you can’t find it. Nobody has given me the answer yet. And I’ve asked Orthodox as well.
   
   “Catholic Church” in writing, is easy to find from the first century.
   J:
   

   But not all the Septuagint. Correct?
   
   Jon

   History of the Septuagint Version

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;12398853]

Bare with me, I’ll try to give a cogent explanation.

For starters, where do you disagree on the following?

Historically and theologically speaking,

1. 
   *]The “Word” = Jesus & what He taught that was written down by, collected by, canonized by, the Catholic Church

1. 
   Yes, the undivided Catholic Church.
   

   *]The sacraments = those that Jesus established and gave to His one and only Catholic Church that only He established on Peter and the apostles, that Peter is to lead, rule, serve, confirm, and strengthen.

   I wouldn’t deny St. Peter’s leadership role, though I believe that supremacy overstates that primacy.
   

   *]Division from His one Church is not allowed. John 17:20-23

   Agreed, recognizing His One Church to be more than only and exclusively those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and more than just those of Orthodoxy.
   

   divisions from the Catholic Church occured from the beginning, but division from the Catholic Church was also condemned from the beginning. Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 , διχοστασίας dichostasia = division / dissension / factions /sedition is the same Greek word used in both Rom 16:17. And Gal 5:19… so we know the consequences for that sin if one dies in it, and there is no expiration date to those warnings or the consequences.

   Did divisions from the Catholic Church, end as a result of being condemned in scripture? No. Just look at all The Great Heresies in history.

   I agree with the first (remembering the caveats above). Please elaborate on the second part.
   

   Thankfully, You and I are able to talk about this subject without the heat :coolinoff:

   I think we recognize in each other the desire for greater understanding and unity. In that case, “heat” becomes unnecessary.
   

   Could you further clarify
   
   ELCA claims to be confessional yet ordains women as priests and bishops
   
   elca.org/Faith/ELCA-Teaching
   womenoftheelca.org/ . note bishop Eaton on the front page
   
   Are they using the same confession the LCMS uses?

   Here’s where you can help a simple Lutheran. Is there anytime in the history of the Church, East or West, where ordination of females has been accepted as part of Sacred Tradition, and supported in scripture?
   Assuming your answer will be no, consider this from the Augsburg Confession:
   

   Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that** in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.**

   Now, whatever you think of any other topic, it seems clear that the Lutheran Reformers believed they were in keeping with the early Church, of which female ordination is not a part. I would contend that if:
   1. sola scriptura is the practice of holding doctrine and teaching accountable to the final norm, and
   2. Tradition is held by us as a witness to that truth of scripture, then;
   our siblings in the ELCA are neither in keeping with the teachings of scripture and Tradition, nor are they acting in concert with the confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
   

   What authority as a LCMS do you object to? Who has the authority to fix anything major?

   I admit that, were Rome and the EO to decide on the definition and practice of papal authority, I too would agree to it, since said agreement was the norm of the early Church.
   

   The web site I referenced shows a series of “ands” not either /or . Therefore "protestant " is covered by a wider understanding

   I agree, and that’s why it is a worthless term, and often not used by Lutherans (and many Anglicans for that matter) because our belief in and use of the sacraments dramatically sets us apart from the balance of protestant communions. And btw, there are evangelical Christians who reject the term, a assume because they may not want to be linked to the “magisterial” communions, such as Lutherans.
   If the term has no meaning, even to those it is applied, then it becomes worthless.
   

   The term didn’t exist at the time of the great schism. But to give a quick answer, those who are united to and remain united to Peter, are in the Catholic Church.

   And yet they consider themselves to be of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and probably don’t care much what we western Christians think.
   

   I quoted a Catholic cite to show what the CC thinks of other groups definitionally that are not Catholic.

   Yeah, I know.
   

   God did not start Lutheranism. Luther did.

   Did God start the Byzantine Tradition? Many traditions have sprung up in the Church since Pentecost.
   
   continued

 

[JonNC]

"Protestantism (16th Century)

Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide (“by faith alone”— the idea that we are justified by faith only).

Even here, the definition of sola scriptura is flawed at best, and the definition of sola fide is vague.

The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church “against” the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.

Its rejected by me, too, as a Lutheran. Note Chemnitz’s quote in my signature, which references the same passage.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Yes, the undivided Catholic Church.

Where Peter is there is the Catholic Church
J:

I wouldn’t deny St. Peter’s leadership role, though I believe that supremacy overstates that primacy.

We talked about this before #812
J:

Agreed, recognizing His One Church to be more than only and exclusively those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and more than just those of Orthodoxy.

His ONE Church is the one where Peter is head.
J:

I agree with the first (remembering the caveats above). Please elaborate on the second part.

Re: my question from that post, “Did divisions from the Catholic Church, end as a result of being condemned in scripture? No. Just look at all The Great Heresies in history.”

For the example, I provided the link listing some of the great heresies.

On the bright side, here is an example where reconcilliation took place

Churches that were previously Orthodox reunited to the chair of Peter. The Council of Florence lists agreements with those Churches in sessions 8, 11, and 13 Sessions 5-8 (1439) , Session 11 (1442) , Session 13 (1444) Notice, session 11 also gives the OT canon we’ve been discussing. .

And Melkites reunited later to the chair of Peter. Bp John gives the following response to a question https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j…ited-with-rome .
J:

I think we recognize in each other the desire for greater understanding and unity. In that case, “heat” becomes unnecessary.

Agreed
J:

Here’s where you can help a simple Lutheran. Is there anytime in the history of the Church, East or West, where ordination of females has been accepted as part of Sacred Tradition, and supported in scripture?
Assuming your answer will be no, consider this from the Augsburg Confession:

" Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that** in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.** "

Now, whatever you think of any other topic, it seems clear that the Lutheran Reformers believed they were in keeping with the early Church, of which female ordination is not a part.

Is there something behind rearranging “Church Catholic” vs “Catholic Church” ? Jon, for purposes of looking at this in a different way, as a Catholic, I would observe that, if they ( the authors of the confession) took the words “scripture” and “Catholic Church” and “most diligent care” and “no new ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches” seriously, they wouldn’t have seperated from the Catholic Church in the first place.
J:

I would contend that if:

1. sola scriptura is the practice of holding doctrine and teaching accountable to the final norm, and
2. Tradition is held by us as a witness to that truth of scripture, then;

our siblings in the ELCA are neither in keeping with the teachings of scripture and Tradition, nor are they acting in concert with the confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Again, In the broader sense, as a Catholic I would just ask, how would any ONE who is seperated from the Catholic Church, think they are keeping with the teachings of scripture and Tradition…When seperation from the Catholic Church is already condemned by scripture and Tradition?
J:

I admit that, were Rome and the EO to decide on the definition and practice of papal authority, I too would agree to it, since said agreement was the norm of the early Church.

I would just comment, Peter didn’t get his authority from executive fiat. He didn’t get his authority from any council or private vote among the apostles. He received his authority directly from Jesus. And in extension, because the Church is to always have Peter at the helm, he will have successors to act in persona Petros
J:

I agree, and that’s why it is a worthless term, and often not used by Lutherans (and many Anglicans for that matter) because our belief in and use of the sacraments dramatically sets us apart from the balance of protestant communions.

And btw, there are evangelical Christians who reject the term, a assume because they may not want to be linked to the “magisterial” communions, such as Lutherans.
If the term has no meaning, even to those it is applied, then it becomes worthless.

I would just point out, If one googles father of protestantism, whose name pops up?
J:

Did God start the Byzantine Tradition?

God did not start their division(s).

 

[Topper17]

Hi FKB,

Thanks for your response.

Ahhh, so now we see what is the TRUE “norm that norms all norms”.

Got it.

Or is this subjective “apostolic content” the norm that norms the norm that norms all norms?

Exactly. But the ‘apostolic content’ was determined on the basis of whether or not Salvation by Faith Alone was preached. James was so obviously opposed to SBFA that Luther had no choice but to reject James.

Several noted scholars make the basically the same point, that Luther’s judgment on the canon, and his translation were based on his beliefs about Salvation.

“The [Luther] Bible was unmistakably a Luther Bible. Prefaces and glosses read like an evolving catechism of Luther’s theology. It’s center is the doctrine of “justification by faith alone.” Gritsch, (Lutheran Professor of Church History), “Companion”, pg. 65

In other words, Luther’s prefaces and glosses were meant to reinforce Salvation by Faith Alone.

“It is right here that Luther’s greatest work, the continuously revised and improved translation of the Bible, has its systematic-theological place. ** The translation of course is determined by his theological approach……Accordingly creative, Luther sets out his translation work, leaving behind traditional methods of translating word for word and letter for letter in favor of a gospel-centered translation in the language of his time….****For Luther, everything is at stake, the rediscovery of the gospel and the message of the free and absolute gift of God’s grace.” **Lutheran Professor of Historical Theology Markus Wreidt, “Companion”, pg. 112-3

Of course, to Luther, the ‘gospel’ was Salvation by Faith Alone, which of course was a radical departure from historic Catholic teaching.

“It was particularly within the canon that Luther practiced theological criticism of its individual parts. The standard of this criticism is the same as his principal of interpretation, that is, Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone. (WA 12, 260)”, Paul Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, pg. 82

Here the celebrated Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus making the same basic point as Wreidt and Gritsch. In one sentence Althaus mentions Luther’s ‘criticism’ of the canon, ties it to his ‘principal of interpretation’, and for the trifecta, throws in that Luther’s concept of: “Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone”.

Catholic Scholar and the biographer of the excellent six volume biography on Luther states:

“It was partly the defects of the translation itself, partly the cleverly calculated and thus all the more dangerous marginal glosses, which called forth objections and warnings from Catholic writers as soon as the work was published. Emser complains that Luther “made Scripture to turn everywhere on faith and works, even when neither faith nor works are thought of.” Emser speaks of more than 1400 passages which Luther had rendered in a false and heretical sense, though many of the passages he instances are not of any great importance.” Grisar, pg 518-9, Volume V

Why did Luther hurry to publish his translation of the New Testament? It wasn’t because the German people deserved to read the Scriptures in their native tongue because they had more than two dozen printed translations in German prior to his. So, why the rush to publish something that done in such a rush? The Emser quote provides a plausible answer to this question. He relates that Luther’s translation took every opportunity to portray Scripture as teaching Salvation by Faith Alone, even where it wasn’t the subject of the text. However, in Luther’s mind, ALL Scripture was intended to teach Salvation by Faith Alone and SO……he “found” it everywhere. He wanted everyone else to do so also.

The reason that he judged James to be written by someone who was NOT an Apostle is because he had already decided what an Apostle SHOULD say. Since James denied Luther’s belief, Luther denied James as being written by an Apostle.

FKB, do you know of any quotes from the Fathers which deal with the issue of how the canon is to be understood?

God Bless You FK, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Tim, your disapproval of things Luther is legend here at CAF.
Had you written that what Luther wrote about the canon of scripture was just fine, I would have been startled.

Jon, neither of us believes that Luther was right about the NT canon. In fact, we also both disagree with his ‘early Reformation’ teaching of the right of the individual to interpret Scripture (correctly). We both agree that Luther was wrong on quite a few things. I just happen to have a few more things on my list of disagreements than you do. I don’t think that ANY Christian would be willing to totally defend Luther’s criticism of the canon, and of whole books of the Bible. As such, if I were to write that Luther’s stance on the canon was ‘just fine’, you would be right to be ‘startled’ at least. For the sake of those who might have less than strong hearts, I would not say such a thing. Neither would you for that matter. Furthermore Jon, certainly you don’t agree with my opinions on Luther, but I think you would have to admit that they are well informed.

Yes. I agree with Althaus, that Luther’s view of the priority individual books is based, in part, on its focus on Christ.

Ok that’s great. But the important thing here is Althaus’s comment that Luther evaluated books of the NT on the basis of whether they preach ‘salvation….through faith alone’. Do you agree with that assessment?

Kind of answers your above question. For Luther, authorship was important. It was also a concern he had with Hebrews, even though he was quite impressed with it. Authorship was important to him.

I agree that authorship was a big issue to Luther, but the fact is that he incorrectly identified James as NOT being written by an Apostle. That means that by his own criteria, he misjudged James. It also infers that if Luther had correctly understood the authorship of James, he would have had to take it as being fully authoritative, which would have meant that he would have had to balance James and Paul and come up with an answer as to how they were BOTH written by Apostles and were both authoritative. Instead, by his incorrect judgment about the authorship of James, he allowed himself to dismiss it as being ‘less authoritative’ than the main books of the NT. In addition, this is not even to mention that this idea of ‘authorship’ does not take into account all of those NT books which were never portrayed as having been written by an Apostle. In reality, the ‘defense’ that authorship was a big issue to Luther actually proves my point.

If Luther’s “problem” with James was based on his incorrect understanding of the authoriship of that book, then he should never have placed it on his list of ‘questionable’ books, and by extension, it should NOT be on the modern Lutheran list of the antilegomena.

That being said Jon – do you think that Lutheranism should take James out of the antilegomena and place it in the homolegomena. If you do then do you think it might happen at some point in the future? After all, James being placed in the modern Lutheran antilegomena has FAR more to do with Luther’s incorrect assessement of it’s authorship, and his decision as to it’s canonicity than it does with any judgment of the early Church.

He also said of it, “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God."

I cannot view your statement as being a compelling defense of Luther’s ‘attitude’ towards James when it actually proves that he was opposed to it because it ‘vigorously promulgates the law of God’, meaning that it taught against Salvation by Faith in God. Luther’s biggest problem with James was that it denied SBFA in no uncertain terms. Your quote actually proves (again) that Luther used his ‘doctrinal judgment’ in placing James in a ‘lower position’ than the ‘main books’ of the NT.

He also reflects back to the early Church, the ECF’s. One can start with Eusebius.

Luther might have ‘reflected back’ on the early Church, on the ECF’s, but ONLY in a general unspecified manner, the same way that you seem to be doing. There is not one canon or even the sum or ‘average’ of those various early canon lists which can be summoned to justify Luther’s criticism of those four particular books.

You refer us to Eusebius? Eusebius (c. 325-340) questioned the authenticity of not just James, but also 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. Obviously Luther didn’t take into account only Eusebius. Furthermore, again, you cannot offer a particular Father or even the sum of any group of Fathers and come up with the list of 4 books that Luther questioned, which BTW, became Lutheranism’s modern antilegomena. If you believe otherwise, I would appreciate seeing the specific evidence.

To be continued……

 

[Topper17]

Opinion.

OK, let’s explore that. You seem to suggest that everybody gets to have their opinions about the canon, which of course in Lutheranism is not really closed. Where does that lead? Does it mean that a Lutheran Professor (teaching prospective Lutheran pastors) should be allowed to teach (in Lutheran seminaries) that the antilegomena actually contains 7 books and the homologoumena really consists of only 20? Or maybe the whole of the NT, with both anti and homo really add up to only 24 books in total. Would Lutheranism put up with that much ‘freedom’, that much of what you seem to infer is a rightful ‘opinion’? Again this gets back to the magnitude of Luther’s revolt. After the end of the 4th century there were a few isolated Theologians who questioned this or that book. But nobody took the freedoms that Luther took and nobody wrote such offensive things about whole books of Scripture. It is the magnitude of Luther’s ‘freedoms’ that reveal his ‘orthodoxy’.

If Lutheranism’s placement of those 4 same books (that ML questioned) into the modern Lutheran antilegomena actually has little to do with Luther’s opinions, then there must be a Lutheran rational (outside of Luther’s judgments) on those books as to why those books should not be considered among the ‘main books’ – the homologoumena. IOW, somewhere there must be a record of the reasons for Lutheranism’s judgment of those 4 books, including the specific reasons that each of the 4 were placed in the antilegomena and the other 23 were not. If we are to be convinced that the “Lutheran Fathers” who made this judgment were not simply following Luther’s opinions, then we will need to see their independent arguments. Where is that analysis/judgment/rational?

No. It is not the point. If Luther’s view of the canon were the only thing Luther differed on, or even if it was the main thing, it could be said to “be the point”.

Jon, actually that is one of my many points. The sheer number of issues on which Luther rebelled IS a big part of the overall story. The facts of each individual topic flesh out the whole.

As for the canon:

**“Luther treated Scripture with amazing freedom, with so much freedom indeed that one wonders why he did not disrupt the canon. **Tradition at this point was presumably too strong for him”, Roland Bainton, Studies on the Reformation, pg. 5

Again, Lutheranism would NOT, even without a closed canon, would not put up with a Lutheran Professor who took such ‘amazing freedom’.
**
“But Luther was not the man to be bound by his own rule; few of his followers have ever interpreted, commented on, and criticized the Bible with the freedom habitual to him. ****The books he judged according as they appealed to his own subjective nature, or according to his spiritual needs. He often exercised his reason in determining the respective worth of the several books of the Bible, and in a way which has been confirmed to a surprising degree by subsequent researches. **He denied the Mosaic authorship of part of the Pentateuch; he declared Job to be an allegory; Jonah was so childish that he was almost inclined to laugh at it; the books of Kings were “a thousand paces ahead of Chronicles and more to be believed.” “Ecclesiastes has neither boots nor spurs, but rides in socks, as I did when I was in the cloister." Preserved Smith, “The Life and Letters of Martin Luther”, pg. 268

These comments go directly to the issue of Luther as a Scriptural Expositor.

I’ll go Smith one better. Nobody, since the 6th century, not even among those who bear his name, has EVER been as critical of the canon and whole books of the NT as Luther was. If you disagree, then please provide the name of that person and their quotes.

It is just factually untrue. Check the various canons of some of the ECF’s. Check Eusebius.

OK, let’s review my actual statement and then decide if it is ‘factually untrue’. I said:

It is a matter of degree and magnitude Jon. Nobody in the 1000 year period prior to Luther was as disrespectful of Scripture as he was. Nobody questioned the authenticity of that many books and nobody made those kinds of statements about whole books of the NT. If you disagree, then please name that person and provide the quotes.

You yourself admit that Luther was wrong about the canon. In fact, his view of the canon was FAR outside of the historic view of the Church of the 1000 years between 500 and 1500.

My statement is in the context of the 1000 years prior to Luther (AD 500 to AD 1000), which I stated very clearly. In order for you to claim that that it is ‘factually untrue’ that:

“Nobody questioned the authenticity of that many books and nobody made those kinds of statements about whole books of the NT.”

……you will have to provide evidence. You will have to provide a name from those 1000 years and their quotes which are actually more offensive to Christian ears than what Luther wrote.

Luther’s determination of the ‘questionable books’ appears to be primarily on the basis of his doctrinal disagreements with their teachings, with James being the prime example. As such, his antilegomena was quite individual and also quite abritrary.

As for checking Eusebius – I have - just as I have another 20 or so other early NT canons. Which one would you like to specifically point to now that Eusebius didn’t support Luther? As I said, there is no Father or combination of Fathers which results in Luther’s or Lutheranism’s antilegomena. If you believe otherwise or if you have information about specifically why Lutheranism settled on those particular books (aside from Luther himself), I would be happy to see it.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[guanophore]

I didn’t ask the question properly. I left out one important word…“first”

Can you quote for me where OO Church, or EO Church, or Orthodox Church, “first” appears in writing?

It doesn’t deny they appear in writing. The question is, do you know the “first” time they appear in writing?. Don’t stress over it if you can’t find it. Nobody has given me the answer yet. And I’ve asked Orthodox as well.

“Catholic Church” in writing, is easy to find from the first century.

To be fair, there was no difference until 1054, at which point the EO decided that that Latins had departed from the Catholic faith passed down from the Apostles. They used the term “orthodoxy” to distinguish the faith from the Latin “Catholic”, but the EO consider themselves to be the One, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church, from which Rome has departed.

 

[Tomyris]

To be fair, there was no difference until 1054, at which point the EO decided that that Latins had departed from the Catholic faith passed down from the Apostles. They used the term “orthodoxy” to distinguish the faith from the Latin “Catholic”, but the EO consider themselves to be the One, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church, from which Rome has departed.

It’s not that simple. The cultures and language of east and west were profoundly different, as well as theological emphases and understanding. One Greek, one Latin, one much more into theosis than the other, emphasizing different fathers, schools of thought, etc. Augustine is revered in the west but viewed with suspicion in the east, for example, and Constantine is regarded as possibly Arian in the west but is an Orthodox saint. Language, liturgy, eucharistic elements, understandings differ. They still do.

 

[guanophore]

It’s not that simple. The cultures and language of east and west were profoundly different, as well as theological emphases and understanding. One Greek, one Latin, one much more into theosis than the other, emphasizing different fathers, schools of thought, etc. Augustine is revered in the west but viewed with suspicion in the east, for example, and Constantine is regarded as possibly Arian in the west but is an Orthodox saint. Language, liturgy, eucharistic elements, understandings differ. They still do.

Yes, of course, but he was asking for the first written example of “Orthodox” Christianity vs early mention of Catholic Christianity.

 

[Tomyris]

Yes, of course, but he was asking for the first written example of “Orthodox” Christianity vs early mention of Catholic Christianity.

That’s what I get for reading only the last 2 posts in a thread and then posting.

 

[steve_b]

To be fair, there was no difference until 1054, at which point the EO decided that that Latins had departed from the Catholic faith passed down from the Apostles. They used the term “orthodoxy” to distinguish the faith from the Latin “Catholic”, but the EO consider themselves to be the One, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church, from which Rome has departed.

Who told you that?

#831

 

[guanophore]

Who told you that?

I read it first in a 300 year old polemical book from the Orthodox Church on how the Latins went astray, but since that time I have read many other historical and theological works to help me understand the Schism. There is also a wealth of information in the Eastern Catholic section of CAF.

My point is that, prior to 1054, there was not a great need to distinguish Orthodoxy from Catholicism.