N
- Status
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Nicea,
Thanks for your response.
“The Protestant temperament finds nothing more painful than knowing that it has believed in vain.” Steven Ozment, “The Birth of a Revolution”, pg. 6
We should notice that Ozment did not make the same comment about the Catholic temperament. It would seem that the reason for the difference lies in the completely different manner in which Protestants and Catholics come to their doctrinal beliefs. Catholics trust that Christ established the Church and sends the Holy Spirit to preclude that Church from teaching improperly on matters of faith and morals.
As evidence of this, the Catholic Church and ALL Protestant churches taught that artificial birth control was a sin – until about 1920. Now, virtually none of the Protestant communions have maintained that position. The Church ALONE (Solo Romo) has actually had the guts to keep from caving on what turned out to be a whole lot more important an issue than it appeared be in 1920.
Protestants on the other hand, whether they be ‘totally PI’ or claim to be “completely Confessional”, still, to one degree or another, believe that they are led individually by the Holy Spirit to correct doctrinal beliefs. That belief is like a drug addiction. It appeals to the ego to such a degree that the ego will battle to keep doubts at bay. To doubt is to risk losing that ‘specialness’ that goes with being led by the Holy Spirit to correctly understand the doctrinal teachings of the Bible.
What the Catholic believes is not tied up in the ego; in fact just the opposite. When I ‘swam’ I had to sort through all of the various doctrinal issues, the Scripture and Fathers etc., but the part that was by far the hardest, was battling the ego which did not want to admit that I was not ‘special’ enough to ‘know’ better than everybody else. I will say though that once I did get to the other side and finally got ‘dried off’, the sense of joy is hard to describe.
Nicea, are you aware of anywhere in the literature, or in the Fathers which discusses this aspect of the ego, (or arrogance), as it applies to those who have defied the Authority of the Church?
God Bless You Nicea, Topper
Thanks for your response.
But is there a psychological basis for that denial? Ozment makes the following comment:
“The Protestant temperament finds nothing more painful than knowing that it has believed in vain.” Steven Ozment, “The Birth of a Revolution”, pg. 6
We should notice that Ozment did not make the same comment about the Catholic temperament. It would seem that the reason for the difference lies in the completely different manner in which Protestants and Catholics come to their doctrinal beliefs. Catholics trust that Christ established the Church and sends the Holy Spirit to preclude that Church from teaching improperly on matters of faith and morals.
As evidence of this, the Catholic Church and ALL Protestant churches taught that artificial birth control was a sin – until about 1920. Now, virtually none of the Protestant communions have maintained that position. The Church ALONE (Solo Romo) has actually had the guts to keep from caving on what turned out to be a whole lot more important an issue than it appeared be in 1920.
Protestants on the other hand, whether they be ‘totally PI’ or claim to be “completely Confessional”, still, to one degree or another, believe that they are led individually by the Holy Spirit to correct doctrinal beliefs. That belief is like a drug addiction. It appeals to the ego to such a degree that the ego will battle to keep doubts at bay. To doubt is to risk losing that ‘specialness’ that goes with being led by the Holy Spirit to correctly understand the doctrinal teachings of the Bible.
What the Catholic believes is not tied up in the ego; in fact just the opposite. When I ‘swam’ I had to sort through all of the various doctrinal issues, the Scripture and Fathers etc., but the part that was by far the hardest, was battling the ego which did not want to admit that I was not ‘special’ enough to ‘know’ better than everybody else. I will say though that once I did get to the other side and finally got ‘dried off’, the sense of joy is hard to describe.
Nicea, are you aware of anywhere in the literature, or in the Fathers which discusses this aspect of the ego, (or arrogance), as it applies to those who have defied the Authority of the Church?
God Bless You Nicea, Topper
M
marywarfield
Guest
You make some good points here especially
concerning the unique calling many Protestants
feel to fix the Church. It’s an addiction. One almost feels like
sending these little Miss Fixits a copy of
Beattie’s book “Co-dependent No More”. Lol
N
Nicea325
Guest
Aaahhh…I do believe several ECF’s make reference to particular groups or individuals. I believe Augustine was one who usually made reference to those of the Donatist and Arian movements and his old disciples who followed the Manichaeans.
Unfortunately, I cannot remember the other ECF’s names at the top of my head.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mary,
Thanks for your response.
It just keeps going on and on and on. If you want to have someone object to a post, simply post a number of doctrinally independent denominations. Of course people will object because there are so many that nobody has a clue how many there really are. But we do know that, according to Protestant estimates over the years, that number (whatever it is) has doubled about every generation (about every 27 years). How much more can Protestantism take before it cannot survive?
Every successive generation seems to feel the need to ‘fix’ the doctrines of the previous generation, and as we have seen, these teachings RARELY are more ‘orthodox’ than the beliefs that they are replacing. As (the Great) Anglican Theologian Alister McGrath puts it:
“It is the essence of Protestantism to reexamine and renew itself, responding to the environment, on the one hand, and its own reading of the Bible, on the other. Protestantism has undergone massive change in the twentieth century – change that would have been unpredicted and unanticipated in the closing years of the nineteenth century. Protestantism is uncontrollable. As with Islam, there is no centralized power, no institutionalized authority to regulate or limit its development. Protestantism is increasingly open to political radicalization, with unforeseeable implications. ……So what is the future of Protestantism? Those who base their answer on the fortunes in Western Europe, its original heartlands, many offer a somewhat negative answer.” “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, pg. 477-8
The ‘reformation’ (of doctrine) began with one man’s revolt against the teachings of the Church, with him claiming of course that his interpretations were superior to that of all that came before him. How much easier has it been for those who followed to rebel, especially when they were rebelling against doctrinal teachings that were only a few decades old rather than 1500 years old?
How are we to look at the trend of Protestantism and see it heading in a positive direction?
God Bless You Mary, Topper
Thanks for your response.
I think you are right on. We all need to be a part of the effort to ‘fix the Church’. But the problem came when the ‘reformers’ decided that they needed to ‘reform’ or ‘fix’ the Doctrinal teachings of the Church. And then there were the ‘reformers of the reformers’ and then the reformers of the reformers of the reformers’ and then there were the…………………………
It just keeps going on and on and on. If you want to have someone object to a post, simply post a number of doctrinally independent denominations. Of course people will object because there are so many that nobody has a clue how many there really are. But we do know that, according to Protestant estimates over the years, that number (whatever it is) has doubled about every generation (about every 27 years). How much more can Protestantism take before it cannot survive?
Every successive generation seems to feel the need to ‘fix’ the doctrines of the previous generation, and as we have seen, these teachings RARELY are more ‘orthodox’ than the beliefs that they are replacing. As (the Great) Anglican Theologian Alister McGrath puts it:
“It is the essence of Protestantism to reexamine and renew itself, responding to the environment, on the one hand, and its own reading of the Bible, on the other. Protestantism has undergone massive change in the twentieth century – change that would have been unpredicted and unanticipated in the closing years of the nineteenth century. Protestantism is uncontrollable. As with Islam, there is no centralized power, no institutionalized authority to regulate or limit its development. Protestantism is increasingly open to political radicalization, with unforeseeable implications. ……So what is the future of Protestantism? Those who base their answer on the fortunes in Western Europe, its original heartlands, many offer a somewhat negative answer.” “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, pg. 477-8
The ‘reformation’ (of doctrine) began with one man’s revolt against the teachings of the Church, with him claiming of course that his interpretations were superior to that of all that came before him. How much easier has it been for those who followed to rebel, especially when they were rebelling against doctrinal teachings that were only a few decades old rather than 1500 years old?
How are we to look at the trend of Protestantism and see it heading in a positive direction?
God Bless You Mary, Topper
Hi Syro,
Because he doesn’t claim simply an authority and supremacy over the western Church. He claims one over the whole Church.
Jon
I actually think this evolving nature of civilization is what will continue to thrust us together. One can see it happening in a number of ways, not the least of which being the joint response against the HHS Mandate here in America, by the UCSSB and the LCMS, and others.
What needs to happen, ISTM, is an understanding of how this works, and that first needs to become apparent, more than likely, between Rome and the Orthodox.
Jon
T
Topper17
Guest
Part 2: Luther/SS+PI/Protestant Doctrinal Dissension Connections
“Luther was indeed one of ‘the Reformers,’ whose proposals triggered lasting schism in the Western Church. Whether he would have pressed his convictions in quite the same way had he been able to look further into the future, we cannot know.” Lutheran Professor Robert W. Jenson, in “Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, pg. 272
Wow! That’s quite an admission from a Lutheran Scholar. It seems to be far more than can be admitted here.
“In 1521 Luther had not been willing to recant before the emperor in Worms without factual refutation, but now his tone was even more strident, leaving no opportunity for a counterargument: “This is what the Scriptures teach…and so do I. Here I can yield to no one.” He goes on even more pointedly: “Whoever teaches otherwise denies Christ and faith.” So whoever contradicts the Reformer here rejects him totally. How inconceivably bold it was of Luther to venture such an assured, conclusive judgment on a problem the Greek philosophers and scholastic theologians before him – and many others after him – had tried in vain to solve. Who has ever succeeded in overcoming the basic conflict between God’s omnipotence and man’s freedom without opening an even greater abyss? Luther’s answer is short but not immediately clear: the testimony of the Holy Scriptures is his legitimation.
For us in the twentieth century, his answer cannot be convincing, because application of the Reformation principal of sola scriptura, the Scriptures alone, has not brought the certainty he (Luther) anticipated. It has in fact been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretation that seems to render absurd any dependence on the clarity of the Scriptures. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries post-Reformation Protestantism tried out many variants of “fundamentalism” to counter the trend, often declaring the letter of the Scriptures sacrosanct. But even desperate rescue missions cannot breath new life into a motto that was once so persuasive: as God truly became incarnate in Jesus, so His spirit became inerrant truth in the Holy Scriptures.” (Reformed biographer of Luther) Heiko Oberman, “Luther, Man between God and the Devil”, pg. 220-1
As Oberman points out, ‘the Reformation principal of sola scriptura……has been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretations. In addition, Oberman (Reformed) declares, on the evidence of the ‘multiplicity’, dependence on the clarity of Scripture – ‘absurd’. Strong words but very much in keeping with the facts as presented by the doctrinal dissension within Protestantism.
Interestingly, in this quote from one of Luther’s best biographers, we find a ‘Trifecta’ connecting Luther to SS and SS to what a ‘multiplicity of interpretations’, in consecutive sentences no less.
“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles………For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner…….Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.” Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 32 (c. A.D. 200), in ANF, III:258
Where there is diversity of doctrine, and a lack of Apostolic Succession, there is heresy. I would add, that the less Truth has been taken from the “Mother Church”, the greater the diversity, and as we have seen, the greater the diversity, the faster the overall slide away from even the most fundamental Christian beliefs.
“Luther was indeed one of ‘the Reformers,’ whose proposals triggered lasting schism in the Western Church. Whether he would have pressed his convictions in quite the same way had he been able to look further into the future, we cannot know.” Lutheran Professor Robert W. Jenson, in “Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, pg. 272
Wow! That’s quite an admission from a Lutheran Scholar. It seems to be far more than can be admitted here.
“In 1521 Luther had not been willing to recant before the emperor in Worms without factual refutation, but now his tone was even more strident, leaving no opportunity for a counterargument: “This is what the Scriptures teach…and so do I. Here I can yield to no one.” He goes on even more pointedly: “Whoever teaches otherwise denies Christ and faith.” So whoever contradicts the Reformer here rejects him totally. How inconceivably bold it was of Luther to venture such an assured, conclusive judgment on a problem the Greek philosophers and scholastic theologians before him – and many others after him – had tried in vain to solve. Who has ever succeeded in overcoming the basic conflict between God’s omnipotence and man’s freedom without opening an even greater abyss? Luther’s answer is short but not immediately clear: the testimony of the Holy Scriptures is his legitimation.
For us in the twentieth century, his answer cannot be convincing, because application of the Reformation principal of sola scriptura, the Scriptures alone, has not brought the certainty he (Luther) anticipated. It has in fact been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretation that seems to render absurd any dependence on the clarity of the Scriptures. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries post-Reformation Protestantism tried out many variants of “fundamentalism” to counter the trend, often declaring the letter of the Scriptures sacrosanct. But even desperate rescue missions cannot breath new life into a motto that was once so persuasive: as God truly became incarnate in Jesus, so His spirit became inerrant truth in the Holy Scriptures.” (Reformed biographer of Luther) Heiko Oberman, “Luther, Man between God and the Devil”, pg. 220-1
As Oberman points out, ‘the Reformation principal of sola scriptura……has been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretations. In addition, Oberman (Reformed) declares, on the evidence of the ‘multiplicity’, dependence on the clarity of Scripture – ‘absurd’. Strong words but very much in keeping with the facts as presented by the doctrinal dissension within Protestantism.
Interestingly, in this quote from one of Luther’s best biographers, we find a ‘Trifecta’ connecting Luther to SS and SS to what a ‘multiplicity of interpretations’, in consecutive sentences no less.
“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles………For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner…….Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.” Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 32 (c. A.D. 200), in ANF, III:258
Where there is diversity of doctrine, and a lack of Apostolic Succession, there is heresy. I would add, that the less Truth has been taken from the “Mother Church”, the greater the diversity, and as we have seen, the greater the diversity, the faster the overall slide away from even the most fundamental Christian beliefs.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Topper: I agree but want to add that there are also those religious cults that have so distorted Scripture in order to control their flock that its a real crime. There are also those who think that whatever they think or interpret is always the correct one and everyone else’s are incorrect and not Christian. There ISTM that new churches are starting up everyday preaching some new doctrine and those who seem to or appear to fall into the gullible stage believing whatever is said to them, Sad to say that is a major problem which seems that the majority of Protestants are not able to do anything about. ISTM that everyone has an interpretation of Scripture in which they say the Holy Spirit led them to believe but the truth it is only their own private interpretations and real lake of understanding all the while picking and choosing whatever verse comes closest to their way of thinking. So go figure why SS does not work in reality.
M
marywarfield
Guest
Well for example of how this works: a few miles from me there
is a little building that WAS a Community Bible Church that
appeared to be merely a conglomeration of various Fundamentalist
Bible only types. No clear mission except spreading the Gospel
according to whoever stood up to read that week.
It closed down a couple years later and was eventually
re-opened by some OSAS group. That lasted less than
six months. Then some local ranchers re-opened it with
pretty Southern Baptist ideas. Had no minister so one
rancher was elected as pastor. He is of the bent that the
only worthwhile religious movement in the history of the
country were the original Puritans. Pretty soon all the
women were sporting skirts to the ankles, snoods,
not speaking at all. Apparently from his last sermon I heard
it is his belief that Puritans were the most holy and favored
by God because of their work ethic.
He also denies that the Puritans were intolerant of other
religions. He wants his “congregation” to follow the
early Puritans in lifestyle and prayer.
They are also extreme creationists except for their
views on genetic breeding in their cattle. Apparently
Darwin is useful when it comes to increasing milk
yields in larger udders on smaller cows.
All three of these groups have come in and gone out
in under five years. ALL were Bible only and ALL were
anti Catholic as a focus as well.
Some people just change or start up new Protestant
type religions like others change underwear. I just
can’t imagine living like that- God as chameleon.
It’s crazy but that is freedom of religion in this country.
Anyone can rent a building put a sign out front and
begin spouting their own peculiar view of Scripture.
Doesn’t even have to be literate or a high school
graduate or even mentally healthy.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi marywarfield: You are quite correct in what you said in your post, and I agree with you. What I just do not get is the fact that so many of these Protestant denomonations are so anti-Catholic and so intolerant of others who are not of their particular belief system. They seem to come up with all sorts of interpretations as to why they justify their intolerance of others . They say it is in the bible so there! The sad think is that they ar5e so able to get others to believe as they do and those who go for it do not stop to think if it is true or something true to believe. So many ISTM can be so unchristian bit all the while claim to be Christian in their beliefs. They are quick ISTM to condemn others but ask forgiveness for whatever it was they themselves did they say is sin. Their preaching’s get so distorted its a wonder that it can be believed. But in the end people will believe what is false and claim it true and believe that what is true to be false. Its just human nature and also lack of common sense being gullible ,but then again all one can do is pray for them that one day they will see the light of catholic teachings and know it is true.
J
joe371
Guest
Regarding things like Scripture, ECF’s, denominational Confessions or equivalent authoritative documents of Anglicanism, Presbyterianism - who is guided by God to correctly interpret these things, that comprise a powerful safety net?
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Spina,
Thanks for your response.
When Luther Revolted against the Catholic Church, the Church of course countered him, essentially battling him claiming that he did not have the authority to teach differently than what the Church had always taught. In opposing Luther, the Church was doing what it had been doing for 1500 years.
Protestants today, for the most part, are thankful for the efforts of the Church to oppose all of those pre-16th century heresies (well – most of them at least). But when it comes to the Church’s opposition to the 16th century doctrinal revolt, well – that’s a different matter altogether.
Now when a splinter group wants to break off from a Protestant communion, what is that communion supposed to say? Can they say with any legitimacy that the splinter group has no authority to ‘doctrinally revolt’ and create their own denomination? Of course not, because that is EXACTLY how they themselves were created.
I think this is why when we ask about Luther’s authority to doctrinally revolt against the Church, Protestants in general don’t seem to ‘get’ the question. After all, can’t anybody who wants to go out and start their own denomination and teach whatever they happen to ‘discover’ in the Scriptures? Isn’t that what the Protestant Reformation was all about? Wasn’t it all about religious freedom? Didn’t the Reformers declare for everyone the right to believe and teach as they choose?
The net result of all this madness is that Protestantism is maintaining it’s almost 30% share of Christianity, but that 30% is becoming even more and more fractured every decade. In addition, that 30% share is becoming more and more infected by secular values. How could it be any different?
God Bless You Spina, Topper
Thanks for your response.
I think you hit it on the nose.
When Luther Revolted against the Catholic Church, the Church of course countered him, essentially battling him claiming that he did not have the authority to teach differently than what the Church had always taught. In opposing Luther, the Church was doing what it had been doing for 1500 years.
Protestants today, for the most part, are thankful for the efforts of the Church to oppose all of those pre-16th century heresies (well – most of them at least). But when it comes to the Church’s opposition to the 16th century doctrinal revolt, well – that’s a different matter altogether.
Now when a splinter group wants to break off from a Protestant communion, what is that communion supposed to say? Can they say with any legitimacy that the splinter group has no authority to ‘doctrinally revolt’ and create their own denomination? Of course not, because that is EXACTLY how they themselves were created.
I think this is why when we ask about Luther’s authority to doctrinally revolt against the Church, Protestants in general don’t seem to ‘get’ the question. After all, can’t anybody who wants to go out and start their own denomination and teach whatever they happen to ‘discover’ in the Scriptures? Isn’t that what the Protestant Reformation was all about? Wasn’t it all about religious freedom? Didn’t the Reformers declare for everyone the right to believe and teach as they choose?
The net result of all this madness is that Protestantism is maintaining it’s almost 30% share of Christianity, but that 30% is becoming even more and more fractured every decade. In addition, that 30% share is becoming more and more infected by secular values. How could it be any different?
God Bless You Spina, Topper
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Topper: Agreed!!! There is something else that happens and that is someone decided that they are called to preach so they go to a theology school where people from several denominations are schooled in theology and when they graduate they go back to their own denominations or start a new church. it is my understanding in looking into it that its one size fits all leaving them to decide how they want to use it in their preaching. of course there are the mail order get you lic. to be a minster for a fee, so anyone can be a minster and start their own church. So it really means that SS is the way to go as my private interpretation because I studied the Bible means that I have the Holy Spirit therefore I know and everyone else does not. Then there are those who prey on others to get monies and they dress and live and drive the very best there is. I wonder if Jesus were to return if He would need to wear a rolex watch and drive a rolls and dress in suits that cost more then most people earn in a year. sad, sad, sad, state of affairs. peace Spina
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mary,
Too funny! LOL.
It seems to me that these little non-denominational churches are like starting up a restaurant. Restaurants fail at about a 50% rate, but I would bet that these little churches don’t have close to a 50% success rate.
In a restaurant if you want to succeed, you get yourself a good chef and you market your product correctly so that you can compete in the market effectively. The key is the primary product – the food. Of course the atmosphere and the service are important but without good food, you are doomed.
In the ‘church business’ you are competing for bottoms in the pews and dollars in the collection plate. You are competing with all of those other denominational ‘brands’. The key (at least from what I have observed of this ‘business’) is the Preacher. If you have a ‘good one’ your church is likely to grow. If not - not so much. Just like the competition for chefs, there is a competition for ‘good Preachers’. If they do well, they ‘progress’ to the bigger church down the street. It’s a business, and there are entrepreneurs in the church business just like there are in the restaurant business. There are a ton of people out there who feel ‘called’ to be restaurateurs, and there are a ton of people out there who feel ‘called’ to be Preachers. They believe that they would be really good Preachers, and they know that they would really like to be Preachers of God’s Word (or at least their version of The Word).
Does God ‘authorize’ their Preaching?
Where in the Scriptures do we find the competitive aspect to Christianity? Where in the Fathers do we see this idea that there can be different churches in a given area that are competing for members? Where in the Fathers (or Scripture) do we see the idea that you can have four sets of conflicting doctrines being taught on four corners of the same intersection, and that the individual Christian gets to choose which church best agrees with them?
God Bless You Mary, Topper
Too funny! LOL.
We live out in the country and there is only one little run down strip mall within a couple of miles. A few years ago, it was a little arts and crafts store, which failed. A non-denominational church moved into this 1500 or so square feet. My wife and I poked our heads in there one day and the only evidence that it was a church was that they had built a stage. A stage like in a theater, except for the fact that it wasn’t very high because of the 8’ ceilings. They had rented a few dozen folding chairs and that was the extent of it. There would be a half a dozen cars there for the first 6 months and then even fewer, until – surprise – it was gone, and NOT to take over a bigger space somewhere. That church failed.
It seems to me that these little non-denominational churches are like starting up a restaurant. Restaurants fail at about a 50% rate, but I would bet that these little churches don’t have close to a 50% success rate.
In a restaurant if you want to succeed, you get yourself a good chef and you market your product correctly so that you can compete in the market effectively. The key is the primary product – the food. Of course the atmosphere and the service are important but without good food, you are doomed.
In the ‘church business’ you are competing for bottoms in the pews and dollars in the collection plate. You are competing with all of those other denominational ‘brands’. The key (at least from what I have observed of this ‘business’) is the Preacher. If you have a ‘good one’ your church is likely to grow. If not - not so much. Just like the competition for chefs, there is a competition for ‘good Preachers’. If they do well, they ‘progress’ to the bigger church down the street. It’s a business, and there are entrepreneurs in the church business just like there are in the restaurant business. There are a ton of people out there who feel ‘called’ to be restaurateurs, and there are a ton of people out there who feel ‘called’ to be Preachers. They believe that they would be really good Preachers, and they know that they would really like to be Preachers of God’s Word (or at least their version of The Word).
Does God ‘authorize’ their Preaching?
Where in the Scriptures do we find the competitive aspect to Christianity? Where in the Fathers do we see this idea that there can be different churches in a given area that are competing for members? Where in the Fathers (or Scripture) do we see the idea that you can have four sets of conflicting doctrines being taught on four corners of the same intersection, and that the individual Christian gets to choose which church best agrees with them?
God Bless You Mary, Topper
J
joe371
Guest
Well stated.
I think Martin Luther would be horrified to see the state of Christianity today, as a result of what he started, of course with a legitimate complaint about the sale of indulgences, which was officially denounced by the CC:“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 judgement; 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
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Joe,
Thanks for your comments.
“For living people today, the Protestant Reformation is three different stories, and each has an ending that would have saddened Martin Luther. ** If is, first of all, the story of the division of Western Christendom and the loss, probably forevermore, of its religious unity……**The second story the Protestant Reformation has to tell is the awakening of German nationalism and the shaping of German culture and character as we know them today. A long intellectual tradition, hostile to the Germans, traces everything that kept Germany backward and impeded its development as a modern nation to its “Protestantism.”….Ozment, “Protestants, the Birth of a Revolution”, pg. x
As pointed out in the quote you posted, Luther was not at all happy with the results of his ‘reformation’ during his lifetime, and as Ozment comments, if he only knew what the results of it have turned out to be, he would have been ‘saddened’. BTW, here we have yet another Scholar connecting Luther to the division of Christianity.
The reference to German nationalism is in regards to Luther’s connection to the ‘problems’ of 20th century Germany.
Joe, have you noticed that we don’t have any Lutheran Apologists who can seem to make this connection? Why do you think that is?
Ozment goes on to discuss the results of the Reformation:
"Ecumenically minded modern Protestants discover in the Reformation confessional differences so fixed and inflexible that they must either ignore the facts of history or abandon the dream of a united Christendom. ** It is worse still for Jews who find themselves face to face with (Luther’s) anti-Judaic sentiments so predicative that they seem to set Germany irrevocably on the path to the Holocaust**." Ozment, Birth, pg 3-4
God Bless You Joe, Topper
Thanks for your comments.
An excellent and appropriate Luther quote BTW. What is amusing though is that Luther was complaining about the results of something that he himself caused.Well stated.
“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 judgement; 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
“For living people today, the Protestant Reformation is three different stories, and each has an ending that would have saddened Martin Luther. ** If is, first of all, the story of the division of Western Christendom and the loss, probably forevermore, of its religious unity……**The second story the Protestant Reformation has to tell is the awakening of German nationalism and the shaping of German culture and character as we know them today. A long intellectual tradition, hostile to the Germans, traces everything that kept Germany backward and impeded its development as a modern nation to its “Protestantism.”….Ozment, “Protestants, the Birth of a Revolution”, pg. x
As pointed out in the quote you posted, Luther was not at all happy with the results of his ‘reformation’ during his lifetime, and as Ozment comments, if he only knew what the results of it have turned out to be, he would have been ‘saddened’. BTW, here we have yet another Scholar connecting Luther to the division of Christianity.
The reference to German nationalism is in regards to Luther’s connection to the ‘problems’ of 20th century Germany.
Joe, have you noticed that we don’t have any Lutheran Apologists who can seem to make this connection? Why do you think that is?
Ozment goes on to discuss the results of the Reformation:
"Ecumenically minded modern Protestants discover in the Reformation confessional differences so fixed and inflexible that they must either ignore the facts of history or abandon the dream of a united Christendom. ** It is worse still for Jews who find themselves face to face with (Luther’s) anti-Judaic sentiments so predicative that they seem to set Germany irrevocably on the path to the Holocaust**." Ozment, Birth, pg 3-4
God Bless You Joe, Topper
I think he would be horrified, also, Joe, but I don’t think he would lay the blame on sola scriptura. AFAIK, the quote below is directed at the devil.=joe371;11978278]Well stated.
“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 judgement; 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
It has always been my contention that the divisions within His Church, be it among protestant communions, between them and Rome, within the Catholic communion itself, and between Rome and Constantinople, are the result of human sin.
Jon
R
rcwitness
Guest
Good word! I like that observation!
PS, What papal encyclical did you get that from?
T
Topper17
Guest
Part 3: Luther/SS+PI/Protestant Doctrinal Dissention Connections
Next we have the great Calvinist Theologian R. C. Sproul:
“Two of the great legacies of the Reformation were the principal of private interpretation and the translation of the Bible into the vernacular. The two principals go hand in hand and were accomplished only after great controversy and persecution. Scores of persons paid with their lives by being burned at the stake (particularly in England) for daring to translate the bible into the vernacular. One of Luther’s greatest achievements was a translation of the Bible into German so that any literate person could read it for himself.” R.C. Sproul, (Protestant Theologian) “Knowing Scripture”, pg. 33
First of all, if Private Interpretation is one of the two great legacies of the Protestant Reformation, then doesn’t it follow that Protestant Doctrinal Confusion has been a positive development? After all, it is a direct result of PI. As for the other half of the ‘legacy’ – Protestantism did not translate the Bible into the vernacular. There were at least 26 different German Bibles prior to Luther’s ‘translation’.
Sproul continues:
“It was Luther himself who brought the issue of private interpretation of the Bible into sharp focus in the sixteenth century. Hidden beneath the famous response of the Reformer to the ecclesiastical and imperial authorities at the Diet of Worms was the implicit principal of private interpretation.
When asked to recant of his writings, Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by Sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.” Notice that Luther said “unless I am convinced…….” In earlier debates at Leipzig and Augsburg,** Luther had dared to presume to interpret Scripture contrary to interpretations rendered by Popes and by church councils. That he would be so presumptuous led to the repeated charge of arrogance by church officials. Luther did not take these charges lightly but agonized over them.** He believed that he could be wrong but maintained that the Pope and councils could also err. For him only one source of truth was free from error. He said, “The Scriptures never err.” Thus, unless the leaders of the church could convince him of his error, he felt duty-bound to follow what his own conscience was convinced Scripture taught. With this controversy the principal of private interpretation was born and baptized with fire.” R.C. Sproul, (Protestant Theologian) “Knowing Scripture”, pg. 33-4
What baffles me to no end is how Sproul could depict PI as a positive development. Did he not read either Scripture or any of the Fathers on the subject? Doesn’t he realize what the results of PI have been? Or, alternatively, does he believe that doctrinal diversity is (somehow) a ‘good thing’?
“He really substituted for all external authorities the enlightened conscience of the individual Christian. The Bible he read for himself and admitted the claim of no council or body of men to read it for him. This, in principle, though he never fully realized it, and seldom acted upon it, meant the right of private judgment in religious things, and in it lay the promise of a new age.” Presbyterian Theologian Arthur Cushman McGiffert, “Martin Luther, the Man and His Work”, pg. 144-5 Ibid
I have to disagree with McGiffert on one point. Luther relied constantly on private judgment. Of course he would claim that his teachings were Scriptural, but of course all they really were were his Private Interpretations of Scripture, which is exactly what has created an uncountable number of denominations. He certainly did not rely on the teachings of the Catholic Church, which he hated beyond reason. He used HIS Private Interpretation to decide what was correct and what was incorrect.
In regards to Luther’s teaching that all were Priests: “**Such a view was fraught with far-reaching consequences for the theory of the Church, **and Luther’s own view of the Church was derivative from his theory of the sacraments. His deductions however, were not clear-cut in this area, because his view of the Lord’s Supper pointed in one directly and his view of baptism in another. That is why he could be at once to a degree the father of the congregationalism of the Anabaptists and of the territorial church of the later Lutherans.” Bainton, pg. 130
Bainton is probably the most ‘generous’ of Luther’s more recent biographers (towards Luther), and yet……he calls him at least to a degree, the ‘father of the Anabaptists’. It seems to me that all of these respected (mostly Protestant) Scholars are much more interested in presenting the Truth and their professional reputations than they are in protecting the false Legend of Martin Luther, which has, for centuries been depicting him in an excessively favorable light. These people seem to be able to admit the truth and still remain Protestants, including still remaining Lutherans, although as we have learned, Lutheran Scholars seem to ‘defect’ at a greater rate than Lutheran laypeople.
So why can’t Lutheran apologists admit the truth also?
God Bless
Next we have the great Calvinist Theologian R. C. Sproul:
“Two of the great legacies of the Reformation were the principal of private interpretation and the translation of the Bible into the vernacular. The two principals go hand in hand and were accomplished only after great controversy and persecution. Scores of persons paid with their lives by being burned at the stake (particularly in England) for daring to translate the bible into the vernacular. One of Luther’s greatest achievements was a translation of the Bible into German so that any literate person could read it for himself.” R.C. Sproul, (Protestant Theologian) “Knowing Scripture”, pg. 33
First of all, if Private Interpretation is one of the two great legacies of the Protestant Reformation, then doesn’t it follow that Protestant Doctrinal Confusion has been a positive development? After all, it is a direct result of PI. As for the other half of the ‘legacy’ – Protestantism did not translate the Bible into the vernacular. There were at least 26 different German Bibles prior to Luther’s ‘translation’.
Sproul continues:
“It was Luther himself who brought the issue of private interpretation of the Bible into sharp focus in the sixteenth century. Hidden beneath the famous response of the Reformer to the ecclesiastical and imperial authorities at the Diet of Worms was the implicit principal of private interpretation.
When asked to recant of his writings, Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by Sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.” Notice that Luther said “unless I am convinced…….” In earlier debates at Leipzig and Augsburg,** Luther had dared to presume to interpret Scripture contrary to interpretations rendered by Popes and by church councils. That he would be so presumptuous led to the repeated charge of arrogance by church officials. Luther did not take these charges lightly but agonized over them.** He believed that he could be wrong but maintained that the Pope and councils could also err. For him only one source of truth was free from error. He said, “The Scriptures never err.” Thus, unless the leaders of the church could convince him of his error, he felt duty-bound to follow what his own conscience was convinced Scripture taught. With this controversy the principal of private interpretation was born and baptized with fire.” R.C. Sproul, (Protestant Theologian) “Knowing Scripture”, pg. 33-4
What baffles me to no end is how Sproul could depict PI as a positive development. Did he not read either Scripture or any of the Fathers on the subject? Doesn’t he realize what the results of PI have been? Or, alternatively, does he believe that doctrinal diversity is (somehow) a ‘good thing’?
“He really substituted for all external authorities the enlightened conscience of the individual Christian. The Bible he read for himself and admitted the claim of no council or body of men to read it for him. This, in principle, though he never fully realized it, and seldom acted upon it, meant the right of private judgment in religious things, and in it lay the promise of a new age.” Presbyterian Theologian Arthur Cushman McGiffert, “Martin Luther, the Man and His Work”, pg. 144-5 Ibid
I have to disagree with McGiffert on one point. Luther relied constantly on private judgment. Of course he would claim that his teachings were Scriptural, but of course all they really were were his Private Interpretations of Scripture, which is exactly what has created an uncountable number of denominations. He certainly did not rely on the teachings of the Catholic Church, which he hated beyond reason. He used HIS Private Interpretation to decide what was correct and what was incorrect.
In regards to Luther’s teaching that all were Priests: “**Such a view was fraught with far-reaching consequences for the theory of the Church, **and Luther’s own view of the Church was derivative from his theory of the sacraments. His deductions however, were not clear-cut in this area, because his view of the Lord’s Supper pointed in one directly and his view of baptism in another. That is why he could be at once to a degree the father of the congregationalism of the Anabaptists and of the territorial church of the later Lutherans.” Bainton, pg. 130
Bainton is probably the most ‘generous’ of Luther’s more recent biographers (towards Luther), and yet……he calls him at least to a degree, the ‘father of the Anabaptists’. It seems to me that all of these respected (mostly Protestant) Scholars are much more interested in presenting the Truth and their professional reputations than they are in protecting the false Legend of Martin Luther, which has, for centuries been depicting him in an excessively favorable light. These people seem to be able to admit the truth and still remain Protestants, including still remaining Lutherans, although as we have learned, Lutheran Scholars seem to ‘defect’ at a greater rate than Lutheran laypeople.
So why can’t Lutheran apologists admit the truth also?
God Bless
- Status