How do protestants explain history

[dmwessel]

How did you say that again? Oh Yeah! "it’s straining at gnats " The Jewish Calendar referred to Sunday as the first day of the week. Later the Christians called it the Lord’s Day.

I have said numerous times and given a Wiki link explaining Shabat (Jewish Sabbath) which shows that Sunday was the first day of the week in the Jewish calendar.

My words have been skewed to sound as if I was saying that Sunday was not the first day of the week - which I never said at all and I suspect was a means to confuse the issue at hand.

The point I made with my initial remark was that Saturday was the original Sabbath (that Jesus and the Apostles celebrated), which has been strongly argued here.

Another contention is my initial remark that Constantine through his ‘rest day’ was a political maneuver and the impetus behind the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, which I have given more than adequate proof of and it’s certainly easy enough to search on the internet.

I did check up on your Justin Martyr reference and it does appear that the ‘day of the sun’ was probably a common pagan Roman term long before Constantine (for which I apologize). The actual change to the word Sunday appears to have been done by the early Anglos- English who also venerated the sun (?-I had references for you but my internet is so slow and stops frequently that I haven’t been able to copy it/the weather here is -36 so that’s probably the reason why/my search criteria was “day of the sun”).

I have a Catholic background and was feeling a little nostalgic and joined this forum thinking I might find things changed a bit. I have been hugely disappointed but it’s not entirely your fault as I have been argumentative as well, but only in defense against what I thought was verbal bullying. However, as the Bible instructs us not to argue about ‘vain babblings’, I am bowing out as regarding my initial topic, there is not much more to be said.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I have said numerous times and given a Wiki link explaining Shabat (Jewish Sabbath) which shows that Sunday was the first day of the week in the Jewish calendar.

My words have been skewed to sound as if I was saying that Sunday was not the first day of the week - which I never said at all and I suspect was a means to confuse the issue at hand.

The point I made with my initial remark was that Saturday was the original Sabbath (that Jesus and the Apostles celebrated), which has been strongly argued here.

I don’t think anyone has disputed this as it is stated above.

However, the Apostles DID cease from making Sabbath-keeping a requirement, as it belonged to the OLD Law and was not a part of the NEW.

Another contention is my initial remark that Constantine through his ‘rest day’ was a political maneuver and the impetus behind the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, which I have given more than adequate proof of and it’s certainly easy enough to search on the internet.

I’m sorry, but you haven’t given any “proof” that keeping “the Lord’s Day” as the primary day of worship is a Constantinian-era novelty.

In fact, it is NOT.

Nor did the Sabbath change day. The day of worship changed from the Sabbath to “the Lord’s Day.”

I did check up on your Justin Martyr reference and it does appear that the ‘day of the sun’ was probably a common pagan Roman term long before Constantine (for which I apologize).

The value of the Justin Martyr reference isn’t the naming of the day, but the fact that he wrote this in the early second century, thus disproving your contention pretty convincingly. Hint: the 2nd century came before the 4th century.

I have a Catholic background and was feeling a little nostalgic and joined this forum thinking I might find things changed a bit. I have been hugely disappointed but it’s not entirely your fault as I have been argumentative as well, but only in defense against what I thought was verbal bullying. However, as the Bible instructs us not to argue about ‘vain babblings’, I am bowing out as regarding my initial topic, there is not much more to be said.

I expected your departure before actually addressing the issues, and so I am not surprised.

 

[spina1953]

dmwessel: Here’s something concerning Tradition: “So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Th 2:15). So wrote St. Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians. Against the Protestant Reformers the Council of Trent maintained that tradition as well as Sacred Scripture was a source of the Church’s teaching magisterium. Since earliest times sacred Tradition has been always recognized as a true font of revelation. Scripture alone cannot be the sole source of faith because the canon of Scripture cannot be determined from the writings themselves, nor can their inspiration be so determined. But how tradition safely transmitted? By means of the creeds, the writings of the Fathers, the constant and unanimous consent of Catholic schools on matters of faith, the ancient ecclesiastical monuments, the common belief of the faithful, but most of all by the solemn judgment of the Church which is always an infallible proof of divine tradition. Whether we regard tradition as the teaching authority of the Church, or the body of teaching itself, or the Church’s act of teaching the deposit of faith, all three are involved in the history of the authentic transmission of God’s revelation of Himself to man in the person of the God-Man Jesus Christ.

Since the Gospels were first taught orally that is by word of mouth, it means that it was at first written down. By Tradition then the Apostles celebrated the Lord’s Day on Sunday as opposed to celebrating on Saturday Sabbath, because Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday the first day of the week and new and everlasting covenant was made by Jesus which the Apostles accepted because Jesus told them so. I also want to point out hat testament is from the Latin meaning covenant, so the New Testament means new Covenant.

 

[Buddyroe]

You all may find this a joyful facet of history. It is taught in my church perhaps it is also standard teaching for Catholics. If you haven’t heard this explanation before, please enjoy.

Subject: the Virgin birth

Background: Isaiah prophesied 8th century BC, gospel of Matthew records the birth of our Lord and refers back to Isaiah to establish this prophesy as fulfilled.

The contention: There is a Jewish objection to the understanding of the Aramaic word for virgin. They claim the word is ambiguous and can just as easily mean ‘young woman’ not necessarily a young woman who is pure. While their argument is valid the word can just as easily mean virgin as in a pure and undefiled woman.

History and language verifies the truth: This Jewish contention was unknown at least prior to the baptism of our Lord, meaning the argument did not appear until Jewish apologetics began looking for a way to disprove the miracle of the Holy conception in Mary.
While the Aramaic word is ambiguous the equivalent Greek word is not. In Greek the word virgin (παρθένος) means a pure and undefiled woman. This fact can help us to learn the Jewish understanding at the time before Mary conceived.

This is what Jewish scholars understood over 200 years before Jesus’ birth. A translation of scriptures into Greek called The Septuagint was made and when they translated Isaiah 7:14 they used the unambiguous word for virgin παρθένος thus proving that they understood then exactly what we know today.

Reference verses:

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Koine Greek Matthew 1:23 ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον και καλεσουσιν το ονομα αυτου εμμανουηλ ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον μεθ ημων ο θεος

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Ca. 740 BC Hebrew text לָ֠כֵן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם אֹ֑ות הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמֹ֖ו עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל׃ Isaiah 7:14

Ca. 200 BC Septuagint (LXX)
Isaiah 7:14
διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

I asked you for an answer as to who, specifically and exactly, the ‘adherents’ are – several times. You refuse to answer. You complain about me telling you what Lutherans believe, and yet, when I, as a Catholic, ask you (a Lutheran) a very specific question about very specific text in your Lutheran confessional document – you refuse to answer. Your refusal to answer though really is an answer.

I show you that the F of C does NOT mention the word ‘office’, and your response – you changed the subject and want to tell me about what you personally think. I am attempting to deal with the facts of the situation.

It seems to me that Lutherans don’t want to discuss what Luther taught and believed, preferring to skip right over him, and preferring to discuss the Lutheran Confessions. Then here, at least in this case, you don’t want to discuss the Confessions, preferring to skip over them to discuss what modern Lutherans believe, which of course evades my real questions and concerns.

I think that it has been ‘proven’ and is ‘undeniable’ that Lutherans don’t really believe their confessional documents, at least in regards to this ‘who is the Antichrist’ issue. The Lutheran Confessions were written to clear up doctrinal uncertainties within Lutheranism and as such they are VERY clear. There is very little if any ‘wiggle room’.

The lesson learned here is also very clear. Lutherans should not point us to their confessions as authoritative documents (for Lutherans) when they don’t believe them themselves. They should just link us to some Lutheran blog to provide us with the ‘proper interpretation’. This is exactly what some people do with our Constitution – they interpret it however it suits them to the point that, to them at least, it has no meaning at all. Of course there are a plethora of competing Lutheran positions out there on a number of things, including apparently, what the Confessions really mean, so it shouldn’t be all that hard for anybody to find a blogger somewhere who agrees with them.

Situations like this are helpful though in that they help me determine how much of my limited time I should spend in various areas. You seem to believe, at least intellectually, that our two traditions could reach some kind of real communion. I don’t think that is possible as long as people duck the tough issues and questions. From reading your LCMS Lutheran blogger’s opinion, it appears that we have the same opinion of the ‘success’ of the Joint Dialogue and generally for the same reasons.

BTW, you say that your almost singular issue is papal authority. For me, one of my most important issues is the immense amount of authority that Luther claimed. Maybe a very broad based, all encompassing thread on Luther’s self-pronounced authority would be helpful; a thread which could address Luther’s various qualifications, his many ‘Scriptural’ teachings, his numerous demonstrations of Christian ‘charity’, his psychological makeup, temperament, character, etc., etc. Maybe that would give us all a better understanding of whether the Reformation began on ‘solid ground’. It’s worth thinking about.

Just to let you know, I VERY much agree with the list of things that ‘frustrate’ you. I’m sure we could each add another dozen topics and the other would agree. It’s good to know that you are ‘solid’.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Nicea325]

We don’t; we rather like history. I’m sick of bringing this point up, but the history of the RCC is not very nice.

And can we stop with the generalizations? I’m pretty sure Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, Nabeel Qureshi are Evangelical. C.S. Lewis was brilliant but not Catholic; we’re not all nutbars shouting on street corners.

The push to prove Christianity by reason and logic through history and the Scriptures is being taken on strongly by Evangelicals, while every Catholic Apologist I hear of is interested in proving Protestants wrong. Protestants are guilty of the same, but we have really turned our focus to those who would attack Christianity.

As a history major, do not recall studying in depth about history being very nice or not very nice. History is not based on strictly on being “good” or “bad” moreover, many factors are involved in the formation and development of historical outcomes.

 

[adrift]

the jewish sabbath was saturday (friday 6:00pm to saturday 6:00pm), but the pagan rest day was sunday, and the christians were forced to adopt the sunday as their new sabbath (if they wanted to rest that is).

from the Smithsonian institute, washington, d.c.,… Question 1: Did the pagan romans and greeks ever have any regular weekly day of rest from secular work?
Answer: No.
Question 2: Did they ever have any weekly festival day?
Answer: No.
Question 3: Did they have any regular weekly day when they assembled for pagan worship?
Answer: No. .

saturday is the 7th day, making sunday the first day of the week in the jewish calendar, whereas monday is the first day of the week in the roman calendar.

Would you care to substantiate this claim?

 

[adrift]

I have said numerous times and given a Wiki link explaining Shabat (Jewish Sabbath) which shows that Sunday was the first day of the week in the Jewish calendar.

So? Where is anyone disputing it?

My words have been skewed to sound as if I was saying that Sunday was not the first day of the week - which I never said at all and I suspect was a means to confuse the issue at hand.

I never said that you did. You made a comment that the Jews didn’t call the first day of the week Sunday which is true but is doesn’t change that what they called the first day of the week was what we now call Sunday.

The point I made with my initial remark was that Saturday was the original Sabbath (that Jesus and the Apostles celebrated), which has been strongly argued here.

It is not argued that the Sabbath was and still is the seventh day. What is being pointed out is that the worship was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week and that this worship was also celebrated by the Apostles. Since Jesus is the one being worshiped, it would not make sense for Him to worship Himself.

Another contention is my initial remark that Constantine through his ‘rest day’ was a political maneuver and the impetus behind the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, which I have given more than adequate proof of and it’s certainly easy enough to search on the internet.

You have been asked to give proof that Constantine “changed” the day of worship. You have provided nothing. The links you did provide actually proved the opposite.

I did check up on your Justin Martyr reference and it does appear that the ‘day of the sun’ was probably a common pagan Roman term long before Constantine (for which I apologize). The actual change to the word Sunday appears to have been done by the early Anglos- English who also venerated the sun (?-I had references for you but my internet is so slow and stops frequently that I haven’t been able to copy it/the weather here is -36 so that’s probably the reason why/my search criteria was “day of the sun”).

That was another poster.

I have a Catholic background and was feeling a little nostalgic and joined this forum thinking I might find things changed a bit. I have been hugely disappointed but it’s not entirely your fault as I have been argumentative as well, but only in defense against what I thought was verbal bullying. However, as the Bible instructs us not to argue about ‘vain babblings’, I am bowing out as regarding my initial topic, there is not much more to be said.

I see you call it bullying when your disagreed with and evidence is provided to you that you can’t refute? It seems to me to say I have been hugely disappointed is a passive aggressive form of bullying.

 

[Buddyroe]

I have said numerous times and given a Wiki link explaining Shabat (Jewish Sabbath) which shows that Sunday was the first day of the week in the Jewish calendar.

My words have been skewed to sound as if I was saying that Sunday was not the first day of the week - which I never said at all and I suspect was a means to confuse the issue at hand.

The point I made with my initial remark was that Saturday was the original Sabbath (that Jesus and the Apostles celebrated), which has been strongly argued here.

Another contention is my initial remark that Constantine through his ‘rest day’ was a political maneuver and the impetus behind the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, which I have given more than adequate proof of and it’s certainly easy enough to search on the internet.

I did check up on your Justin Martyr reference and it does appear that the ‘day of the sun’ was probably a common pagan Roman term long before Constantine (for which I apologize). The actual change to the word Sunday appears to have been done by the early Anglos- English who also venerated the sun (?-I had references for you but my internet is so slow and stops frequently that I haven’t been able to copy it/the weather here is -36 so that’s probably the reason why/my search criteria was “day of the sun”).

I have a Catholic background and was feeling a little nostalgic and joined this forum thinking I might find things changed a bit. I have been hugely disappointed but it’s not entirely your fault as I have been argumentative as well, but only in defense against what I thought was verbal bullying. However, as the Bible instructs us not to argue about ‘vain babblings’, I am bowing out as regarding my initial topic, there is not much more to be said.

Perhaps we should transform ourselves back 1700 years to the vicinity of Rome.
Faithful Christians were emerging from the catacombs after hiding form the lions den, the grace of God has softened Caesar’s heart and allowed faithful believers to come out in the sunlight.
Imagine that first Easter morning when believers in Rome for the first time accepted Holy communion with morning sunlight shining through their window. They are singing something like ’Praise God in the wilderness and let all glory be, praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost for all eternity’.
Their suffering should never be repeated but their joy should forever be celebrated.
It would be 700 years before the crusades, 1200 years till the reformation, these 4th century faithful saints had no special vision of the future.
What was their first task in the sunlight?

Establish Sunday as the weekly day of worship? No! they were already in step with that.

Did they try to establish dietary laws for everyday living? No they had suffered and grubbed for centuries merely surviving.

Did they ordain a complex form of worship with difficult doctrine and exclusive rules? No they already understood the necessities of drawing close to the Lord.

What was their first major act in the sunlight?
They established the necessary ordinances of the Christian faith for all the world the hear, the Nicene Creed, and later the Apostles creed.

All of us today have inherited the benefits of our forebears in the faith. Constantine was just one more benefactor, his testimony must stand by itself just like you and I.

FYI Constantine did not change the Sabbath to Sunday his authority was civil not ecclesiastical, he merely recognized by public decree what Christians in Rome were already practicing.

 

[Adamski]

dmwessel: Here’s something concerning Tradition: “So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Th 2:15). So wrote St. Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians. Against the Protestant Reformers the Council of Trent maintained that tradition as well as Sacred Scripture was a source of the Church’s teaching magisterium. Since earliest times sacred Tradition has been always recognized as a true font of revelation. Scripture alone cannot be the sole source of faith because the canon of Scripture cannot be determined from the writings themselves, nor can their inspiration be so determined. But how tradition safely transmitted? By means of the creeds, the writings of the Fathers, the constant and unanimous consent of Catholic schools on matters of faith, the ancient ecclesiastical monuments, the common belief of the faithful, but most of all by the solemn judgment of the Church which is always an infallible proof of divine tradition. Whether we regard tradition as the teaching authority of the Church, or the body of teaching itself, or the Church’s act of teaching the deposit of faith, all three are involved in the history of the authentic transmission of God’s revelation of Himself to man in the person of the God-Man Jesus Christ.

Since the Gospels were first taught orally that is by word of mouth, it means that it was at first written down. By Tradition then the Apostles celebrated the Lord’s Day on Sunday as opposed to celebrating on Saturday Sabbath, because Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday the first day of the week and new and everlasting covenant was made by Jesus which the Apostles accepted because Jesus told them so. I also want to point out hat testament is from the Latin meaning covenant, so the New Testament means new Covenant.

I am mainly talking about how your belief system didn’t exist even at the time of John Calvin he believed in one true church but it was his he disliked luther and his view and actually had other protestants put to death. Also he had no ordained mission from God unlike Peter or Andrew or any of the other apostles

 

[steido01]

I show you that the F of C does NOT mention the word ‘office’, and your response – you changed the subject and want to tell me about what you personally think. I am attempting to deal with the facts of the situation.

It seems to me that Lutherans don’t want to discuss what Luther taught and believed, preferring to skip right over him, and preferring to discuss the Lutheran Confessions. Then here, at least in this case, you don’t want to discuss the Confessions, preferring to skip over them to discuss what modern Lutherans believe, which of course evades my real questions and concerns.

I think that it has been ‘proven’ and is ‘undeniable’ that Lutherans don’t really believe their confessional documents, at least in regards to this ‘who is the Antichrist’ issue. The Lutheran Confessions were written to clear up doctrinal uncertainties within Lutheranism and as such they are VERY clear. There is very little if any ‘wiggle room’.

The lesson learned here is also very clear. Lutherans should not point us to their confessions as authoritative documents (for Lutherans) when they don’t believe them themselves. They should just link us to some Lutheran blog to provide us with the ‘proper interpretation’. This is exactly what some people do with our Constitution – they interpret it however it suits them to the point that, to them at least, it has no meaning at all. Of course there are a plethora of competing Lutheran positions out there on a number of things, including apparently, what the Confessions really mean, so it shouldn’t be all that hard for anybody to find a blogger somewhere who agrees with them.

Jon has answered your questions. You simply didn’t get the answer you wanted, and so now you’re trying to make perhaps the most reasonable and honest voice on these boards out to be evasive.

You are simply wrong. We know what our Confessions say. Stop telling us what you think we believe; you are wrong.

If you actually read our Confessions in their entirety, you would understand the three crystal clear reasons we have for attaching the label of anti-Christ to the office of the Papacy. Read the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (it’s part of our Confessions). It gives three reasons. Should those ever be made moot, we would have no problem submitting to Rome because the pope would no longer be acting anti-to-Christ from our point of view.

 

[Buddyroe]

I became so absorbed in the many fascinating discussions I forgot to make an attempt at responding to this thread’s title: How do protestants explain history?

The answer is incredibly complex and made of the ingredients needed for a doctoral thesis.

Here is an outrageously simplified explanation.

First history needs to be treated objectively regardless of doctrinal presuppositions. Operative word in the thread question is ‘explain’, this allows facts to be distilled into positions or rather the territories claimed by historical events and then prophesy, expectations of what will become of us in light of what we know from scripture and have learned from history.

In protestant apologetics the simple breakdown is between the Covenant theology and the Dispensationalism camps both are to some extent an outgrowth of Calvinism. Roman Catholic thinking I believe is much closer to Covenant Theology however it has its own extensive development.

My familiarity is with Dispensationalism which parses human history, the Hebrew nation and kingdoms, the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, the Church age, and future events with particular events i.e. rapture, tribulation, Armageddon, final conquest by Christ, and the new Jerusalem.

How Protestants side on these to issues effects how they view the Church, Jewish People, scripture, even when certain books were written. Obviously the interpretation of scripture is seriously effected.

As examples of interpretations: Covenant theology may find it easier to embrace replacement theology (the doctrine that the Church has replaced Israel). Dispensationalism is more likely to embrace Christian Zionism, and Messianic Judaism.

Covenant theology tends to view scripture more figuratively, also the tend to view OT laws are still in effect unless nullified by the NT where Dispensationalism views OT laws as null unless affirmed by the NT.

The details and contentions are actually well covered on many other threads and have been discussed many times on Catholic Answers radio.

Not trying to start a debate just saying here are two major contrasting Protestant ways to view history.

 

[onemangang]

I became so absorbed in the many fascinating discussions I forgot to make an attempt at responding to this thread’s title: How do protestants explain history?

The answer is incredibly complex and made of the ingredients needed for a doctoral thesis.

Here is an outrageously simplified explanation.

First history needs to be treated objectively regardless of doctrinal presuppositions. Operative word in the thread question is ‘explain’, this allows facts to be distilled into positions or rather the territories claimed by historical events and then prophesy, expectations of what will become of us in light of what we know from scripture and have learned from history.

In protestant apologetics the simple breakdown is between the Covenant theology and the Dispensationalism camps both are to some extent an outgrowth of Calvinism. Roman Catholic thinking I believe is much closer to Covenant Theology however it has its own extensive development.

My familiarity is with Dispensationalism which parses human history, the Hebrew nation and kingdoms, the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, the Church age, and future events with particular events i.e. rapture, tribulation, Armageddon, final conquest by Christ, and the new Jerusalem.

How Protestants side on these to issues effects how they view the Church, Jewish People, scripture, even when certain books were written. Obviously the interpretation of scripture is seriously effected.

As examples of interpretations: Covenant theology may find it easier to embrace replacement theology (the doctrine that the Church has replaced Israel). Dispensationalism is more likely to embrace Christian Zionism, and Messianic Judaism.

Covenant theology tends to view scripture more figuratively, also the tend to view OT laws are still in effect unless nullified by the NT where Dispensationalism views OT laws as null unless affirmed by the NT.

The details and contentions are actually well covered on many other threads and have been discussed many times on Catholic Answers radio.

Not trying to start a debate just saying here are two major contrasting Protestant ways to view history.

Not to mention, different epistemologies as well.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

In protestant apologetics the simple breakdown is between the Covenant theology and the Dispensationalism camps both are to some extent an outgrowth of Calvinism. Roman Catholic thinking I believe is much closer to Covenant Theology however it has its own extensive development.

My familiarity is with Dispensationalism which parses human history, the Hebrew nation and kingdoms, the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, the Church age, and future events with particular events i.e. rapture, tribulation, Armageddon, final conquest by Christ, and the new Jerusalem.

How Protestants side on these to issues effects how they view the Church, Jewish People, scripture, even when certain books were written. Obviously the interpretation of scripture is seriously effected.

As examples of interpretations: Covenant theology may find it easier to embrace replacement theology (the doctrine that the Church has replaced Israel). Dispensationalism is more likely to embrace Christian Zionism, and Messianic Judaism.

Covenant theology tends to view scripture more figuratively, also the tend to view OT laws are still in effect unless nullified by the NT where Dispensationalism views OT laws as null unless affirmed by the NT.

The details and contentions are actually well covered on many other threads and have been discussed many times on Catholic Answers radio.

Not trying to start a debate just saying here are two major contrasting Protestant ways to view history.

When I was a Protestant, I had to embrace dispensationalism. I asked my separated brothers then: How can you be Protestant and not be a Dispensationalist? It is my humble opinion that unless you believe a dispensation was made, it is historically untenable to hold Protestantism - more so with the many different beliefs…

Needless to say, they didn’t like my proposal

I do empathize with Catholic Convenantal Theology

 

[JonNC]

When I was a Protestant, I had to embrace dispensationalism. I asked my separated brothers then: How can you be Protestant and not be a Dispensationalist? It is my humble opinion that unless you believe a dispensation was made, it is historically untenable to hold Protestantism - more so with the many different beliefs…

Needless to say, they didn’t like my proposal

I do empathize with Catholic Convenantal Theology

You know, Jose, that dispensationalism came along a full 300 years after the Reformation.
To my knowledge, none of the Reformation era movements were dispensationalist, certainly not Lutherans

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You know, Jose, that dispensationalism came along a full 300 years after the Reformation.
To my knowledge, none of the Reformation era movements were dispensationalist, certainly not Lutherans

Jon

I know bro’, Darby being the earliest proponent I believe.

But that’s not what I claimed, Was it?

What I said was that I found it hard to be a Protestant without believing that a dispensation was granted.

A dispensation from what?

From separating from the Catholic Church.

I mean, How can we reconcile a separation from the Church without some sort of dispensation?

No dispensation = heresy. Plain and simple.

There is another dilemma: I would need to redefine terms, if I am not under a dispensation.

Or I would need to stop believing in the physical Church and believe solely in an invisible one.

For example, the LCMS sees herself as part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. And yet, it severed ties with the Catholic Church. In her theology, the LCMS must now look at what:

One means - In the general sense, the LCMS must believe in a Spiritual one. Since we are not in communion with each other.

Holy means - In the general sense, Holy is to be set apart - to be called out by Christ. The problem lies in the “apart” sense .

Catholic means - In the general sense, we can be "c"atholic, whereas to be "C"atholic you would need to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Apostolic means - This is where it gets even trickier, just reading the New Testament doesn’t mean that we are apostolic. There needs to be a consistency and a delegation of authority from the Apostles. While the Lutheranism claims succession - if we study “form” and “intent” - as expressed in Apostolicae Curae:

33. With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.
​

​

So, even if the form is kept but the intent in its external expression dissents from the Catholic Church, then it is not apostolic until it returns to the Catholic Church.

So a dispensation is needed. Probably not in the same sense as Darby or Ryrie, but it is needed nonetheless.

For:

[bibledrb]Luke 9:50[/bibledrb]

And while we have some common ground - you are against us in other grounds.

So you are not fully for us. Again an imperfect union demanding a dispensation.

For, if you have not been granted a dispensation from our Lord — What else is there?

 

[Buddyroe]

Not to mention, different epistemologies as well.

Right Roman Catholics do not rely on Sola Scriptura they have also Apostolic Succession and perhaps a few other resources. One interesting Catholic resource is the possession of important artifacts such as Codex Vaticanus. I understand the Vatican has a huge storeroom that contains countless artifacts needing to be researched and verified for significance. Keep them high and dry for all of Christendom’s sake, we will probably need them someday.

Some interesting protestant aberrations are denominations that are dispensational yet have covenant culture e.g. Seventh Day Adventists
Some have Apostolic succession and Catholic like presupposition e.g Lutherans.
Some claim apostolic authority but are even Pentecostal e.g Apostolic Faith (headquartered in my home town).
One of the most eclectic, the Mormons, who claim apostolic succession, go far beyond sola scriptura (Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants) yet they are also replacement theology and dispensational (Latter Day Saints); beware though Mormons deny the Trinity.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Don,

Jon has answered your questions. You simply didn’t get the answer you wanted, and so now you’re trying to make perhaps the most reasonable and honest voice on these boards out to be evasive.

You are simply wrong. We know what our Confessions say. Stop telling us what you think we believe; you are wrong.

I think that the problem we are having is one that is very fundamental. I am questioning what Lutheranism officially teaches and the answers I am getting revolve around personal opinions.

For the record, I don’t have one even slight problem with Jon. However, he did NOT answer my question. If you think he did, could you please locate it for me and repost it? The question was – “Who are the ‘adherents’?”

Here you have an opportunity to tell me specifically and exactly how and why I am wrong. Again, my question has absolutely nothing to do with what your personal opinions might be regarding the pope and the antichrist, but with what your church officially teaches in it’s Confessions.

If you actually read our Confessions in their entirety, you would understand the three crystal clear reasons we have for attaching the label of anti-Christ to the office of the Papacy. Read the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (it’s part of our Confessions). It gives three reasons. Should those ever be made moot, we would have no problem submitting to Rome because the pope would no longer be acting anti-to-Christ from our point of view.

I did read it. NOWHERE does it mention the ‘office’ of the pope. And yet, the answers I get back are all about the office of the pope. There is clearly a huge difference between what YOUR confession is saying and what Lutherans here on the threads are saying.

In addition, I was trying to get an answer from Jon as to who the ‘adherents’ are:

The Formula of Concord - A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald – 1537

INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE ON THE POWER AND PRIMACY OF THE POPE

“39] Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents.

57] Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist.

59] But those who agree with the Pope, and defend his doctrine and [false] services, defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, become guilty of the blood of the godly, whom the Pope [and his adherents] persecutes, detract from the glory of God, and hinder the welfare of the Church, because they strengthen errors and crimes to all posterity…”

#39 makes it very clear that ‘all the marks of antichrist’ are on ‘Roman pontiffs, with their adherents’. #57 makes it very clear that the Pope – ‘him’ is antichrist. The ‘him’ is personal. There is absolutely NO mention of the ‘office’ in this document. #59 again mentions the Pope AND his ‘adherents’.

So Don – what I really want to know if this: Who, specifically and exactly are these ‘adherents’ who ‘bear the marks of the antichrist along with the pope? Please don’t tell me what you personally think about whether Catholics are Christians or anything other than what I actually asked.

If you don’t believe what your Lutheran Confession says about this matter then just say so. If you want to claim that it doesn’t say what it so clearly says, then you are going to be in opposition to the following people who signed the above statement:

Bugenhagen, Pomeranus, Rhegius, Amsdorf, Spalatin, Osiander, Veit Dieterich, Agricola, Draconites, Figenbotz, Bucer, Schnepf, Rhodius, Oeniken, Northanus, Schneweis, Pomeranus, Brentz, Melanchthon, Corvinus, Adam a Fulda, Schlainhauffen, Helt, Coelius, Geltner, Melander, Fagius, Faber, Oettinger, Wolfart, Aepinus, Amsterdam, Fontanus, Myconius, Menius, Blaurer.

Don, I recognize about a dozen of these names. Of course, Luther’s name should be included as agreeing with the whole pope as the antichrist, and the Church as the church of Satan (references upon request if you insist). He would have attended this conference but he was ill. He was however, the ‘inspiration’ for all of the antichrist accusations. If you don’t like what this treatise says, take it up with the founders of your religion, don’t take it out on me.

BTW, there is one more name, jonathan fisk, LCMS pastor

youtu.be/KxTglbyabk0

Exerpts:

“The Lutheran church exists because the teachings of the RCC is so abhorrent and so connected to the description of the abomination mentioned in the Book of Daniel and by Jesus in Matthew……The Jesuits are basically not even Trinitarian….(the RCC) is Mary worshiping, saint idolizing, money grubbing, pedophile protecting”. When quoting the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, fisk states: “Indeed they ought to curse the Pope and his minions” as the very realm of the antichrist.”

Which of course begs the question – Who, specifically and exactly are the ‘minions’ if not loyal Catholics?

For the record, I watched this hateful and disgusting video. One has to wonder whether this LCMS pastor was ‘disciplined’ for his outrageous rant against the Catholic Church. Actually I don’t wonder at all. I would bet pretty big money that he was never disciplined for his rant, BECAUSE all he was doing was expounding the official teachings of the Lutheran church.

God Bless You Don, Topper

 

[Buddyroe]

You know, Jose, that dispensationalism came along a full 300 years after the Reformation.
To my knowledge, none of the Reformation era movements were dispensationalist, certainly not Lutherans

Jon

Well you know electricity wasn’t discovered until the 19th century either but then all of a sudden the lights came on. The truth is out there all you have to do is let it in.

A serious dispensationalist will maintain a sola scriptura presupposition (definitely not Catholic). They will claim the details have always (from 1st century on at least) been there for all to examine. They will not read personal understanding into scripture (eisegesis), claim legitimate reading out of scripture (exegesis). Alas, some dispensationalists can at times be, let us say, impressionable.

You are probably right though, the reformers were not dispensationalists.

 

[Buddyroe]

I know bro’, Darby being the earliest proponent I believe.

But that’s not what I claimed, Was it?

What I said was that I found it hard to be a Protestant without believing that a dispensation was granted.

A dispensation from what?

From separating from the Catholic Church.

I mean, How can we reconcile a separation from the Church without some sort of dispensation?

No dispensation = heresy. Plain and simple.

There is another dilemma: I would need to redefine terms, if I am not under a dispensation.

Or I would need to stop believing in the physical Church and believe solely in an invisible one.

For example, the LCMS sees herself as part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. And yet, it severed ties with the Catholic Church. In her theology, the LCMS must now look at what:

One means - In the general sense, the LCMS must believe in a Spiritual one. Since we are not in communion with each other.

Holy means - In the general sense, Holy is to be set apart - to be called out by Christ. The problem lies in the “apart” sense .

Catholic means - In the general sense, we can be "c"atholic, whereas to be "C"atholic you would need to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Apostolic means - This is where it gets even trickier, just reading the New Testament doesn’t mean that we are apostolic. There needs to be a consistency and a delegation of authority from the Apostles. While the Lutheranism claims succession - if we study “form” and “intent” - as expressed in Apostolicae Curae:

So, even if the form is kept but the intent in its external expression dissents from the Catholic Church, then it is not apostolic until it returns to the Catholic Church.

So a dispensation is needed. Probably not in the same sense as Darby or Ryrie, but it is needed nonetheless.

For:

[bibledrb]Luke 9:50[/bibledrb]

And while we have some common ground - you are against us in other grounds.

So you are not fully for us. Again an imperfect union demanding a dispensation.

For, if you have not been granted a dispensation from our Lord — What else is there?

Hello Jose,

At least know this, I am not your enemy.