How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KjetilK said:
Of course there was. You tried to ‘score a point,’ undoubtedly thinking that I didn’t know my own faith. Or thinking that you actually knew it yourself.
Click to expand...
:bowdown:I apologize; I didn’t know that you could read my mind & heart (or that you thought you could).
It’s pretty normal to read what one person wrote in light of other things he has written.
Click to expand...
Pretty difficult with Luther, since he is so often on both sides of an argument.
That doesn’t mean that I endorse everything that person has ever written. I doesn’t even mean that I have to agree with the definition. Luther’s Small Catechism is binding, and must – in its confessional context – be read in line with the other confessions. Therefore it is quite clear that what is meant by ‘christian’ is what is meant by ‘catholic’ in the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and Confessio Augustana. You can say that once that became part of the confessional, it should be read confessionally. We can find a parallel to this in the canonical interpretation of Scripture. Once canonised and gathered together, each individual book should be read in light of other books, and in light of the whole.
Click to expand...
So, you’re saying that Luther’s writing has the same coherence as canonical scripture? :bigyikes:
:confused: How are your misconceptions of what you mistakenly think I believe in any way something I have built?
Click to expand...
I’m just going by what you have said.
 
FathersKnowBest said:
I apologize; I didn’t know that you could read my mind & heart (or that you thought you could).
Click to expand...
What else should I conclude when you post random snippets that you obviously thinks answers my points, without actually giving any arguments?
FathersKnowBest said:
So, you’re saying that Luther’s writing has the same coherence as canonical scripture?
Click to expand...
No, and I cannot see how you could ever get that from what I was writing. What I did write was that once Luther’s Small Catechism became part of the Lutheran confessions, its interpretative context ceased to be Luther’s writings as such, and became the other confessions. Then I used the analogy of New Testament interpretation. Once the books of the New Testament was canonised, the interpretative context of, say, St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, ceased to be St. Paul’s writings as such (which would include non-canonical epistles), and became the other books of the New Testament.

To put it another way: Once Luther’s Small Catechism became part of the Lutheran confessions, it became more appropriate to read it in light of, say, the Nicene Creed or Confessio Augustana, than in light of, say, Luther’s sermons or lectures. And once St. Paul’s letter to the Romans became part of the New Testament, it became more appropriate to read it in light of, say, the Jude or 1John, than in light of, say, St. Paul’s non-canonical epistles (like, say, his third letter to the Corinthians).
FathersKnowBest said:
I’m just going by what you have said.
Click to expand...
Where?
FathersKnowBest said:
Could you please point out where you think I said anything like this?
Click to expand...
When you randomly post something Luther said, without first checking to see of it was part of the Lutheran confessions to which I’m bound, than it seems that you think that I, as a Lutheran, am bound to follow Luther in everything. I am not.
 
Adamski said:
This was the real question I had in a previous thread that got derailed. Personally leaving my non denominational church and coming home to the Catholic Church if both had a solid answer from the bible I had to go with the catholic one because it was rooted in history such as the writings from the first three centuries after Christ.

When ever I show protestants of any kind writings such as the Didiache, polycarp, and ignatius of Antioch. They say “well false teachers were there from the beginning and I have the truth from the bible”. This had come from Lutherans to baptists
Click to expand...
There is no gap. There have always been a people (church) that keep the commandments and the faith of Jesus. Rev.14:12

rags
 
ragsbinwashed said:
There is no gap. There have always been a people (church) that keep the commandments and the faith of Jesus. Rev.14:12

rags
Click to expand...
Do you mind stating your denomination? We’ve had Lutherans and at least one Presbyterian tell the OP there’s no gap. The response has been that we are not then representative of Protestants. 🤷
 
Tomyris said:
Do you mind stating your denomination? We’ve had Lutherans and at least one Presbyterian tell the OP there’s no gap. The response has been that we are not then representative of Protestants. 🤷
Click to expand...
Ok, Tomyris, here is the op
How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.
This was the real question I had in a previous thread that got derailed. Personally leaving my non denominational church and coming home to the Catholic Church if both had a solid answer from the bible I had to go with the catholic one because it was rooted in history such as the writings from the first three centuries after Christ.
Click to expand...
When ever I show protestants of any kind writings such as the Didiache, polycarp, and ignatius of Antioch. They say “well false teachers were there from the beginning and I have the truth from the bible”. This had come from Lutherans to Baptists
Click to expand...
He says that he had to “go with” the Catholic answer to the 1500 year gap and he does this by accessing writings that for 1200 of those 1500 years had not been written. And I can’t imagine why you care whether or not someone thinks you are “representative” or not. This forum to the best of my knowledge is a statement of personal opinions and I don’t think anyone who posts here can claim to be representative.
 
GKC said:
Ah, yes. Thought it might be Barrett and the World Christian Encyclopedia figures.

In that count, how many denominations does it count the Roman Catholic Church as?

GKC
Click to expand...
What is the actual number?
 
ptisme said:
What is the actual number?
Click to expand...
If by that you mean, how many denominations does the World Christian Encyclopedia count, when counting the RCC, it’s 236. Or was, around 2010, when that set of numbers came out; they are often updated. The folk who put out the WCE, and the World Christian Trends, count denominations in a peculiar, idiosyncratic way, for their statistical analyses. A denomination is counted as a separate denomination for each country it appears in. When explaining that, they use the RCC as an example. It’s one Church, but counts as 236 denominations.That’s their business, but it makes it awkward to directly reference their numbers, and think you’ve got an authoritative count of “denominations”.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top