Actually, I was quite clear in my expression that I find Calvinism “flowering” with error.
Your communion recognizes them as Christian. Do you disagree?
How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?
- Status
Your communion recognizes them as Christian. Do you disagree?
H
hope
Guest
I have heard, and maybe it was you, that today that their is no longer a protest hence there is no Protestant.
The dictionary definition
I would say that it is untrue that there is no such thing as Protestantism according to this definition.
If one wants to use the term generally, loosely, as a grouping of western non-Catholic Christian traditions/communions/denominations, that is fine. Using the term in a theological or doctrinal sense , it lacks accuracy.
The definition you provide is even general and loose.
For example, the priesthood of all believers does not exclude the necessity of the Ministerial priesthood. Would all “Protestants” agree with that statement?
As you can see by the example (there are many others), the idea of a theologically unified monolith is factually inaccurate, not only today, but 500 years ago.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
But they are baptized, so they could very well be in Christian Church of your definition. I simply want to understand what is criteria for being in the Church for sure according to your view- what is tricky such as Calvinism and what is clear such as Lutheranism or Catholicism (if you believe Catholicism to be part of One True Church) for you. I understand you view Anglicans (High Church I believe), Catholics and Orthodox as well as Lutherans as part of True Church but not Calvinists, yet by what rule do you do so?
Depends about what- I agree that talking about “Protestant” doctrines is kinda misleading, but if talking about Solas explicitly, it may be helpful… I know, that’s not the case here and you’re right, just wanted to point out there is some theology Protestants have in common.
Last edited:
Of course. They are indeed in the Church. And some of their teachings are heterodox.
I do. Of course. And I believe there are heterodox teachings in the CC, too, particularly the teachings regarding the papacy.
Maybe, but there are vast differences in understanding of how to apply the principle of sola scriptura, for example. While the term sola fide may be used by many, soteriology differs.
The analogy I use is saying someone is Protestant is like saying someone is South American. Brazilians and Peruvians are South Americans, but we wouldn’t expect to have the same culture.
T
TULIPed
Guest
Really? Why drag us into this? We’re just sitting on the sidelines eating popcorn and enjoying the show!
Gotta have someone to throw under the bus.
S
steve-b
Guest
He was getting huge pushback. That is why he responds the way he did. Point being, this is the father of Protestantism. THEN came all the following candidates of offshoots to the rebellion, that continues to this day.steve-b:
Among the chief books. Again, he is speaking comparatively. Again, Luther’s theology focuses on grace, on the cross.JonNC:
Re: Luther and the Book of James
Excerpt Luther’s (preface) to James and Jude, showing his attitude
“Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.”
From: American edition of Luther’s Works, vol 35 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), pp. 395-399 .
He finishes by saying he would not prevent others from valuing it highly.
Only someone with an axe to grind against Luther would misinterpret this into him not wanting to include it.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Baptism makes one a Christiansteve-b:
Actually, I was quite clear in my expression that I find Calvinism “flowering” with error.
Your communion recognizes them as Christian. Do you disagree?
meaning
Judas was a “Christian” as ALL heretics and schismatics, etc are “Christian” , by definition.
From the CCC
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. " Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
So
Being Christian doesn’t save one from error. And if a Christian remains in such error till death, as scripture clearly states, they won’t inherit heaven… which is key
Re: your comment "your communion"
Jesus established the Catholic Church. THAT is the Church all are to be in perfect union with… not my words but that’s from Jesus
all emphasis mine)
Jn 17:20 “I do not pray for these only, (His apostles) but also for those who believe in me through their word, (all those in His Church) 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also ( The hierarchy from Pope down to the infant ) may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Jon,hope:
If one wants to use the term generally, loosely, as a grouping of western non-Catholic Christian traditions/communions/denominations, that is fine. Using the term in a theological or doctrinal sense , it lacks accuracy.
The definition you provide is even general and loose.
For example, the priesthood of all believers does not exclude the necessity of the Ministerial priesthood. Would all “Protestants” agree with that statement?
As you can see by the example (there are many others), the idea of a theologically unified monolith is factually inaccurate, not only today, but 500 years ago.
Newman, at the time in his life when he was investigating why he was Anglican, in ~1846, made the following phrase popular “To be deep in History is to cease to be a Protestant” http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction.html#protestantism v5
As we know, he became a Catholic and ultimately a Cardinal
He also states
From http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume1/lecture12.html
Lecture 12, Ecclesiastical history, Section 4
Such, then, is the Anglican Church and its Via Media, {377} and such the practical application of it; it is an interposition or arbitration between the extreme doctrines of Protestantism on the one hand, and the faith of Rome which Protestantism contradicts on the other. At the same time, though it may be unwilling to allow it, it is, from the nature of the case, but a particular form of Protestantism.
Last edited:
Source…
S
steve-b
Guest
steve-b:
Source…
Really? Who was the source of the docs I’ve been quoting?Source. Zwingli, as well as the Anabaptists were contemporaries of Luther, and NEVER followers. Calvin was 25 years younger, but again, was NEVER a follower of Luther or in communion with him.
Virtually all of the later groups have their theological if not historical roots in these, not in Lutheranism.
Your presentation takes a correlative and inaccurately turns it into a causative. None of those who followed followed Luther. If they had, there would have been no Anabaptists, no Calvinists. They weren’t lemmings.
Who, specifically, was hiving him pushback? When did it happen?JonNC:
steve-b:
Source…
Source, please, of what they said.
S
steve-b
Guest
You don’t think the Catholic Church gave him push back?steve-b:
Who, specifically, was hiving him pushback? When did it happen?JonNC:
steve-b:
Source…
Source, please, of what they said.
S
steve-b
Guest
Maybe you didn’t see this addition I made to a previous post.steve-b:
Source. Zwingli, as well as the Anabaptists were contemporaries of Luther, and NEVER followers. Calvin was 25 years younger, but again, was NEVER a follower of Luther or in communion with him.
Virtually all of the later groups have their theological if not historical roots in these, not in Lutheranism.
Your presentation takes a correlative and inaccurately turns it into a causative. None of those who followed followed Luther. If they had, there would have been no Anabaptists, no Calvinists. They weren’t lemmings.
Newman at the time was still an Anglican, also states
From http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume1/lecture12.html
Lecture 12, Ecclesiastical history, Section 4
Such, then, is the Anglican Church and its Via Media, {377} and such the practical application of it; it is an interposition or arbitration between the extreme doctrines of Protestantism on the one hand, and the faith of Rome which Protestantism contradicts on the other. At the same time, though it may be unwilling to allow it, it is, from the nature of the case, but a particular form of Protestantism.
It doesn’t matter what I think. The theory is his fellow Evangelical Catholic reformers gave him pushback on James and other books. I’ve seen no evidence of such pushback.JonNC:
You don’t think the Catholic Church gave him push back?steve-b:
Who, specifically, was hiving him pushback? When did it happen?JonNC:
steve-b:
Source…
Source, please, of what they said.
So, again, source.
So, you are referring to Anglicans as Protestant?JonNC:
Maybe you didn’t see this addition I made to a previous post.steve-b:
Source. Zwingli, as well as the Anabaptists were contemporaries of Luther, and NEVER followers. Calvin was 25 years younger, but again, was NEVER a follower of Luther or in communion with him.
Virtually all of the later groups have their theological if not historical roots in these, not in Lutheranism.
Your presentation takes a correlative and inaccurately turns it into a causative. None of those who followed followed Luther. If they had, there would have been no Anabaptists, no Calvinists. They weren’t lemmings.
Newman at the time was still an Anglican, also states
From http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume1/lecture12.html
Lecture 12, Ecclesiastical history, Section 4
Such, then, is the Anglican Church and its Via Media, {377} and such the practical application of it; it is an interposition or arbitration between the extreme doctrines of Protestantism on the one hand, and the faith of Rome which Protestantism contradicts on the other. At the same time, though it may be unwilling to allow it, it is, from the nature of the case, but a particular form of Protestantism.
- Status