If Protestantism Is True

[Radical]

I’ve contemplated this - but I don’t agree.

The root of stable SS, is that Lutherans don’t deny tradition at all. So unless tradition is contraindicated by the Bible (it almost never does) - then adding novelties would be temping disaster (if not God) for no good reason.

I am trying to follow your reasoning as it relates to novelties. Is it your position that:

a) all novelties are bad?

b) things are classified as novelties based on how they relate to the origional deposit or on how they relate to the official teachings of the hierarchy of the visible church?

c) some novelties were introduced by the CC that are contraindicated in scriptures?

It seems that you are saying (c) and if so, it would seem to me that, if novelties have been added that are contraindicated in scripture, then it is extremely likely that novelties have been added where scripture is silent…as the latter should be subject to much less resistence.

please clarify

 

[benjohnson]

I am trying to follow your reasoning as it relates to novelties. Is it your position that:

a) all novelties are bad?

No, not all novelties are bad. The Holy Sprit is with us! The Pope’s teaching in Immaculate Conception deserves careful and prayerful consideration for us Lutherans.

b) things are classified as novelties based on how they relate to the origional deposit or on how they relate to the official teachings of the hierarchy of the visible church?

Pardon, if I don’t get this answer correct - something is novel if it is different than past tradition, or is new doctrine, or is new teaching.

c) some novelties were introduced by the CC that are contraindicated in scriptures?

As a Lutheran, I would say the practice of paid for access to the Treasury of Merit would be contra to both tradition and scripture. But that’s in the past, and we don’t have to get angry about it now anymore.

It seems that you are saying (c) and if so, it would seem to me that, if novelties have been added that are contraindicated in scripture, then it is extremely likely that novelties have been added where scripture is silent…as the latter should be subject to much less resistence.
please clarify

Remember, Lutherans don’t deny other authorities, only that we demand that those other authorities also submit to the scripture:

So let’s say a lay person comes up with a novel idea - ideally both Catholics and Lutherans should be able to make the same determination on the idea based on applying tradition, scripture, and teaching.

The main difference,as I understand it:

When the Catholic Magisterium and Pope come up with a novel dogma, Catholics would automatically agree, while Lutherans will start pawing through the Bible before coming up with an answer.

 

[Contarini]

I’ve contemplated this - but I don’t agree.

The root of stable SS, is that Lutherans don’t deny tradition at all. So unless tradition is contraindicated by the Bible (it almost never does) - then adding novelties would be temping disaster (if not God) for no good reason.

There’s nothing in Luther settled writings that demands novelties. That said, we are open to the Holy Sprit - for example, I would say that the Pope’s inspired insistence of Mary’s Assumption merits serious consideration.

I can see your point about SS being more radical in it’s early days, but to be fair, I’ll defer to Lather’s more calm and reasoned writing done at a later time when he wasn’t in fear of his life and soul.

I think that Luther’s alleged fear for his life gets overused as a way of justifying whatever crazy things he said or did.

Furthermore, I can’t think of any scholars who would call the old Luther calm and reasoned. It’s much more common to argue that the old Luther was particularly neurotic and bitter, lashing out even at former allies (see the influential work of Mark Edwards, Luther’s Last Battles). I think that’s a rather unfair characterization in some ways. But I’ve never yet heard someone describe the old Luther–or indeed Luther at any point in his career–as calm and reasoned. Luther had many virtues, but those aren’t the terms I’d use to describe him at any point!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hi, Edwin…I would say Thank your for your insights.

You should write a book…I really mean it.

Anyway, can you expound more on this:and that later Luther and still more later confessional Lutherans put barriers around Sola Scriptura because it was having effects they didn’t like.

What were those effects?

Zwingli’s interpretation of “This is My Body” to mean “This signifies My Body,” and the Anabaptist rejection of infant baptism and the power of the sword; just to mention a couple of the more significant ones.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

There was also Catherine of Sienna…who did not see a need to split the Church.

Indeed, she’s one of many examples.

 

[PRmerger]

There’s nothing in Luther settled writings that demands novelties. That said, we are open to the Holy Sprit - for example, I would say that the Pope’s inspired insistence of Mary’s Assumption merits serious consideration.

Indeed.

And what was declared regarding Mary and her most glorious Assumption is only that which we can hope for ourselves as Christians, is it not?

 

[PRmerger]

If someone came to your town and asked you, “Where’s the local Catholic church, friend?” would you point him to your church?

Hiya, Ben! I see that you are online now. While the above question was mainly initially rhetorical, as I review it now I think that I am quite interested in your response. Could you please address?

 

[PRmerger]

If I may borrow some words, only after “a long train of abuses and usurpations.”
In my opinion those past abuses are horrid enough to drive people from God and Church, and history showed us that indeed they were. I would say we need to be hyper-vigelent on church abuses, for I imagine that one of the greater sins would be driving someone away from God.

So then it is sins against orthopraxy to which you object and not to Catholic orthodoxy?

That seems curious to me because you are then objecting to Catholics, but not to Catholicism, right?

 

[benjohnson]

I think that Luther’s alleged fear for his life gets overused as a way of justifying whatever crazy things he said or did.

Furthermore, I can’t think of any scholars who would call the old Luther calm and reasoned. It’s much more common to argue that the old Luther was particularly neurotic and bitter, lashing out even at former allies (see the influential work of Mark Edwards, Luther’s Last Battles). I think that’s a rather unfair characterization in some ways. But I’ve never yet heard someone describe the old Luther–or indeed Luther at any point in his career–as calm and reasoned. Luther had many virtues, but those aren’t the terms I’d use to describe him at any point!

Edwin

I can see why you say that - Luther did go crazy with anti-Semitic stuff when in older age.

I do hope that when God judges my faith, he finds the best things about me. I predict that I’ll be quite cranky in my old age as I know I was rash in my youth.

 

[benjohnson]

Hiya, Ben! I see that you are online now. While the above question was mainly initially rhetorical, as I review it now I think that I am quite interested in your response. Could you please address?

Ok I’ll bite

Of course I would send him to the local parish - St. Monica’s. I’ve been there myself several time for Mass. The Godparents of my third child are members there - it’s because of them that I even have a third child. I would have stopped at two.

But I don’t give up claims to be ‘catholic’ in the biblical sense. I do desire communion with Rome. If Hopefully our simple Lutheran church has much to offer, as I know we have much to learn from Rome.

The Roman Catholic church has made great strides to accommodate us - even your Mass is in the vernacular. I hope my church can reciprocate.

 

[benjohnson]

So then it is sins against orthopraxy to which you object and not to Catholic orthodoxy?

That seems curious to me because you are then objecting to Catholics, but not to Catholicism, right?

Forgive me If I don’t quite make sense:

I object to the behavior of particular Catholics - Pope Leo X for example. In only a few points do I object with Catholic dogma. Perhaps I don’t agree with Papal Infallibility - and even then I’m inclined to give the Holy office the benefit of the doubt.

I do think that Lutherans have a more hopeful way of looking at the True Body and True Blood of Christ - we simply accept this mystery. The Catholic church seems a bit too legalistic with the assertion of transubstantiation, but even then, I find that I can’t get too angry about it for when Christ represents his sacrifice to me, all such worries fade.

But do I object to Roman Catholicism? No! Do I hold a grudge against Leo X? No! Catholics are my brothers in Christ.

I would be lost in a secular world without Catholics and the Roman Catholic church.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok I’ll bite

Thank you.

I think your answer was fair.

And I think the point of my question was received. When someone says he’s catholic, we all know to which church he attends.

 

[Taestron]

I am coming late to the discussion, so sorry if I repeat anything. But I did have question for my fellow Protestants, especially Ben and Jon. It sounds like you don’t agree with certain doctrines, but your main disagreements were the events of the 16th century. Today, is a totally different situation, so… why remain Protestant if the barriers that divide your traditions is so thin?

 

[benjohnson]

I am coming late to the discussion, so sorry if I repeat anything. But I did have question for my fellow Protestants, especially Ben and Jon. It sounds like you don’t agree with certain doctrines, but your main disagreements were the events of the 16th century. Today, is a totally different situation, so… why remain Protestant if the barriers that divide your traditions is so thin?

Great question! If I could speak only for myself as I’m probably a crack-pot:

Some Practical Reasons:

1. Amazing work: My church runs a school that is 90% immigrants and only half are Christian, and when they leave, most are Christian and have brought their families into the faith. We only charge $5000 per pupil at the maximum - so I don’t think the School would survive with the overhead of an Episcopal structure - the current Congregational structure allows us the freedom to only put money in where it’s needed: i.e. We don’t have a fancy building.
2. Small church: I know my pastor on a first name basis, and I go fishing with my associate paster. Given that I’m a willful bugger this gives me a lot of faith and security, I think I would be lost in a larger church.
3. Loyalty: My church is flawed, made of flawed people - but they have been good to me, and held me tight when I wanted to wonder. The brought me to Christ. I have a need to repay them in some small measure
4. Do no harm: I know Catholics don’t believe this, but I know I’m getting the fullness of faith in my church. God is the one who gives me grace, so worries of apostolic succession don’t bother me. Uprooting myself from one known good church to and unknown good church doesn’t seem prudent.

Some Doctrine Reasons:

1. I don’t quite agree with Papal Infallibility.
2. I’m not quite willing to submit to the Pope. I don’t think that trading Sola Scriptura for Sola Ecclesia would change my “personal interpretation” problem - Instead potentially of debating scripture (remember we only seem to debate scripture every 1700 years or so) , I would be debating church teaching.

(My sense is that problem 1 and 2 are related, and I think I would do better under the direct authority of God than the Pope. The hard part is that it’s easier to know the the mind of the Pope, and he’s quite the writer. God writes on my heart, but I’m not wise enough to read it)

1. Willingness to commune in sinful Churches: This is really personal view, and It’s only my view, and I don’t share it with others in my church as it’s not appropriate. I’m very conservative, very very conservative , and I don’t tolerate modernity or counter-scriptural or counter-traditional thinking in my church or family. But, here’s the weird bit - I love my fellow Christians and I appreciate their struggles. I’m ok with communing with other churches even if I think they’re grossly in error in minor doctrine. It’s given me the opportunity to cheerfully correct, and given me the opportunity to understand the problems of this sinful world, and given me the appreciation for my own church.

 

[JonNC]

Ben,
You did such a fine job here, with your indulgence (pardon the pun) I’m just going to bounce mine off of yours.

=benjohnson;9411755]Great question! If I could speak only for myself as I’m probably a crack-pot:

Baloney, unless I am too.

Some Practical Reasons:

1. Amazing work: My church runs a school that is 90% immigrants and only half are Christian, and when they leave, most are Christian and have brought their families into the faith. We only charge $5000 per pupil at the maximum - so I don’t think the School would survive with the overhead of an Episcopal structure - the current Congregational structure allows us the freedom to only put money in where it’s needed: i.e. We don’t have a fancy building.

Wish we were big enough to start this kind of work. I’m a teacher, and envy greatly my daughter’s calling to teach in a Lutheran school in the mid-west.

1. Small church: I know my pastor on a first name basis, and I go fishing with my associate paster. Given that I’m a willful bugger this gives me a lot of faith and security, I think I would be lost in a larger church.

1. Loyalty: My church is flawed, made of flawed people - but they have been good to me, and held me tight when I wanted to wonder. The brought me to Christ. I have a need to repay them in some small measure

I think sometimes our acculturation into a particular communion goes underestimated. I was raised Lutheran by a Lutheran pastor. I attended a Lutheran college. My spiritual life, and to an almost equal degree, my life in general has revolved around the Lutheran Church. I love our liturgy. our music, and atention to the theology of the cross. Not easy to give these up after almost 60 years.

1. Do no harm: I know Catholics don’t believe this, but I know I’m getting the fullness of faith in my church. God is the one who gives me grace, so worries of apostolic succession don’t bother me. Uprooting myself from one known good church to and unknown good church doesn’t seem prudent.

Ot, as I said above, easy.

Some Doctrine Reasons:

1. I don’t quite agree with Papal Infallibility.

1. I’m not quite willing to submit to the Pope. I don’t think that trading Sola Scriptura for Sola Ecclesia would change my “personal interpretation” problem - Instead potentially of debating scripture (remember we only seem to debate scripture every 1700 years or so) , I would be debating church teaching.

I see papal infallibility as a sub-heading to universal jurisdiction. And for me this is the big issue, as those who know me here will attest.

1. Willingness to commune in sinful Churches: This is really personal view, and It’s only my view, and I don’t share it with others in my church as it’s not appropriate. I’m very conservative, very very conservative , and I don’t tolerate modernity or counter-scriptural or counter-traditional thinking in my church or family. But, here’s the weird bit - I love my fellow Christians and I appreciate their struggles. I’m ok with communing with other churches even if I think they’re grossly in error in minor doctrine. It’s given me the opportunity to cheerfully correct, and given me the opportunity to understand the problems of this sinful world, and given me the appreciation for my own church.

Here I differ with Ben. I have come to appreciate the LCMS “close communion”. To regularly practice sharing the altar with those with whom one agrees is important, though I admit to degrees in this, ie., were the LCMS to agree with the ACNA, for example, in Eucharstic hospitality, I would have no problem with that. Burt certainly not the UCC, which the ELCA has.

Jon

 

[submariner2]

That is false. The CC did not canonize it at Trent. Trent merely re-affirmed what already had been settled centuries. And why? Because of the Protestant reformers questioning certain books. Second,why do Protestants expect the Bible to mention the Catholic Church by name? Does the Bible name the selected books as canon? Does the Bible name doctrine of the Trinity by its name: Trinitarian doctrine?

Why would Paul need to mention the church by name? That is a Protestant proposition due to fact there exist thousands of denominations. If Paul does not mention the CC,then he evidently does not mention ANY Protestant church.

Nicea,

I guess we will have to disagree about Trent because I read from the historians that there was no church wide approval of canon until Trent. The synods of the 4th century were not church wide, hence the need for Trent to establish the canon and settle the arguments with the Reformers about the Deuterocanicals.

I see no reason to name any church or denomination in the NT, although the Church of God was named several times by Paul. We are all part of Gods church and don’t need a name in the NT to be his church.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Rob,

I truly suggest you read that book. I’m not sure how you can be comfortable without questioning the validity of your own beliefs, which originated with the questioning of the Catholic Church’s beliefs. I currently go to a sola Scriptural church and the thing that has really been bugging me is my church’s disbelief of the need to do sacraments. Even though I felt it was odd and didn’t interpret the Bible the way they did regarding baptism, I played along and got baptized anyway because it was expected. Now I feel like a fool and regret it.

I’m really not that interested in reading history books at this point in my journey. While I do believe in knowing your history so you don’t repeat it, it’s not going to affect my belief system. I know people of the Church have done bad things, as have many people in all belief systems. Jesus said there will be weeds among the wheat. I want to be sure I’m a nice strong piece of wheat ripe for harvest when He returns. I pray the same for you.

abrigham,

I merely suggested a good history book by a Catholic to someone else. If you dont want to read history that is your choice. I like history because I like the truth of history but each to his own, Thanks for your prayer.

Rob

 

[CopticChristian]

The people of God which refers to individual believers together. It is not limited to Bishops as you stated.

They were collected because they are inspired Scripture. They are not made Scripture because the church says they are.

That is so wrong. It’s internal and external evidence speaks volumes againist it. I reject that gnostic writing because of it’s clear cut errors in it. It was not based on what the church said about it at all.

Its internal and external evidence of it was which lead me to believe Scripture is inspired by God. That is its quality and nature of which makes it special above every other book that exist.

That is true for you but not for me. My views are based on it’s internal and external evidence. The Gospel of Thomas is a very heretical gnostic writing. I did not need the Roman See to tell me that one. It’s own internal evidence speaks out strongly agianist it with it’s errors.

The Gospel of Thomas was not written by an apostle. It is a gnostic writing thats fake. Mark was not an apostle but was directly connected to the apostle Peter. Mark had the prophetic gift evidently since the Gospel of Mark is inspired Scripture.

By the church I understand it as meaning all believers and not limited to bishops in the church. They were collected because they were Scripture when they were written. Basically Mark was written about 55 ad. That is when it was inspired Scripture and not down the road waiting for the Roman See to say it is Scripture many years later.

My conclusions were based on the internal and external evidence. I did not at all depend on the claims of the Roman See.

I know due to the internal and external evidence and I judged it.

By Catholic Church you are refering to the Roman See only. I view the Catholic Church as embracing all Christians on the earth. I do not limit the Catholic Church to be defined and limited to the Roman See.

Scripture is not God Himself. I do not believe that God is on paper. But rather it is viewed as his inspired written word. It is God’s Word in written form and that is His way of communication to us. When I pray I do not pray to Scripture itself I pray to God whom is in heaven itself. When Scripture speaks it is God who is speaking and is to be obeyed. What I said is far different than you saying I worship Scripture itself. Then again I am not the one who is attacking the realiability of Scripture to the people of God.

My issue is the manner of your argumentation. We already agree with at the very least on 66 books. Our disagreement is over the status of the apocrypah. I deny it is inspired Scripture and hold they are books read only for rule for edification and not for proving doctrine in which I follow the position of Jerome on this matter whereas the RCC views them as rule of faith books for doctrine. Why attack the realiability of Scripture as a whole since we agree with at least 66 books already rather than discuss the books we disagree on ? This is why I view much of your arguments on this as a red herring and as an attack againist Scripture itself ( not sola Scriptura ) . Why question books which we already agree on ? Hope you see my point. Your arguments in the end are circular arguments since it assumes the authority of the Roman See without proving it.

Any reasonable person who has a high view of Scripture would be shocked in the manner of your comments about Scripture and the diversion of the direct issue instead of the real specific point of disagreement. We agree on at least 66 books. That means we do not need to discuss that. We disagree on the apocrypha which is where the specific point of disagreement is at. This point is not really being discused and is filled with red herrings.

Chafer,

I have been through many Protestant Bible studies and attempts at conversion. I muse at some of the attempts. I recall and I am sure most will admit that when confronted with the Book of Revelation there is awe. I set out to read and understand the Book of Revelation and even now I am not sure I can understand it.

So, let me ask you, any Joe Blow that picks up the Book of Revelation…how is this guy going to absolutely without fail, know that this writing is inspired, word of God and is Scripture.

Take me through the process…I am reading it and I tell you…you have to be kidding…you believe that God penned this…how do I absolutely know that and how can you provide me any assurance of that…so lets go with that one…help me…

 

[benjohnson]

So, let me ask you, any Joe Blow that picks up the Book of Revelation…how is this guy going to absolutely without fail, know that this writing is inspired, word of God and is Scripture.

Oddly enough, when I was a know-it-all-agnostic, the Book of Revelation played a large part in my intellectual conversion. It’s so disjointed, yet so harmonious. So grievous, yet hopeful. So specific, yet timeless.

…

In the Catholic’s favor - I would always to expect any single individual to founder in determining what is authentic, and how to interoperate books like Revelation.

In the Protestant’s favor - I would point out that various eastern churches have differing books in their bible, and that even with thousands of people, even God’s Catholic church seems to error: Pope John XXII comes to mind. I think also there was something weird going on in the 1500’s about an angry monk not wanting to pay for something, but it escapes me.

Here’s where I think it will get better - I don’t think that any potential abuse of our bible will survive long in this age of mass communication. Not that it’s a democracy or anything, but I sincerely hope that correct interpretations about the Bible and Christ are obvious, fulfilling, and believable. Silly ideas like paying for the “Treasury of Merit” and that communion is only a remembrance cannot stand if we help each other and talk to each other.

If Catholics think that Protestants are in error - I would sincerely hope that they would approach us as fellow believers in Christ and help us. If Catholics are in error, I hope we Protestants will talk first before nailing bits of paper on your nice cathedral door

 

[CopticChristian]

Nicea,

I guess we will have to disagree about Trent because I read from the historians that there was no church wide approval of canon until Trent. The synods of the 4th century were not church wide, hence the need for Trent to establish the canon and settle the arguments with the Reformers about the Deuterocanicals.

I see no reason to name any church or denomination in the NT, although the Church of God was named several times by Paul. We are all part of Gods church and don’t need a name in the NT to be his church.

Rob

Sub,

Take a loot at the canon of the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox. There was Church wide usage and a declaration. The Church wide usage of the DC was declared at Trent in response to the so called reformers.

You have to add to your understanding that the DC were included in the 1611 King James found here…

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

and were part of every English translation of the Bible. The reality is that printing companies removed the DC, no church authoritative body. This is fact.