Is This What Protestantism Is Really About??

[jmcrae]

Then again, why would you?

If you want the church of the first century, it should be as simple as comparing the faith of the person with that of the first century regardless of his sartorial choices.

And if I actually read the Bible, and actually read the things that it leads to, including the writings of the Early Church, then I still end up with the guy who’s wearing the first century Roman robes.

There is nothing in the Bible itself that points to any Protestant denomination - and if he is reading the Gospel of Matthew with a pure mind and no preconceptions, then he already knows to look for Peter’s successor for his leadership - since he would have read where Moses had successors, and David had successors, and Elijah had successors, so why on earth wouldn’t Peter?

 

[Steadfast]

And if I actually read the Bible, and actually read the things that it leads to, including the writings of the Early Church, then I still end up with the guy who’s wearing the first century Roman robes.

There is nothing in the Bible itself that points to any Protestant denomination - and if he is reading the Gospel of Matthew with a pure mind and no preconceptions, then he already knows to look for Peter’s successor for his leadership - since he would have read where Moses had successors, and David had successors, and Elijah had successors, so why on earth wouldn’t Peter?

I disagree

 

[jmcrae]

I disagree

Yeah, I know.

 

[Rightlydivide]

=jmcrae;4440124]Exactly.

Stranger in a Strange Land is easier to read. So is The Urantia Book (although The Urantia Book is harder to find). How to Win Friends and Influence People has a much more straightforward title; why would he bypass that one in favour of the Bible?

The Urantia Book is an easier read?? Ok…
Why do you find it so hard to believe that someone would finally read the Bible?
Details about him. I asked him to post. He is probably still laughing at me.
Finished doctorate.
Life in shambles.
Read lots of books, although I do not know all of them.
The Bible is TRUTH. I am surprised you are surprised.

Again, he had to have been preconditioned to recognize the Bible as a holy text - perhaps through something he saw on television or heard at school.

He read the Koran in college I know. I do not know what class.

He would have read that he needed to be circumcised long before he ever got to the end of the Gospel of Matthew.

Circumcision is cultural. I was and my parents are not and were not Christian. I do not know if he is. I cannot think of a good way to ask him.

How does he discern that he doesn’t need to be circumcized, but that he does need to be baptized?

I would imagine he finished it first prior to doing much of anything. I know I did. His story is very similar to mine.

Again, something in the outward culture is influencing his interpretation of the Scriptures.

Because someone reading the Bible for the first time came up with a different interpretation than yours it is culturally biased? Boy that take a lot of ego…

If I’m looking for the Church of the first century, why do I go to a guy who dresses exactly like my brother? Why don’t I go to the guy who dresses like they did in the first century?

 

[jmcrae]

Why do you find it so hard to believe that someone would finally read the Bible?

Because there are zillions of books out there, all with equal claims to authority. Why the Bible, in particular?

You mentioned that he went to college - he probably heard a professor or a fellow student mention something about the Bible. (I would be astonished if he did not.)

I am just trying to get across to you that your friend is not as pur laine as you or he think he is.

Because someone reading the Bible for the first time came up with a different interpretation than yours it is culturally biased? Boy that take a lot of ego…

Not at all, since I freely admit cultural bias in my own case, too. I read the KJV for most of my life because I was taught to believe that it was the “real” Bible. Where did I learn that, since nobody told me that outright? I could have said, “Well, God told me,” because it was a thought in my mind, and I didn’t know where it came from. Actually, though, I absorbed it from the surrounding culture - the version of the Bible that my parents had on their night table was a KJV, and our Christmas story was read from the KJV every year. Thus, it was set aside as “special” and nobody needed to tell me anything - their actions said it all.

The surrounding culture teaches us most of what we know about just about anything - why would it be surprising that religion is no exception?

 

[JonNC]

=Steadfast;4439224]
I know you like the JDDJ, Jon but you must realize that it accomplished nothing beyond giving everyone a nice warm feeling in their tummies.

If a warm feeling in the tummies of both Catholics and Lutherans about each other is all that it accomplished, then thank God He has brought us that far. I think it does more than that, though, and I’m not even LWF.

There is no reason why Lutherans should ever deviate from the belief that they are not “justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight.” ( -Augsburg IV) Because this is what God has revealed in Scripture, we deviate from it at peril to our souls.

And Catholics still insist on binding Christian consciences up in works like masses and purgatory and unnecessary beliefs regarding a whole host of other things about which believers ought to be free, making them requisite for salvation.

I’m not even talking about deviating from my belief, but if I we can find common ground, find new ways together, led by the HS, to express the truth that we are Justified by grace alone through faith, and as the Confessions state, works are necessary, well, I for one am willing to consider it.
And at the risk of sounding irritated, perahps we Lutherans could use just a little “binding” by our church. How often do Lutherans you know access private confession, as Lutheran taught we should? How many Lutheran churches do you know fail in its obligation to provide the Eucharist at every opportunity? Etc.

But this difference is so fundamental, I do not believe it will ever be resolved by a group of people, however well meaning, sitting around pondering it with no real intention to change.

You’re right. It’ll take the Holy Spirit, in conjunction with a group of people sitting around with the intention to come together.

The RCC is not likely to change (though we pray that they might), and we must not.

I don’t know, Vatican II seems like a pretty big change to me. And change does not necessarily mean deviating from the truth.

My attitude is I would rather be optimistic and disappointed, than pessimistic and satisfied. I believe Lutherans should be reformationists, not protestants. Unity should be a constant goal.

Jon

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

You didn’t. Adstrinity said that you were upset because your fellow Catholics didn’t love the Church as much as you did. And that is out of line. Your fellow Catholics criticize your statements because they don’t make sense and thus hurt Catholicism. They oppose you out of love for Catholicism.

As a non-Catholic with a longstanding interest in Catholicism, I will not stand by and see my Catholic brothers and sisters slandered and reviled because they dare to try to be fair and decent to us non-Catholics. Your way of “defending” Catholicism is destructive and wrong. You are hurting the Church you love, and you need to stop, take a deep breath, and learn a little bit of history and theology before charging off on your holy crusade.

Edwin

Wrong contarini, my fellow Catholics do not criticize my statements, perhaps the ones poorly educated in Catholicism, and there are plenty of them I’m afraid to say, but not a majority.
My way of defending Catholicism is not destructive and wrong. You just don’t like my style ad my passion for the faith, and you continue to put words in the hearts and minds of my fellow Catholics so they will actually believe you are right…sort of what Luther did 500 years ago, no?
And who are you to be such a leading scholar of the Catholic church? If you are so very learned, then why aren’t you in the church Christ founded? Perhaps you should take notes from Dr. Scott Hahn, a die-hard Protestant who converted after his research and who also holds a BA with a triple-major in Theology, Philosophy and Economics as well as his Master of Divinity and his PH.D in Biblical Theology, not to mention a brilliant speaker and teacher. Now there is someone I could listen to.

 

[jmcrae]

Wrong contarini, my fellow Catholics do not criticize my statements, perhaps the ones poorly educated in Catholicism, and there are plenty of them I’m afraid to say, but not a majority.

Wow. Okay, apparently I’m a “poorly educated Catholic” because I protest you getting all mixed up and presenting false characterizations of Protestantism.

My way of defending Catholicism is not destructive and wrong.

Actually, it is. Inventing straw men and knocking them down may be entertaining, but it is not very educational.

You just don’t like my style ad my passion for the faith, and you continue to put words in the hearts and minds of my fellow Catholics so they will actually believe you are right…sort of what Luther did 500 years ago, no?

This is complete nonsense.

And who are you to be such a leading scholar of the Catholic church? If you are so very learned, then why aren’t you in the church Christ founded? Perhaps you should take notes from Dr. Scott Hahn, a die-hard Protestant who converted after his research and who also holds a BA with a triple-major in Theology, Philosophy and Economics as well as his Master of Divinity and his PH.D in Biblical Theology, not to mention a brilliant speaker and teacher. Now there is someone I could listen to.

He wouldn’t put up with your “style”, either.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Because there are zillions of books out there, all with equal claims to authority. Why the Bible, in particular?

Lets break this down. Because it is getting very odd to me. If a person were searching for meaning in America, reading the Bible, even in a secular California, is not a stretch.

You mentioned that he went to college - he probably heard a professor or a fellow student mention something about the Bible. (I would be astonished if he did not.)

 

[CWBetts]

As far as Peter’s successor, I can tell you EXACTLY what I thought. I thought Peter must have been important but that Paul was more important because Christ appeared to him personally after his resurrection and Peter disappears from the narrative. I also thought that John was mor important than those two because Christ appeared to him last!!!

 

[Steadfast]

Rightlydivide;4442096:

You are forgetting that Jesus pesonally put Peter as head of the Church, a role that is shown throughout the book of Acts. I don’t undrestand why Protestants have such a distaste for both Peter and Mary

What has anyone said that would indicate “distaste” for either Mary or Peter?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;4442096:

You are forgetting that Jesus pesonally put Peter as head of the Church, a role that is shown throughout the book of Acts. I don’t undrestand why Protestants have such a distaste for both Peter and Mary

I am talking about my first time through… and no. The famous passage you are referring to is not in the exact same account in the other two gospels. Shortly afterwards, they got in an argument about who was the greatest. Three men are called pillars, not just one. James makes the decision in Acts 15. Peter feared the men from James. Paul is the player from the vast majority of Acts and Peter disappears. He did not put him as “head of the Church”. He said he was Rock and on this rock I will build my church. I was not sure what that meant exactly but I knew that Mark and Luke never mentioned it. Yeah I thought Peter was head of the Apostles, still think that, but I sure did not come up with what you guys did. I have no distaste with either. False accusation.

 

[jmcrae]

Lets break this down. Because it is getting very odd to me. If a person were searching for meaning in America, reading the Bible, even in a secular California, is not a stretch.

 

[jblake]

jmcrae;:

including the writings of the Early Church, then I still end up with the guy who’s wearing the first century Roman robes.

Which would be whom?

Contemporary garb for clergy of Catholic Christianity dates to the Renaissance;
Contemporary garb for clergy of Orthodox Christianity goes back to the the fifth or sixth century;
Contemporary garb for the clergy of Oriental Christianity might go back as far as the second century, but it isn’t based upon Roman robes.

if he is reading the Gospel of Matthew with a pure mind and no preconceptions, then he already knows to look for Peter’s successor for his leadership

If you are referring to the verse I think you are, it is abundantly clear that everything is built upon Faith. Claiming it refers to Peter, is adding something that simply is not present in the original text. (This becomes even clearer when one reads the text in the original language.)

jonathon

 

[jblake]

jmcrae;:

For example, the idea of “I can read the Bible by myself” comes from Luther.

That idea predates Luther by at least a millenium, if not more.

It’s the ideas themselves that influence you. And the less you know about where ideas come from, the more likely they are to influence you without you being aware of it, because the more likely you are to think that “everyone” thinks like this; that everyone shares in these ideas.

What you are omitting is the difference between the ideas, as originally promulgated, and the ideas as understood in popular culture.

jonathon

 

[jmcrae]

Which would be whom?

Contemporary garb for clergy of Catholic Christianity dates to the Renaissance;
Contemporary garb for clergy of Orthodox Christianity goes back to the the fifth or sixth century;
Contemporary garb for the clergy of Oriental Christianity might go back as far as the second century, but it isn’t based upon Roman robes.

If you are referring to the verse I think you are, it is abundantly clear that everything is built upon Faith. Claiming it refers to Peter, is adding something that simply is not present in the original text. (This becomes even clearer when one reads the text in the original language.)

jonathon

Actually, in the original language, it’s even more clear that the sense of it is, “Thou art Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church.” The thing with the keys is a reference to Isaiah 22:22, which speaks of the succession of the keyholder of the house of David. (Jesus being “David” in this case, and Peter being “Eliakim”.)

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;4442096:

Home of the Jesus People. Not exactly Catholic.

He would have unconsciously imbibed their idea of Jesus as an icon of everyman - thus, we see where he got the idea that a pastor should be in plain clothes, and not in robes.

Because the culture, including secular culture, is influenced by Luther. For example, the idea of “I can read the Bible by myself” comes from Luther. You don’t have to read the writings of Luther in order to encounter this idea - it has become permeated into the culture as a whole.

Which is how it is that both you and he are influenced by the unquestioned assumptions of the surrounding culture - because you don’t

know where those ideas come from. It’s more of an “everybody knows …” thing, rather than being able to discern what came from Luther, what came from Calvin, what came from Shakespeare, and so on and so forth.

It’s the ideas themselves that influence you. And the less you know about where ideas come from, the more likely they are to influence you without you being aware of it, because the more likely you are to think that “everyone” thinks like this; that everyone shares in these ideas.

If you work with disabled children for a while, it becomes apparent that not everything we consider “self-evidently obvious” actually is - it’s amazing how much of what is “obvious” is actually learned.
Where did Luther say I can read the Bible myself? I assume you mean…I dont know what you mean.
I wonder if that last statment was blind luck…

 

[jmcrae]

Where did Luther say I can read the Bible myself? I assume you mean…I dont know what you mean.

The idea that you can invent your own meanings for the text without looking at what the Early Fathers taught, is what I am referring to, where Luther said “damn the Pope, I will have it say what I want it to say.”

 

[Rightlydivide]

The idea that you can invent your own meanings for the text without looking at what the Early Fathers taught, is what I am referring to, where Luther said “damn the Pope, I will have it say what I want it to say.”

Before we get into that too deep, you do realize that other groups taught what you are saying prior to Luther?

 

[jmcrae]

Before we get into that too deep, you do realize that other groups taught what you are saying prior to Luther?

Not in an organized way. Luther was the first to create both a nation and a religion out of his belief system. Those who came before him were just individuals acting on their own, without very many followers.