D
dronald
Guest
I’m interested what makes you believe Luther was a reformer, not a heretic and Hus was a heretic, not a reformer? (if that’s what you’re saying)
- Status
I think the point is that there never was a doctrinal unity, which is my point.
Sure he was an influence. He was an influential man, at a time when the Church had left a void. But the various movements are concurrent, and not convergent. Doctrinally, Luther had little influence over people such as Muntzer, and was frankly disliked by many of them.
Well, the Church claimed that Luther was a heretic, also. I don’t believe the terms are necessarily mutual exclusive, or mutually inclusive. As for Huss’ teachings, I’m not a Hussite.
That’s exactly, and the only way one can hold Luther responsible - for those in concert with him. Others are responsible for their own actions. These were grown ups who made decisions for themselves.
No. You should take that to mean that, while Luther is responsible for his teaching, others are responsible for theirs, and their own actions. I would say the same thing about the Catholic church at the time. The corruption and abuses within the Catholic Church in central Europe at that time created the atmosphere for the various reformation era movements to start, but Luther, Zwingli, the Anabaptists, are all responsible for their own actions. If one is to blame Luther for the entire Reformation, then the blame is even larger on the Catholic Church for allowing the environment that incubated it.
It isn’t, except that the meaning of the term has changed, or evolved. The term has to do with the protest at Speyer in 1529, which was a protest against the restriction of religious activity. Now it is an umbrella term used to refer to essentially all western nonCatholic Christians. That’s fine as it stands, but when the term is used to imply some sort of monolithic “Protestant Church”, or some sort of unity now long splintered, it isn’t entirely accurate.
So, for the Lutheran, we are in the historical sense protestant, but we are catholic.
Of course he should, but that’s the point; so should reformers from other independent reformation era movements be held exclusively for theirs.
The “protestant disunity”, again, assumes that at some point there was unity, and this is not the case. Luther is not responsible for Zwingli. Zwingli is! I read recently that Zwingli long admired Luther…until he met him at Marburg, where Luther remained steadfast on the doctrine of the real presence. Doctrine is what determined what each of the various and independent Reformation era communions taught, and each one is responsible for his own.
His blessing also with you,
Jon
B
babs57
Guest
I believe that this is true. My private thought on it is that the Church is being chastised for its abuses. The Body of Christ has been torn apart, as it had been at His scourging, and we are all in terrible pain.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I honestly don’t know, or plan to find out, whether anyone is saying that or not. But I personally find it a very strange idea fwiw.
Generally, I don’t believe that God acts in that way, though I could be wrong. I do agree that we are all indeed in terrible pain as the result of our divisions.
That said, I admit the temptation to say, yep, it was all Rome’s fault, but I don’t really believe that. I believe Lutherans share the blame. I believe Luther has his share of the blame, as well. He was at times harsh, and bombastic, and I sometimes find his approach inconsistent with his explanation of the 8th commandment: *“We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.” *
Too often, I am no better.
Jon
R
rfournier103
Guest
Offended at being called Protestant?
Are they Presbyterian? Lutheran? Episcopalian? Baptist? Methodist? Non-Denominational? Maybe they’d prefer one of those monikers better?
We’re ALL Christians. They prefer to be non-specific?
.
Are they Presbyterian? Lutheran? Episcopalian? Baptist? Methodist? Non-Denominational? Maybe they’d prefer one of those monikers better?
We’re ALL Christians. They prefer to be non-specific?
.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The idea of starting one’s own National Church originated with Luther, and the fact that others who started their own National Churches didn’t agree with his theology doesn’t mean that they didn’t get the idea from him.
Over those previous 200 years, no one thought of creating the Anglican Church as a separate entity, distinct from the rest of Christianity - until Luther created the German Lutheran Church, and then, everyone started doing it - and some took the idea even further by divorcing religion from politics altogether, and starting living room churches - after all, if any government can have its own church, then why not any man?
J
jmcrae
Guest
And someone is funding his salary, and the building - and someone can fire him.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Of course not - that’s the whole point of Protestantism - they aren’t supposed to agree with each other, and they wouldn’t be Protestant if they did, because it would mean they were listening to each other (hearing the words of men) rather than following the dictates of their hearts (individual interpretation) - but there was unity in the idea of each one establishing his own Church based on what he heard in his heart, and what he believed Jesus was revealing to him.
G
GKC
Guest
What was stirring both Henry, and the continental reformers ( to a lesser degree) was nascent nationalism; in Henry’s case, not a question of theology, but a continuation of real politics seen in the Acts and Decrees. He did something that, in some form or other, would have come about eventually, with or without him or his dynastic or hormonal issues, and without regard to what Luther was doing. The relationship between the Throne and Rome had been a contentious one for hundreds of years, as the monarchy sought to reduce the power of any outside agency (Rome) over the Church in England, while increasing the power of the Throne over it, and over the royal prerogatives developing. Henry and his Great Matter was a collision, an inevitable one, between the Church, as then structured and functioning, and the emergence of nationalism. What Henry did, in taking the Church in England private, was a difference in degree, not in kind, of a process that had been on going in England for +/- 300 years; the increasing independence of the ruling class (monarchy, at the time) from any control from outside the realm. Looking back to the 12th century and forward to Henry, acts of Parliament and Royal decrees limiting and abolishing Papal and Church prerogatives were numerous (Council of Westminster, Council of Clarendon, First Statute of Winchester, Statute of Mortmain, the Writ Circumspecte agatis , the Statue of Carlisle, and the double Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire, for example). The Henrician Acts (basically a double bluff: Henry expected Clement to cave; Clement expected Henry to be reconciled) were a watershed. Politics and religion were tightly intertwined in the period, but the nature of the relationship had been shifting. Had Henry produced a regiment of legitimate male heirs, with Catherine, eventually, some sort of break would have come. In watching this, one is watching not merely a religious struggle, but a political one as well. Nascent nationalism made inevitable a disconnecting of the intertwined roles of the Church and the State. Henry’s move made it less drastic than the Continental reformers. And was not inspired by them, but by the English history cited. Hank was the perfect storm to cause a split, but he did not take his inspiration from Luther.
As always, Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII is recommended.
GKC
Seems like a common thread in our faith, sadly, as we have seen long before the Reformation, that we tend to not listen to each other.
Jon
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi dron,
Furthermore, a heretic, is someone who takes it upon themselves to teach something radical, something that has never been taught before, something that departs from the teachings of their fathers. Professor William H. Carroll might shed some light:
“Some time during the early spring of 1518 Luther had received a letter from his former professor of philosophy at the University of Erfurt, Jodocus Trutfetter, a man whom he deeply respected and who had expected great service to the Church from so able a mind and so strong a personality as Luther. Now Professor Trutfetter solemnly warned his former student against the path he was taking, urging him to turn back before it was too late. On May 9 Luther replied: ‘To speak plainly, my firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as the at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted.’ Such uprooting, he said, had now become his fixed purpose, ‘a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of the greatest weight for me, much less than that of any others, can turn me aside.’ (Luther, Carrol quoting Fife, ‘Revolt of Martin Luther’, pg. 267)
This is one of the most important of the thousands of letters Luther wrote in his long, full lifetime. It reveals that as early as May 1518 he was essentially committed to the destruction of the Church as he knew it, though he had not yet proceeded to total public defiance of all Church authority. It shows his revolutionary temper, his purpose to ‘uproot’ rather than simply to reform, which is the goal of every revolutionary. It provides our first evidence that the upheaval to come was rightly to be called a revolt or a revolution, not a ‘reformation’. It also shows Luther in the act of coldly and deliberately breaking a bond whose quality and strength only the dedicated teacher and his former student know: the love and loyalty that emanate from their memories of each other.
Luther wrote this letter just before completing his defense in Latin of his position on indulgences. He sent a copy to the Pope with a cover letter, later printed with is as a preface. IN the preface he says that he ‘cannot recant’ from his position on indulgences, yet still insists on his willingness to listen to Leo X ‘as the ‘Voice of Christ’, who presides in him and speaks through him…….enliven me, kill me, call me back, confirm me, reject me, just as it pleases you’……despite the fact that in the text itself, sent with this letter, he had flatly and insultingly declared: ‘I do not care what pleases or displeases the Pope. He is just a man like other men. There have been many Popes inclined to errors, vices, and even very strange things.’
In mid-June the papal procurator, Mario de Perusco, made a formal charge of heresy against Luther – no for condemning the granting of indulgences for money, which the Church itself, through the Council of Trent, was later also to condemn, but for denying the existence of the treasury of grace and questioning the authority of the Pope. In early July Luther was summoned to appear at Rome for trial within sixty days. He responded with his characteristic defiance, declaring that he would not accept excommunication if the Church decreed it for him. On July 25 he reiterated that defiance, along with references to ‘eternal predestination,’ in another sermon before Duke George of Saxony and his court. Shouting matches broke out afterward between Luther and professors defending scholastic theology. Undoubtedly the entire academic brawl deepened Duke George’s concern about the damage Luther was already doing and much greater damage he was capable of doing.” William H. Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom’, pg. 7-8
I think that this is very clear evidence that Luther had absolutely NO intention of being a ‘reformer’ of the Catholic Church, but rather that as early as six months after he ‘posted’ the 95 Theses, he “was essentially committed to the destruction of the Church as he knew it”.
Interestingly, many of Luther’s former Professors were vehemently opposed to his radical teachings and very early on. After receiving Luther’s letter, Professor Trutfetter refused to grant a meeting, even though Luther was already in Erfurt. Similarly, his theology was rejected by Professor Usingen and his former Prior Nathin at Erfurt.
“It was experiences such as these which tortured Luther with doubts, as he often later confessed to his table companions, as to whether his reforms were of God.” Schwiebert, pg. 330
If Luther had those kinds of serious doubts as to whether his teachings were of God, it seems to me that it would be foolish for anyone to simply presume that his teachings were of God without considering the possibility that they were not.
It should be remembered that Luther’s original ‘complaints’ had to do with practices surrounding indulgences, and were not overtly (at least not in his limited understanding) directed at doctrine. Yet, within three years of the ‘posting’ he had refuted or seriously challenged more than 4 dozen key doctrines of the Church. How are we supposed to believe that the Church had been wrong on THAT MUCH, and that it needed the ‘guidance’ of a SINGLE MAN on SO MANY issues.
God Bless You dron, Topper
I didn’t say that I don’t consider Luther to NOT be a heretic. It seems to me that throughout history, the people who can actually be considered to be ‘reformers’ were people who wished to ASSIST in the “reformation” of the Church, but stayed within it, and HAD A POSITIVE INFLUENCE on it. A True ‘reformer’ would NOT be someone whose goal was the destruction of the Church.
Furthermore, a heretic, is someone who takes it upon themselves to teach something radical, something that has never been taught before, something that departs from the teachings of their fathers. Professor William H. Carroll might shed some light:
“Some time during the early spring of 1518 Luther had received a letter from his former professor of philosophy at the University of Erfurt, Jodocus Trutfetter, a man whom he deeply respected and who had expected great service to the Church from so able a mind and so strong a personality as Luther. Now Professor Trutfetter solemnly warned his former student against the path he was taking, urging him to turn back before it was too late. On May 9 Luther replied: ‘To speak plainly, my firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as the at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted.’ Such uprooting, he said, had now become his fixed purpose, ‘a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of the greatest weight for me, much less than that of any others, can turn me aside.’ (Luther, Carrol quoting Fife, ‘Revolt of Martin Luther’, pg. 267)
This is one of the most important of the thousands of letters Luther wrote in his long, full lifetime. It reveals that as early as May 1518 he was essentially committed to the destruction of the Church as he knew it, though he had not yet proceeded to total public defiance of all Church authority. It shows his revolutionary temper, his purpose to ‘uproot’ rather than simply to reform, which is the goal of every revolutionary. It provides our first evidence that the upheaval to come was rightly to be called a revolt or a revolution, not a ‘reformation’. It also shows Luther in the act of coldly and deliberately breaking a bond whose quality and strength only the dedicated teacher and his former student know: the love and loyalty that emanate from their memories of each other.
Luther wrote this letter just before completing his defense in Latin of his position on indulgences. He sent a copy to the Pope with a cover letter, later printed with is as a preface. IN the preface he says that he ‘cannot recant’ from his position on indulgences, yet still insists on his willingness to listen to Leo X ‘as the ‘Voice of Christ’, who presides in him and speaks through him…….enliven me, kill me, call me back, confirm me, reject me, just as it pleases you’……despite the fact that in the text itself, sent with this letter, he had flatly and insultingly declared: ‘I do not care what pleases or displeases the Pope. He is just a man like other men. There have been many Popes inclined to errors, vices, and even very strange things.’
In mid-June the papal procurator, Mario de Perusco, made a formal charge of heresy against Luther – no for condemning the granting of indulgences for money, which the Church itself, through the Council of Trent, was later also to condemn, but for denying the existence of the treasury of grace and questioning the authority of the Pope. In early July Luther was summoned to appear at Rome for trial within sixty days. He responded with his characteristic defiance, declaring that he would not accept excommunication if the Church decreed it for him. On July 25 he reiterated that defiance, along with references to ‘eternal predestination,’ in another sermon before Duke George of Saxony and his court. Shouting matches broke out afterward between Luther and professors defending scholastic theology. Undoubtedly the entire academic brawl deepened Duke George’s concern about the damage Luther was already doing and much greater damage he was capable of doing.” William H. Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom’, pg. 7-8
I think that this is very clear evidence that Luther had absolutely NO intention of being a ‘reformer’ of the Catholic Church, but rather that as early as six months after he ‘posted’ the 95 Theses, he “was essentially committed to the destruction of the Church as he knew it”.
Interestingly, many of Luther’s former Professors were vehemently opposed to his radical teachings and very early on. After receiving Luther’s letter, Professor Trutfetter refused to grant a meeting, even though Luther was already in Erfurt. Similarly, his theology was rejected by Professor Usingen and his former Prior Nathin at Erfurt.
“It was experiences such as these which tortured Luther with doubts, as he often later confessed to his table companions, as to whether his reforms were of God.” Schwiebert, pg. 330
If Luther had those kinds of serious doubts as to whether his teachings were of God, it seems to me that it would be foolish for anyone to simply presume that his teachings were of God without considering the possibility that they were not.
It should be remembered that Luther’s original ‘complaints’ had to do with practices surrounding indulgences, and were not overtly (at least not in his limited understanding) directed at doctrine. Yet, within three years of the ‘posting’ he had refuted or seriously challenged more than 4 dozen key doctrines of the Church. How are we supposed to believe that the Church had been wrong on THAT MUCH, and that it needed the ‘guidance’ of a SINGLE MAN on SO MANY issues.
God Bless You dron, Topper
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
Thanks for your response,
“Eck had been one of the first to write against Luther on the issue of indulgences, identifying immediately the similarities in Luther’s arguments with those of John Hus.” Carroll, pg. 12
Almost two years later, Luther finally realized that he was a Hussite, something that virtually everybody else recognized long before he did. Clueless!
IOW, Luther can only be criticized for those who agree with him (and you), which, from your perspective, doesn’t that mean that you cannot criticize Luther for ANYTHING?
It is true that the abuses by the Church were partly the reasons for the environment which allowed for the Revolt. But those abuses were absolutely no justification for the wholesale dumping of dozens of accepted doctrines. In this Luther took his Revolt WAY TOO FAR. The abuses of the Catholic Church did not automatically lead people into doctrinal error, but Luther’s promulgation of Private Interpretation not only led men into doctrinal error but ASSURED that they would be in error. This was a result of Luther’s ‘leadership’.
I do not refer to Lutherans as ‘evangelical catholics’, especially with a capitol ‘c’, because I consider that to be a misappropriation.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
Thanks for your response,
In my response to dron I have outlined my view of the term ‘reformer’. It would appear that “heretic” is another definition on which we will disagree. BTW, I never suggested that you were a “Hussite”, although it is worth noting that Luther famously claimed that HE was a Hussite. In this you are far different from Luther, which I think is significant.
“Eck had been one of the first to write against Luther on the issue of indulgences, identifying immediately the similarities in Luther’s arguments with those of John Hus.” Carroll, pg. 12
Almost two years later, Luther finally realized that he was a Hussite, something that virtually everybody else recognized long before he did. Clueless!
Obviously you cannot concede the point, but I believe that it has been adequately made.
IOW, Luther can only be criticized for those who agree with him (and you), which, from your perspective, doesn’t that mean that you cannot criticize Luther for ANYTHING?
OK, so if Luther is to be held responsible for his teaching, then wouldn’t he be held responsible for his teaching of Private Interpretation, which I am sure you would agree, has led MANY into error?
It is true that the abuses by the Church were partly the reasons for the environment which allowed for the Revolt. But those abuses were absolutely no justification for the wholesale dumping of dozens of accepted doctrines. In this Luther took his Revolt WAY TOO FAR. The abuses of the Catholic Church did not automatically lead people into doctrinal error, but Luther’s promulgation of Private Interpretation not only led men into doctrinal error but ASSURED that they would be in error. This was a result of Luther’s ‘leadership’.
Who changed the meaning and when, and how come I didn’t get the memo? To me it seems like an attempt of ‘some’ to avoid being categorized with the ‘others’.
I am not implying a monolithic set of doctrinal beliefs, in fact just the opposite. My point is that one of the main identifying marks of Protestantism as a whole is its massive doctrinal disunity. As for the splintering, it began EARLY and has continued to splinter to this day and that also includes the Lutheran ‘portion’.
When I want to refer to the whole of Protestantism, I use the term “Protestant”. When I want to comment on a particular denomination, I use their name. This is entirely logical and straightforward.
I do not refer to Lutherans as ‘evangelical catholics’, especially with a capitol ‘c’, because I consider that to be a misappropriation.
Jon, do you think Luther should be criticized for having taught Private Interpretation? What do you think the results of that teaching have been in terms of Protestant doctrinal dissention?
I know you understand my point. By Protestant disunity I meant CURRENT disunity, at the moment. Disunity exists NOW. I contend that Luther’s ‘influence’ and his promulgation of PI has had a lot to do with it.
You certainly are steadfast in your insistence that Luther not be found ‘responsible’ for doctrinal disunity. BTW, your ‘representation’ of Luther’s relationship with Zwingli is NOT at all the whole story, and left by itself, would be EXTREMELY misleading. You do know the rest of the facts. Right? If you are interested in learning about learning about Luther’s ‘relationship’ with Zwingli, am I correct that you would like to know more?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
G
GKC
Guest
Not a one. The man for that is not currently posting here.Wow
Do you have any thoughts on the “nascent nationalism” of German princes and kings of Sweden and Norway spread on Lutheranism?
GKC
And UI know you can’t, either.
You are missing the point. Luther can be, and in some instances, should be criticized, for what he said and did. He should not be criticized for what others said and did, even if they claim, or even actually were influenced by Luther. Adults make choices. There are lots of influences around us. Each of us individually makes the decision regarding our own words and actions.
In my own case, I am a cradle Lutheran, raised in the home of a Lutheran (LCA/ELCA) pastor. That is, of course, the reason I was Lutheran in my youth. It is not the reason I am today. I am an adult, and I own my decision.
Led how? An adult reads something, and makes a choice. The choice is theirs. JW’s, LDS’s, and Moonies have tried to influence me over the years. Even Catholics and Episcopalians have!
Only if they decided to act in some way or another. People are not lemmings, Topper. They make their decisions.
Does protestant mean the same thing as it did in 1529 at the 2nd Diet of Speyer? By that definition, Bishop Lori was a “protestant” when he sat with Pres. Harrison in from of that congressional committee to “protest” the HHS mandate, and the elimination of religious free exercise it represents.
Certainly, and sadly, lately it has for us, as we see Lutheran synods drift into modernism and liberalism.
Agreed. But if one uses the term and then refers to a specific belief that may not apply to all communions under that general umbrella, one should expect those communions to clarify.
I understand your position.
I stand with Chemnitz on the matter. If, as a Lutheran, I use personal interpretation to contradict doctrine, then I am choosing not to be Lutheran. I am not a big fan of private interpretation, other than outside of doctrine, adiaphora.
I can see why you might hold that position.
His blessing also with you,
Jon
G
GKC
Guest
Hank has been a hobby of mine for around 15 years, and as with all my hobbies, the books related do pile up. That para is a cut and paste of stuff I’ve posted here before, over the past years, with a few tweaks.
I thank you for the comment. As always, I have been known to be mistaken. Informed, but occasionally, a little in error.
Sometimes.
GKC
T
Topper17
Guest
If that is true Jon, then sadly there is no hope of reconciliation.
Several times you have said that Luther criticized, but you never seem to actually do it. When I first came here you said that you criticize Luther ‘when needs be’. You have had PLENTY of ‘opportunities’ since then and so far, you have not. At this point I see that statement that you made as being untrue.
‘Led’ as in being led by a Christian ‘leader’. Was Luther or was he not a ‘Christian leader’, responsible for ‘leading’ Christians? He certainly thought so. As we will learn he thought that he was a Christian leader with an ASTONISHING degree of authority to teach God’s Truth. He expected people to follow him. You can say that people make choices but as we both know, that isn’t the way that Luther approached ‘truth’.
Jon, you seem to be unable to even admit that Luther taught Private Interpretation. This in spite of the massive amount of evidence that he did? How can you continue to evade this point?
See above. MANY people fell in to error (including what you would consider error) BECAUSE of Luther’s promulgation of PI. You must admit that when Luther was, from a position of leadership, teaching PI that he was teaching heresy. Right?
As long as people like McGrath and other respected Scholars use the term “Protestant”, I will continue to use it in the same manner. It is not meant to be offensive. Your comment about Archbishop Lori being a Protestant is ludicrous. Well, actualy MORE than ludicrous. I was with him last weekend and heard him preach an amazing homily about how we Catholics are to evangelize. He is NOT, I repeat NOT a Protestant.
Lutherans are ‘drifting’ because they have, ultimately, NO ANCHOR. Sadly, in spite of your various Confessions and Statements, all Lutherans, when their PI ‘dictates’, can always ‘vote with their feet’, and Lutheran leaders as well as ALL Protestant leaders have to be extremely aware of that fact. Even with your Confessions, you can still ‘reinterpret’ them to, as we have seen, say what they don’t say and refute what they actually do. NOTHING is ‘final’, even the canon, which is only ‘relatively fixed’. Like the rest of Protestantism, Lutheranism is adrift.
I try not to do that and will double my efforts to avoid it.
That’s pretty ‘non-committal’. The real question is whether you agree or not.
I stand with Chemnitz on the matter. If, as a Lutheran, I use personal interpretation to contradict doctrine, then I am choosing not to be Lutheran. I am not a big fan of private interpretation, other than outside of doctrine, adiaphora.
That wasn’t the question Jon. The questions were:
“Do you think that Luther should be criticized for having taught Private Interpretation?
And
“What do you think the results of Luther’s teaching of PI have been in terms of Protestant doctrinal dissention?”
Furthermore, if you wish to stand with Chemnitz, then aren’t you saying that you are refuting Luther in favor of Chemitz? In addition, how can you say that you shouldn’t use personal interpretation to contradict doctrine when that is EXACTLY WHAT LUTHER DID in contradicting Catholic Doctrine? Are you going to say that Luther was ‘right’ on all of those 50 issues and that the Church was wrong? Are you going to suggest that Luther was THAT brilliant in comparison? Exactly what was it about Luther that gave him the authority to challenge SO MUCH?
I can see why you might hold that position.
You understand, but do you agree with my position or not, if not, then specifically and exactly why?
We both hope for a meaningful future communion between our two traditions. However, if Lutherans cannot even begin to think, for a moment, of criticizing Luther over ANYTHING, even over the worst things the taught and did, then there is absolutely NO HOPE, because you are WAY to invested in the MAN rather than reunion. I have repeatedly asked you for an honest answer to a crucial and fair question, and you refuse to answer it.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
Except that it isn’t you or I that make that determination.
As is the case with this thread, it is off topic. I find his anti-jewish attitude and writings in his later life abhorrent. I reject out-of-hand his dabbling with the idea of “soul sleep”. There’s two.
What he expected and what others do is two different things.
It isn’t relevant to the thread. That said, Pastor Weedon, in his blog, places it in perspective, with quotes from the Fathers.
weedon.blogspot.com/2007/09/personal-reflection.html
See Weedon’s bog.
Then I miscommunicated my point. In terms of protesting government restriction of religious liberty, he was doing what the Lutherans essentially were doing at Speyer.
.
And I will double my efforts to recognize when you mean things in general.
Actually, the question at hand is “being offended at being called protestant”. To answer yours, when it comes to doctrine, I submit my understanding to the teachings of my communion. When it comes to adiaphora, my tendency is to look at the teachings of the historic Church, which is why I tend to accept much, though not all of western Mariology, I am reluctant to condemn invocation, and am inclined to view the DC’s and other books more favorably than some Lutherans.
IOW, I do not trust my own ability to practice interpretation, but instead look to people smarter than myself, as recommended by Martin Chemnitz.
No, I don’t, with respect. I think adults are capable of making their own decisions. Varying Christian communions have had leaders that they have turned to, many of them rejecting a significant amount of Lutheran teaching. They are responsible for their own beliefs.
I would encourage you to read the Lutheran criticisms of Dr. Luther, from people of greater influence and expertise than me. Hopefully, the answers I gave above are reasonable examples on my part.
His blessing also with you.
Jon
- Status