I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
That’s kinda what I’ve been thinking.
There is plenty of that in a lot of other websites. No need to add another one to the list.
- Status
S
spina1953
Guest
Since the beginning of the Church catholic there has been those Popes Bishops and priests that not just have faults etc. but did real harm to the Church. Yet, their thinking did not in the end find substance in the overall teaching of the Church. There has been those in the Church who have and had abused their office, their authority, and their position of leadership. yet, these became corrected in time. I doubt that most mainline Protestants just as most informed Catholic’s do not go looking at the faults of the others leaders. I think that this is done mostly by the fringe protestant groups who preach an anti catholic view, but they also do the same with Jews and anyone who does not believe as they do. History shows that on both sides there were hatred of the other, but at last in our day and age most of that is not being advocated except by the those fringe groups within the Protestant belief system, that promote hatred of those not within their own sphere of influence and beliefs.
S
spina1953
Guest
Since the beginning of the Church Catholic there has been those Popes Bishops and priests that not just have faults etc. but did real harm to the Church. Yet, their thinking did not in the end find substance in the overall teaching of the Church. There has been those in the Church who have and had abused their office, their authority, and their position of leadership. yet, these became corrected in time. I doubt that most mainline Protestants just as most informed Catholic’s do not go looking at the faults of the others leaders. I think that this is done mostly by the fringe protestant groups who preach an anti catholic view, but they also do the same with Jews and anyone who does not believe as they do. History shows that on both sides there were hatred of the other, but at last in our day and age most of that is not being advocated except by the those fringe groups within the Protestant belief system, that promote hatred of those not within their own sphere of influence and beliefs.
K
Kliska
Guest
Me as well.
I think there are also fringe Catholics who not only attack non-catholic leaders and thinkers, but also sometimes Catholic leaders, to the point of claiming there is no pope, or that the current pope is an anti-pope. Either way, I don’t think you’ve read the kind of anti-Catholic rhetoric you refer to in this thread.
Jon
J
JustaServant
Guest
I would never recomend an internet forum as a way of citing the health of Christendom.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
According to this paradigm, this little discussion here seems to imply those people here in this discussion that are continually hoisting as much fault as possible on Luther are not “mainline Protestants” or “informed Catholics.” This isn’t to say that I think all of the criticism of Luther offered here is accurate. On the other hand, I would certainly grant that a lot of what may come across as a “fault” depends on one’s starting presuppositions.
This is an interesting discussion, nonetheless.
S
spina1953
Guest
I have to agree with you Jon that there are those Catholic’s that attack anyone not Catholic or their beliefs in such a way that it can be seen as hatred. I will say that so far I have not seen any anti Catholic rhetoric, though some seems to me to be boarderline, but not lately. For me personally I think one should respect what others say even though one might agree with what is said or stated. I also think that one needs to respect the beliefs others have though they maybe different in scope from what another believes. I also think one should never question another’s faith. For me I am just wanting to inform others as to what I think, and my opinion and I am not interested in trying to ran it down anyone’s throat, all are welcome to accept it or not.
As for Luther or Calvin or Zwingli and others its all a matter of history and the way they thought at that time in history. I think we have come a long ways from that time in history at least for most of us.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Spina,
I think that you are right on the mark.
On this matter, I follow (the great) Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong, and will not dialogue with people who somehow believe that it is within their purview to decide that Catholics are not Christians, especially when they find it ‘necessary’ to make that judgment known to others. People who enter a dialogue with that degree of bias, in my experience, are not willing to have a real dialogue.
As you have probably gathered, I am not a fan of Protestant doctrine. Neither am I a fan of Martin Luther, but rather than only being able to offer generalities as to why, I offer historical facts which support my position. In regards to whether Protestants are Christians – I follow (of course) the teachings of the Church that Christ established of us here on earth and say - yes.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
I think that you are right on the mark.
I don’t think that most ‘mainline’ Protestant groups teach from an especially anti-Catholic point of view. There are those who however, in their hatred and fear, believe that Catholics are not Christians. It seems that Catholicism is such a threat to them, that in order to have a positive view of what they actually do believe, they have to completely deny the Christianity of ‘the other’. In this, they are very much following the teaching and example of Martin Luther.
On this matter, I follow (the great) Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong, and will not dialogue with people who somehow believe that it is within their purview to decide that Catholics are not Christians, especially when they find it ‘necessary’ to make that judgment known to others. People who enter a dialogue with that degree of bias, in my experience, are not willing to have a real dialogue.
As you have probably gathered, I am not a fan of Protestant doctrine. Neither am I a fan of Martin Luther, but rather than only being able to offer generalities as to why, I offer historical facts which support my position. In regards to whether Protestants are Christians – I follow (of course) the teachings of the Church that Christ established of us here on earth and say - yes.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
S
steido01
Guest
You cannot continually Luther-bash without citing specific references in their proper context. You claim to offer historical fact, so let’s try something. Show one place -one- where the **Lutheran Confessions **state that the Church in Rome is not part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Lutheranism does not deny ‘the other,’ as you accuse. No, that seems to be more in line with a certain denomination that declines acknowledging other churches, instead relegating them to ‘ecclesiastical communities.’
I will agree with you on one point; people who enter dialogue with substantial bias certainly do not seem ready -perhaps not even capable- of real dialogue.
T
Topper17
Guest
First of all steido, I would suggest that you read and address post number 394. I would like to see you clear up the sock puppetry comment.You cannot continually Luther-bash without citing specific references in their proper context. You claim to offer historical fact, so let’s try something. Show one place -one- where the **Lutheran Confessions **state that the Church in Rome is not part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Lutheranism does not deny ‘the other,’ as you accuse. No, that seems to be more in line with a certain denomination that declines acknowledging other churches, instead relegating them to ‘ecclesiastical communities.’
I will agree with you on one point; people who enter dialogue with substantial bias certainly do not seem ready -perhaps not even capable- of real dialogue.
Next, I have posted something like 30 different quotes on this thread. They were all posted in context, because I wanted to make a point within that context. The subject it Luther and the fact that it is worries you I think. You would prefer it is the confessions, but it is not. My focus is on Luther. After all, he is the developer of the radical doctrines that served as the foundational beliefs for all of Protestantism. And that is why he is important in terms of determining the validity of Protestant theology. If you want to talk about the Lutheran Confessions, please feel free to do so.
God Bless You Steido, Topper
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Zwingli would strongly disagree.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Please return to the subject of the OP or the thread will be closed
P
Porknpie
Guest
Eric, where is your avatar from?
(Please don’t close the thread based on that question.
. )
D
drblank1
Guest
You say we don’t know if Josephus wrote what I quoted? So we don’t know if Clement wrote his works, or Justin Martyr, or Ignatius, or anyone by your logic.
And Josephus’ was not opinion columnist. He was a historian from Jesus’ time. He wrote historical events as he saw them. And he is considered one of the most reputable, if not the most reputable Jewish historians of that time.
And we all know that Sadducees were not correct as they do not believe in the resurrection.
Again, Jewish cannon exactly matches the Protestant OT.
T
Topper17
Guest
The celebrated Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus continues his comments on Luther’s dealings with the NT canon:
“In 1522 Luther writes that he can find ‘no trace’ of evidence that the Revelation of John ‘was written by the Holy Spirit’, that is, inspired. He places it in a category with the Second Book of Esdras. In accordance with this, Luther also changed the traditional order of the New Testament books. He placed those just named with Jude at the end of his Bible. ‘They have from ancient times had a different reputation’ and do not belong to the ‘true and certain chief books of the New Testament……After 1530, he even omitted the sharpest phrases in the ‘Preface to James” (for example, “Luther therefore did not intend to that the congregation should continue to read these judgments. For himself and in speaking before his theological students he maintained his judgment of James even later. In this, however, he was for the most part more concerned with preventing his Roman opponents from continually using James as an argument against the Reformation gospel than he was about the letter as such. In 1530 he replaced the completely negative 1522 Preface to the Revelation of St. John, with another which interprets the book in terms of the history of the church and shows its continuing value for the church, But for the rest of his life, he continued to put different values on the books which he had put together at the end of his Bible than on the ‘main books’.” Althaus, Theology, pg. 84-5
Luther thought that it was within his purview to change just about everything he didn’t agree with. Why not meddle with the traditional order of the NT books? Placing the ones that he didn’t care for at the back of the NT would reinforce to his readers that they were not ‘equivalent’ to those that he preferred and called the ‘main books’. Here again we see Luther displaying a lack of respect for well accepted Scripture, but (again) showing that he didn’t really have a very good idea what was written by and Apostle and what was not. Of course, we have to remember that Luther had developed a criteria by which he could determine what was and what was not canonical/inspired. Those things which did not ‘Preach Christ’ were (to him) clearly not canonical. And what was the most important thing about ‘preaching Christ’? Teaching Salvation by Faith Alone of course? James, which teaches against SBFA, was dealt with harshly by Luther.
Interestingly Althaus mentions that Luther was more concerned with the polemical aspects of his judgment of James than he was “about the letter as such”.
Rev. Louis Bouyer was a French Lutheran before he converted to Roman Catholicsim. He wrote his excellent book “The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism” as a Catholic.
“Luther was the first to have to recognize that all of the writers of the New Testament, other than St. Paul, deal a crushing blow to the theological structure (salvation by faith alone) he tried to build on the later. He had to rid himself of the express teaching of the Epistle of St. James by calling it an ‘epistle of straw’ – strangely inconsequential in one who claimed to restore the Scriptures to their place of supreme authority. Blinded as he was by the so-called Pauline character of the structure he had erected on a few texts taken apart from their context, he did not see that St. Paul contradicted his system (salvation by faith alone) no less formally than did St. James. After more than three centuries, all serious exegetes are obliged by all the evidence to accept this fact; there is not a single Protestant author whose works are of scientific value who disputes it. Extrinsic justification, a justification independent of any interior change (as Luther proposed), of any new capability given to man to perform acts pleasing of themselves to God, is so far from being a Pauline doctrine this it is quite irreconcilable with the whole body of his teaching.” Bouyer, pg.174
As for Luther’s being a credible interpreter of early Christian in his ‘quest’ to determine the authenticity of the NT Canon:
“According to his (Luther’s) knowledge of early Christian literature, there was a sizeable gap in time between the writers of the New Testament and the earliest Church Fathers. Luther regarded Tertullian, who died in 230, as the earliest writer in the church after the apostles………he apparently did not know the writers who later acquired the title “apostolic fathers”. He was therefor, able to invoke the historical and chronological argument in a form no longer available to theologians of the twentieth century.” Pelikan (Lutheran to EO convert), “Luther the Expositor”, pg. 83-4
This of course means that Luther was unaware of the 17 Early Church Fathers who proceeded Tertullian, or their writings. How weird is it that Tertullian became a heretic (a Montanist) and Luther thought he was the first Early Church Father?
Question: Would Luther have made such disrespectful comments and judgments about Holy Scripture, partly on the basis of the ancient Church, if he had realized how poorly educated he was on the ancient Church (the Early Church Fathers)?
Given Luther’s astonishing lack of knowledge about the early Church, why would Lutheranism have followed his lead and his judgments about those 4 books of the NT?
“In 1522 Luther writes that he can find ‘no trace’ of evidence that the Revelation of John ‘was written by the Holy Spirit’, that is, inspired. He places it in a category with the Second Book of Esdras. In accordance with this, Luther also changed the traditional order of the New Testament books. He placed those just named with Jude at the end of his Bible. ‘They have from ancient times had a different reputation’ and do not belong to the ‘true and certain chief books of the New Testament……After 1530, he even omitted the sharpest phrases in the ‘Preface to James” (for example, “Luther therefore did not intend to that the congregation should continue to read these judgments. For himself and in speaking before his theological students he maintained his judgment of James even later. In this, however, he was for the most part more concerned with preventing his Roman opponents from continually using James as an argument against the Reformation gospel than he was about the letter as such. In 1530 he replaced the completely negative 1522 Preface to the Revelation of St. John, with another which interprets the book in terms of the history of the church and shows its continuing value for the church, But for the rest of his life, he continued to put different values on the books which he had put together at the end of his Bible than on the ‘main books’.” Althaus, Theology, pg. 84-5
Luther thought that it was within his purview to change just about everything he didn’t agree with. Why not meddle with the traditional order of the NT books? Placing the ones that he didn’t care for at the back of the NT would reinforce to his readers that they were not ‘equivalent’ to those that he preferred and called the ‘main books’. Here again we see Luther displaying a lack of respect for well accepted Scripture, but (again) showing that he didn’t really have a very good idea what was written by and Apostle and what was not. Of course, we have to remember that Luther had developed a criteria by which he could determine what was and what was not canonical/inspired. Those things which did not ‘Preach Christ’ were (to him) clearly not canonical. And what was the most important thing about ‘preaching Christ’? Teaching Salvation by Faith Alone of course? James, which teaches against SBFA, was dealt with harshly by Luther.
Interestingly Althaus mentions that Luther was more concerned with the polemical aspects of his judgment of James than he was “about the letter as such”.
Rev. Louis Bouyer was a French Lutheran before he converted to Roman Catholicsim. He wrote his excellent book “The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism” as a Catholic.
“Luther was the first to have to recognize that all of the writers of the New Testament, other than St. Paul, deal a crushing blow to the theological structure (salvation by faith alone) he tried to build on the later. He had to rid himself of the express teaching of the Epistle of St. James by calling it an ‘epistle of straw’ – strangely inconsequential in one who claimed to restore the Scriptures to their place of supreme authority. Blinded as he was by the so-called Pauline character of the structure he had erected on a few texts taken apart from their context, he did not see that St. Paul contradicted his system (salvation by faith alone) no less formally than did St. James. After more than three centuries, all serious exegetes are obliged by all the evidence to accept this fact; there is not a single Protestant author whose works are of scientific value who disputes it. Extrinsic justification, a justification independent of any interior change (as Luther proposed), of any new capability given to man to perform acts pleasing of themselves to God, is so far from being a Pauline doctrine this it is quite irreconcilable with the whole body of his teaching.” Bouyer, pg.174
As for Luther’s being a credible interpreter of early Christian in his ‘quest’ to determine the authenticity of the NT Canon:
“According to his (Luther’s) knowledge of early Christian literature, there was a sizeable gap in time between the writers of the New Testament and the earliest Church Fathers. Luther regarded Tertullian, who died in 230, as the earliest writer in the church after the apostles………he apparently did not know the writers who later acquired the title “apostolic fathers”. He was therefor, able to invoke the historical and chronological argument in a form no longer available to theologians of the twentieth century.” Pelikan (Lutheran to EO convert), “Luther the Expositor”, pg. 83-4
This of course means that Luther was unaware of the 17 Early Church Fathers who proceeded Tertullian, or their writings. How weird is it that Tertullian became a heretic (a Montanist) and Luther thought he was the first Early Church Father?
Question: Would Luther have made such disrespectful comments and judgments about Holy Scripture, partly on the basis of the ancient Church, if he had realized how poorly educated he was on the ancient Church (the Early Church Fathers)?
Given Luther’s astonishing lack of knowledge about the early Church, why would Lutheranism have followed his lead and his judgments about those 4 books of the NT?
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
A view of Croagh Patrick, or St Patrick’s Mountain near Westport, County Mayo in Ireland.Eric, where is your avatar from?
(Please don’t close the thread based on that question.
Where my Irish ancestors are from.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I have no idea if what Josephus wrote was truly from his pen. And neither do you.
Just like I have no idea if what St. Clement wrote was from his pen, either. Or St. Justin Martyr.
You trust in the authority of someone else when you say, “Josephus wrote…” or “Clement wrote…”
Certainly.
And the SDA quote that I gave also is quite accurate.
The problem lies in the assumption that you make. If you assume that the SDA quote represents all of Christendom, and then profess, “You see? All of Christianity believes that Saturday is the Day of Worship!”, then you are erring egregiously.
Similarly, if you take the quote from Josephus, which may indeed be quite accurate, but make the assumption, “You see? All of Judaism accepted the canon of the OT that Josephus professed”, you would also be erring egregiously.
Were the Jews that had the same canon as your Protestant canon correct in denying the divinity of Christ?
I’m pretty sure you would say “NO!”, so the above argument about the Sadducees is a curious one for you to make.
**A **Jewish canon.
But not **The **Jewish Canon.
For there was no agreement on what constituted The Jewish canon.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Novo,
My last post was very much about the NT Canon.
I can’t tell from your four word response to a prior post, whether you have a point to make or not. If you do, please make it specifically and exactly. That way we can see whether it is a valid point.
God Bless You Novo, Topper
S
spina1953
Guest
I would like to make a comment on the Protestant canon as I see it. it seems to me that the Pharisee’s championed the old ways. They avoided contact with gentiles, sinners, and any Jew who did not try to be meticulous in his observance of the law. They wanted to protect the holiness of the written Law. To do so they emphasized a complicated oral Law that kelp people so involved in trying to keep it in all its detail that they could not penetrate the layers of rules to the point of breaking the written Law. One of the new ideas that made them different from the Sadducees was their belief in the resurrection of the body.
The Essenes developed from the pious one’s (Pharisees and they separated themselves from the political and religious in Jewish life. They looked to the End of the world in that they thought a war between light and dark or good and evil would take place in their life time.
When the Protestant reformation came about they decided on the Palestinian canon as apposed to any of the other canons that was in use during the time of Christ as the authority to base their beliefs and doctrines on.
The Essenes developed from the pious one’s (Pharisees and they separated themselves from the political and religious in Jewish life. They looked to the End of the world in that they thought a war between light and dark or good and evil would take place in their life time.
Code:
The Sadducees were the priestly and aristocratic party at Jerusalem. They resented the Pharisees intrusions into the priestly duty of interpreting the Law. They only accepted the first 5 books of the Scripture. The Scribes in general went along with the Pharisees in their thinking.
So there became not a closed canon among the Jewish religious leaders of these groups but a n open canon in that the Palestinian canon was championed by the Pharisees while the Jews who lived outside of Palestine accepted the Alexandrian canon which eventually became to be accepted by the Catholic Church. The Sadducees championed only the first 5 books of Scripture as canon.- Status