I think you’re misrepresenting McGrath here. He is very much an evangelical Anglican, and the alternative to simply maintaining a sixteenth-century reading of Paul is not simply agreement with Trent! McGrath, I am sure, would be far more keen on pointing towards the works of theologians and Biblical scholars such as N. T. Wright. Sola fide and Luther’s Werke are not identical; one can have the essence of Luther’s thought and hold that at the same time as recognising that Pauline - particularly Anglophone - scholarship has advanced massively in the last forty years.Of course, people will try to counter the comments of excellent Protestant Scholars like McGrath, but often with nothing more substantial than a personal opinion.
Maybe you think I am misrepresenting McGrath. I insist that I am not. Since I have quoted him and you have not, it would seem that I have the advantage here. That is unless you want to post a McGrath quote or two to make your point. Don’t just SAY that McGrath has been misrepresented because that is WAY easier than actually DEMONSTRATING it. If you want to make that claim, then back it up with something of some substance, right from some other text of McGrath.I think you’re misrepresenting McGrath here. He is very much an evangelical Anglican, and the alternative to simply maintaining a sixteenth-century reading of Paul is not simply agreement with Trent! McGrath, I am sure, would be far more keen on pointing towards the works of theologians and Biblical scholars such as N. T. Wright. Sola fide and Luther’s Werke are not identical; one can have the essence of Luther’s thought and hold that at the same time as recognising that Pauline - particularly Anglophone - scholarship has advanced massively in the last forty years.
What do I need to respond? I don’t think that anything you posted is deeply suspect. I just think it’s wrong to suggest that McGrath’s words posted thus far imply some kind of dissatisfaction with evangelical Protestantism.Maybe you think I am misrepresenting McGrath. I insist that I am not. Since I have quoted him and you have not, it would seem that I have the advantage here. That is unless you want to post a McGrath quote or two to make your point. Your point that scholarship has advanced massively over the last few years is very much the point, and as I have posted, the very most scholarly of Lutherans seem to have a very high rate of conversion. There must be a reason.
BTW, it did not go unnoticed that you did not respond directly to ANY of the McGrath quotes that I posted.
God Bless You Novo, Topper
I didn’t imply a dissatisfaction. What I recognize though is a great deal of intelligence, wisdom, excellent education, courage to tell it like it is regardless of the consequences, minimal pride, courage, and honesty. I personally know a lot of converts to Catholicism. They tend to embody most of the above traits. Few have them all but the more you have the more likely you are to be a swimmer.What do I need to respond? I don’t think that anything you posted is deeply suspect. I just think it’s wrong to suggest that McGrath’s words posted thus far imply some kind of dissatisfaction with evangelical Protestantism.
Thanks Spina,HI Topper17, I think that you are spot on with your two recent posts. I do think I could add anything to the SBFA theory as I think you stated it very well. You have given a lot of infor that is hard to dispute though I do think many will disagree with what you have so far said. Guess that can’t be helped but do keep up the great work you are doing!
Hi Topper 17: I also think that one of the reasons that many are converting is due more or less to the way things are in their churches. IOW’s the changes that are going on if not in all of the churches , at least in many, it does seems to me that there are those who do not like where their church is going or the direction it is going. That may account for why many are converting. God bless SpinaThanks Spina,
I appreciate your kind words. I think that the McGrath text (in red) that I posted in posts 358 and 359 is evidence of a few very interrelated things. First of all, a larger percentage of Lutheran Theologians (than laypeople) are converting to Catholicism. Secondly, I strongly doubt if any of those Lutheran Theologians listed (as converts) would have converted IF they still believed in any version of Salvation other than Catholic. Thus, we have the theologically well educated Lutherans converting to Catholicism at a greater rate than the less theologically well educated Lutherans. I find that interesting.
Next, according to Protestant Professor McGrath, it seems that in the past few decades there seems to be a growing awareness within the Protestant Scholarly class, that maybe, just maybe, the historic Protestant understanding of Salvation, does not square all that well with Scripture or with St. Paul.
It would appear that Protestants agree with McGrath on these points. Normally we would hear about how the McGrath text has been misunderstood or misrepresented, but the text is SO clear as to exactly what he is saying, that nobody can make that claim.
Nonetheless, the implications of McGrath’s points are huge, and in fact, they completely support my position that Luther was wrong on Salvation. Apparently, the theologically well educated are beginning to catch on and hopefully will be able to lead their people home.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
This (bolded) is your misstep. McGrath says that Luther puts too much stress on a certain aspect of Pauline theology. He doesn’t say that Luther’s theology of sola fide is wrong, just that Luther shouldn’t have treated it as the central aspect of Pauline teaching and soteriology.Thanks Spina,
I appreciate your kind words. I think that the McGrath text (in red) that I posted in posts 358 and 359 is evidence of a few very interrelated things. First of all, a larger percentage of Lutheran Theologians (than laypeople) are converting to Catholicism. Secondly, I strongly doubt if any of those Lutheran Theologians listed (as converts) would have converted IF they still believed in any version of Salvation other than Catholic. Thus, we have the theologically well educated Lutherans converting to Catholicism at a greater rate than the less theologically well educated Lutherans. I find that interesting.
Next, according to Protestant Professor McGrath, it seems that in the past few decades there seems to be a growing awareness within the Protestant Scholarly class, that maybe, just maybe, the historic Protestant understanding of Salvation, does not square all that well with Scripture or with St. Paul.
It would appear that Protestants agree with McGrath on these points. Normally we would hear about how the McGrath text has been misunderstood or misrepresented, but the text is SO clear as to exactly what he is saying, that nobody can make that claim.
Nonetheless, the implications of McGrath’s points are huge, and in fact, they completely support my position that Luther was wrong on Salvation. Apparently, the theologically well educated are beginning to catch on and hopefully will be able to lead their people home.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
Apocrypha = not inspired of God. Luther renamed the already canonized 7 Due-tero old testament books as uninspired or labeled them apocrypha by his own authority.It has been a while since I logged in to CAF, and I asked this question a while back, but never quite received a satisfactory response. This question re-surfaced in my mind when the History channel recently broadcast a documentary about Martin Luther and the Reformation.
The question is this: How is it that the “apocrypha” were declared un-inspired? Put another way, how can something declared Holy and the Word of God in the 4th century – and accepted as such by Christians for many centuries – be declared un-Holy in the 16th century? I realize that some doctrines develop over time, such as the Bible’s table of contents – but has there ever been something declared Holy in one era, subsequently declared un-Holy in another era?
There are good and bad aspects of quoting scholars. Certainly quoting those who have been trained in particular areas provide helpful insights into historical inquiries. For instance, the historical theologian in question, Alister McGrath is a fine scholar who has done valuable work. His book, Iustitia Dei (not “Institia Dei” as has been cited) is a helpful overview of the history of the doctrine of justification. McGrath is a master at taking large complicated chunks of information and compressing things down to shorter summary statements. This occasionally backfires on him when specialists in specific areas challenge his summaries, but overall, he has provided helpful materials for non-scholars to get a grasp on the big picture.Over the years I have noticed that there is a downside to posting quotes from Protestant Scholars which appear to be embarrassing to the Protestant cause. Rather dealing with the actual text of the quotes and the obvious qualifications of the Scholar, and instead of dealing with the facts and actual ideas in those quotes, far too often, Protestant apologists prefer to make me, the poster of the quotes (me – Topper) the focus of their response. “Topper, you misunderstand, you have misstated, you incorrectly ………….Topper you are wrong on that one. (what was the subject again?) If I were in your shoes I would not like to have to respond to something like these McGrath quotes, but you know what? I would.
This statement reflects the fact the McGrath is an Anglican and familiar with more liberal Protestant scholarship and such things like “the new perspective on Paul”. This is verified in the very footnotes around the section of the pages being cited above (see footnote #11). McGrath also refers readers to his overview in Iustitia Dei of the modern period which documents liberal protestant scholarship on the exact place of justification in Protestant theology (see footnote #12).“Since the Second World War, there has been a growing hesitation within many sections of Protestantism concerning the traditional way of speaking about salvation. (See McGrath, “Institia Dei”, pg. 406-420). While some have insisted that Protestants are bound by their tradition to speak and think in this manner, others have expressed anxieties over its continued use, especially in the light of a growing consensus among New Testament scholars that the notion of ‘justification by faith’ is not central to the thought of the New Testament scholars, or even Paul himself, as Luther and others appear to have believed.” McGrath, “Dangerous”, pg. 250
=Topper17;11622647]
To summarize McGrath - Many Protestant theologians follow the idea that justification was not central to Paul’s thought and that Luther’s interpretation appears questionable at points. Since 1990, prominent Protestants are converting to Catholicism. While a variety of factors are involved, it appears to be that they are alarmed by evangelicalism’s lack of historical roots and continuity with the NT. Another factor for some Protestants is that they are uneasy about the biblical foundations (or lack thereof) for the doctrine of justification by faith alone. While some people do convert from the Church to Protestantism, the traffic appears primarily in the other direction.
The most important phrase in your post I have bolded. To assume that “protestant” theologians are converting to Catholicism because now, 450 years after Luther, they are all of a sudden discovering that Luther’s ideas on justification are wrong (while at the same time Catholic theologians are seeing value in them) seems untenable.To which I would add, that it is obviously partly because these Protestant Theologians disagree with Luther’s version of Salvation that they are leaving for Protestantism. In other words, in the estimation of these Theologians, Luther was wrong about salvation, which BTW is the bedrock of Protestant Theology.
Great post!Apocrypha = not inspired of God. Luther renamed the already canonized 7 Due-tero old testament books as uninspired or labeled them apocrypha by his own authority.
The Catholic Church canonized these books with the whole bible books we have today since the early 4th century. St. Jerome transliterated the bible books from their Hebrew, Greek text into the Vulgate or Latin. The Catholic saint did not have the original Hebrew text to the 7 books in question. Thus they became known as the Duetero-canonical books= they came down to us by a second= (Duetero) language Greek not Hebrew. This was the reason the Jews rejected them to discredit Jesus as a false messiah, because Jesus quotes his teachings from them. Jerome did not want to include them in his translation of books because he had no Hebrew counterparts to transliterate them. Jerome obeyed his pope at the time and included them as duetero in the second language. Martin Luther on the other hand exceeded all the Catholic saints who question them but never attempted to relabel them as apocrypha or uninspired as Luther did of his own accord. Its recorded that Luther justified his relabeling of the duetero books by using the ancient Jews reasoning that no Hebrew counterparts existed therefore the Jews rejected them, but only to discredit Jesus. The dead sea scrolls archaeological findings proved in the 20th century that the Hebrew counterparts existed but were lost, proving the Jews and Luther wrong for rejecting them and wrong for relabeling them Apocrypha. No man can make unholy what God has made holy.
I’m not sure I’d call the New Perspective 'liberal Protestant[ism]"…This statement reflects the fact the McGrath is an Anglican and familiar with more liberal Protestant scholarship and such things like “the new perspective on Paul”. This is verified in the very footnotes around the section of the pages being cited above (see footnote #11). McGrath also refers readers to his overview in Iustitia Dei of the modern period which documents liberal protestant scholarship on the exact place of justification in Protestant theology (see footnote #12).
I do not ascribe to liberal Protestant theology, probably in the same way many Catholics here do not ascribe to liberal Catholic theology. So, quoting McGrath’s overview of trends in Protestant liberalism doesn’t serve much purpose in the canon question which is supposed to be being discussed here and now.
Amen.The most important phrase in your post I have bolded. To assume that “protestant” theologians are converting to Catholicism because now, 450 years after Luther, they are all of a sudden discovering that Luther’s ideas on justification are wrong (while at the same time Catholic theologians are seeing value in them) seems untenable.
First, many protestant theologians are not Lutheran, but come from Reformed and other traditions, whose views on justification may have borrowed from Luther but are not necessarily the same. Calvin’s TULIP is obvious evidence of that fact. I don’t know why they are leaving their communions.
Second, while nothing has changed from a Lutheran perspective regarding our view of justification, what has changed in some synods of Lutheranism is a drift away from orthodox Lutheran view on the clergy, and on moral issues. I suspect this to be a greater driving force than justification. And where justification is a reason, it is because they no longer see a need to remain outside communion with the Bishop of Rome, because soteriology is no longer a dividing factor for them, in light of the JDDJ, etc.
Third, when confessional Lutherans move, it seems they move toward Orthodoxy, Pelikan being a prime example.
Jon
Yes, there have been several noted Lutheran theologians who have converted to Orthodoxy. I could be wrong but I believe Toivo Harjunpaa, a Lutheran mariologist theologian converted to Orthodoxy and the Church of Finland has close ties with Russian Orthodox.The most important phrase in your post I have bolded. To assume that “protestant” theologians are converting to Catholicism because now, 450 years after Luther, they are all of a sudden discovering that Luther’s ideas on justification are wrong (while at the same time Catholic theologians are seeing value in them) seems untenable.
First, many protestant theologians are not Lutheran, but come from Reformed and other traditions, whose views on justification may have borrowed from Luther but are not necessarily the same. Calvin’s TULIP is obvious evidence of that fact. I don’t know why they are leaving their communions.
Second, while nothing has changed from a Lutheran perspective regarding our view of justification, what has changed in some synods of Lutheranism is a drift away from orthodox Lutheran view on the clergy, and on moral issues. I suspect this to be a greater driving force than justification. And where justification is a reason, it is because they no longer see a need to remain outside communion with the Bishop of Rome, because soteriology is no longer a dividing factor for them, in light of the JDDJ, etc.
Third, when confessional Lutherans move, it seems they move toward Orthodoxy, Pelikan being a prime example.
Jon
You may be right, as I don’t have figures. Just a sense from readings in the past about more conservative Lutherans, or at least those who have a particular problem with universal jurisdiction.Yes, there have been several noted Lutheran theologians who have converted to Orthodoxy. I could be wrong but I believe Toivo Harjunpaa, a Lutheran mariologist theologian converted to Orthodoxy and the Church of Finland has close ties with Russian Orthodox.
But I think most Lutheran theologians, who convert, appear to stay in the Western Church as Roman Catholics.
Thanks Spina,Hi Topper: Like what you posted so far. However it seems to me that no matter who you quote there are going to be those who will for whatever reason disagree with you. if it is not what they want to hear they will try to refute it, so keep up the great work you are doing as I for one think what your are posting makes a lot of sense.