Protestantism in 15, 20 + years?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NorthTexan88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
4most4christ,
I just have one observance pertaining to your post. You say the CCC gives church(man) the authority and not scripture. This is just wrong because Jesus instituted a Holy Church that could not be led astray by the evil one. Jesus did not institute scripture. The Holy Church existed before scripture had been canonized and therefore does in fact have the authority to properly interpret the scripture which this same Holy Church assembled and proclaimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Your comment appears to me to want to belittle the Church and make your ecclesiastic community’s interpretation of scripture the “correct and only way”. Not true, not true!.

In Christ,

Stan
Stan, that’s not my stand or intention, nonononono, a gazillion tmes "NO.

Re-read that please - you misunderstood what a RCC fellow posted that in a different thread that “the RCC gives church(man) the authority and not scripture.”, which is an incorrect staement, like you said.

Edit: Forget what I said about “ARCC fellow” that’s another post. I said, “The Catechism (article 3) of the RCC says God’s Word is venerated, and directs that the church (man), not Scripture, is sufficient to define doctrine.”
I assume this is what you were objecting to as incorrect, and I concur with you.]

I seek to discuss, not harangue or disrespect. Please don’t allow yourself to be hurt by my or anyone else’s words.🙂
 
Isn’t Dr. Wright Anglican? And not Lutheran. How does posting about an Anglican respond to what Don said, “Gotta love it when new posters know more about Lutheranism than we Lutherans.”?

Jon
It helps support Don’s position? :o:D
 
Isn’t Dr. Wright Anglican? And not Lutheran. How does posting about an Anglican respond to what Don said, “Gotta love it when new posters know more about Lutheranism than we Lutherans.”?

Jon
He is also “arguably the most influential living Protestant theologian” - of course, I guess that doesn’t matter to you. You apparently have too much invested in Martin Luther to see the truth.
 
4most4christ,

Thanks for the clarification. Have a great long weekend.

Stan
 
Whoa, this exploded over a couple of days, I have not been near a computer and able to check the forum…PS this is going to be a long post 👍

Ok, now, for my interpretation of where things are going.

I live in Texas now but I grew up and was protestant in Alabama, so that is where my expertise comes from, and that is where I am getting my viewpoint from.

A little background:
Quite literally 100% of my friends growing up were protestant, and like a previous poster, I also grew up in the a-Capella “churches of Christ.” Out of all of my friends, I would say that 99.9% consider themselves “Christian,” but I can only think of maybe 3-5 people, not percent, but people, who actually go to church on a weekly basis. Others will go every once in a while; the “once saved always saved” version of protestantism is common here. Living with boyfriends/girlfriends is common. It is definitely more common here for high school’ers to go to church for social reasons. The town I grew up in, which is a certain university town, is not an exception, but rather the rule for the South, and I have lived and been all over the Southern states. Church attendance is still high, but it is noticeably aging. Mega churches might be growing at fast rates, but I can only think of a couple off of the top of my head, and they seem to be located in metro areas (Church of the Highlands in Birmingham for anyone who is familiar), so if you live in Metro Atlanta, obviously it will look different.

Now for what I personally think:
Do in think that protestantism will be around in 15-20+ years, yes, however, after my grandparents generation passes, I think that it will look vastly different. Also I think there will be a great deal of liberalization. A large number the SBC and CoC people that I know back home have slowly started to accept same sex marriage, even the teenagers in my brothers church of Christ youth group have become the “We can get married so they should too” type of people. I think people will continue to go to church less and less until there aren’t any people there hardly. Mega churches will be the exception obviously, but I have seen them come and go growing up in the South and going to places like Birmingham and Atlanta, where they are everywhere. I also see a lot more people coming to the Catholic Church due to learning Church history and the general luke-warmness of the protestant churches…of the 50 or so people in my confirmation class, this was something that we all had in common.

That in a nutshell is my perception of the future of protestantism.
 
He is also “arguably the most influential living Protestant theologian” - of course, I guess that doesn’t matter to you.
:ehh:Of course it doesn’t.

The Dalai Lama is ‘arguably the most influential living spiritual person.’ Does that mean his spiritual guidance necessarily means anything to a Roman Catholic? Likewise, why would Lutherans be influenced by an Anglican?

Look, I’ve said it other threads and I’m sure I’ll say it again: there is no such thing as the mythical, monothilthic, captial-P “Protestant Church.” Protestantism is not the brainchild of one little German monk (that’s giving him far too much credit); rather, it is many separate communions begun for many separate reasons at many separate times. We Lutherans have no more in common with other “protestants” as your communion does. That said, all Christians do share one point of doctrine that is essential for salvation: hope in Christ.
You apparently have too much invested in Martin Luther to see the truth.
I’ve already addressed the fact that Lutherans do not follow the man - we follow what we believe to be the correct teaching of the historic church catholic. Movwater, we can disagree on theological matters, and we can do so civilly - without insulting each other’s intelligence or ability to discern fact from propaganda. There’s no need at all for the continued vitriol.

Now back to your response - what, at all, does Bishop Wright have to do with Lutheranism?

And did you read the quote from Pope Benedict regarding Sola Fide?
 
:ehh:Of course it doesn’t.

The Dalai Lama is ‘arguably the most influential living spiritual person.’ Does that mean his spiritual guidance necessarily means anything to a Roman Catholic? Likewise, why would Lutherans be influenced by an Anglican?

Look, I’ve said it other threads and I’m sure I’ll say it again: there is no such thing as the mythical, monothilthic, captial-P “Protestant Church.” Protestantism is not the brainchild of one little German monk (that’s giving him far too much credit); rather, it is many separate communions begun for many separate reasons at many separate times. We Lutherans have no more in common with other “protestants” as your communion does. That said, all Christians do share one point of doctrine that is essential for salvation: hope in Christ.

I’ve already addressed the fact that Lutherans do not follow the man - we follow what we believe to be the correct teaching of the historic church catholic. Movwater, we can disagree on theological matters, and we can do so civilly - without insulting each other’s intelligence or ability to discern fact from propaganda. There’s no need at all for the continued vitriol.

Now back to your response - what, at all, does Bishop Wright have to do with Lutheranism?

And did you read the quote from Pope Benedict regarding Sola Fide?
I believe I presented a cogent and fully documented argument that you, because you are so invested in your beliefs have just ignored or ridiculed by stating that the Theologian sited was not a Lutheran, so was of no value. I don’t believe that St. Paul or St. Peter were Lutherans, either. Is it you position that we are to ignore them, also?
 
He is also “arguably the most influential living Protestant theologian” - of course, I guess that doesn’t matter to you. You apparently have too much invested in Martin Luther to see the truth.
Again, I ask, how do you explain that Lutherans and Anglicans are in full communion?
 
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church!

**The true Church of Christ is one

That the Church which Christ instituted for man’s salvation must be one in the strict sense of the term just explained, is already evident from its very nature and purpose; truth is one, Christ revealed the truth and gave it to His Church, and men are to be saved by knowing and following the truth. But the essential unity of the true Christian Church is also explicitly and repeatedly declared throughout the New Testament:
Code:
Speaking of His Church, the Saviour called it a kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God (Matthew 13:24, 31, 33; Luke 13:18; John 18:36);
He compared it to a city the keys of which were entrusted to the Apostles (Matthew 5:14; 16:19),
to a sheepfold to which all His sheep must come and be united under one shepherd (John 10:7-17);
to a vine and its branches,
to a house built upon a rock against which not even the powers of hell should ever prevail (Matthew 16:18).
Moreover, the Saviour, just before He suffered, prayed for His disciples, for those who were afterwards to believe in Him — for His Church — that they might be and remain one as He and the Father are one (John 17:20-23); and
He had already warned them that "every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (Matthew 12:25).
These words of Christ are expressive of the closest unity.

St. Paul likewise insists on the unity of the Church.
Code:
Schism and disunion he brands as crimes to be classed with murder and debauchery, and declares that those guilty of "dissensions" and "sects" shall not obtain the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21).
Hearing of the schisms among the Corinthians, he asked impatiently: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13).
And in the same Epistle he describes the Church as one body with many members distinct among themselves, but one with Christ their head: "For in one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free" (1 Corinthians 12:13).
To show the intimate union of the members of the Church with the one God, he asks: "The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).
Again in his Epistle to the Ephesians he teaches the same doctrine, and exhorts them to be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace", and he reminds them that there is but "one body and one spirit-one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:3-6).
Already, in one of his very first Epistles, he had warned the faithful of Galatia that if anybody, even an angel from heaven, should preach unto them any other Gospel than that which he had preached, "let him be anathema" (Galatians 1:8).
Such declarations as these coming from the great Apostle are clear evidence of the essential unity which must be characteristic of the true Christian Church…** newadvent.org/cathen/15179a.htm

My God is not a God of Confusion!
 
I believe I presented a cogent and fully documented argument that you, because you are so invested in your beliefs have just ignored or ridiculed by stating that the Theologian sited was not a Lutheran, so was of no value. I don’t believe that St. Paul or St. Peter were Lutherans, either. Is it you position that we are to ignore them, also?
You have not directly responded to the questions asked you. Neither have you acknowledged when the historical errors in your posts were dispelled. I’m beginning to suspect that your disregard for what I’ve actually said is deliberate, and not simply the result of misinformation. Out of a genuine, brotherly hope that it is due to the latter and not the former, I’ll give this one more go. God willing, it may provide some understanding.

Please do not put words into my mouth and create Straw Men. I never said that we should ignore St. Peter and St. Paul; in fact, I said quite the opposite earlier in this thread (you have yet to respond to Pope Benedict’s words):
…[M]any Christians hold [Sola Fide] to be clear Christian doctrine handed down from Augustine, Ambrose, Paul and the Apostles, and -most importantly- Christ Himself. The good Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI acknowledged this:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html
Neither did I say that Dr. Wright’s beliefs were “of no value.” I’m sure some Anglicans find him incredibly compelling (Though certainly not all - a motley crew, those Anglicans). Heck, even Lutherans and Roman Catholics could agree with him insofar as he agrees with our respective beliefs. However, I did assert that using an Anglican’s words as a ‘prooftext’ to condemn Lutheranism is silly because, well, there is nothing cogent or even coherent in that line of thought. It’s like the old adage about apples and oranges - they’re both a type of fruit, but one is not the other. Let’s try this in mathematical terms:

Lutheranism =/= Anglicanism =/= Roman Catholicism =/= Tibetan Buddhism

There is no “Protestant Church.” Anglicanism arose separately from Lutheranism - one did not split off from the other. Any single “protestant’s” viewpoint is not equal to another “protestant’s” view, because “Protestantism” is nothing more than a nebulous umbrella term used to describe many, different groups. Do you understand this concept?

I’d like to add a prediction in regard to the OP: Despite the best efforts of many, in 10-15 years, Christians of all stripes will still be misled into attacking each other. :blackeye: 😦
 
He is also “arguably the most influential living Protestant theologian” - of course, I guess that doesn’t matter to you. You apparently have too much invested in Martin Luther to see the truth.
If you would like to quote Jaroslav Pelikan, or even Dr. Michael Root, both former Lutherans, the former Orthodox, the latter now Catholic, you may have a leg to stand on.
Whether or not Dr. Wright is an influential Anglican is important, ISTM, to Anglicanism, and I would most interested to hear what he has to say about that.

My investment is in Christ and Him crucified. To the extent and degree that Father Martin preaches said, I find him compelling. Then again, he isn’t the only one I find compelling,
and you don’t know me well enough to know, one way or another.

On the topic, Dr. Root is an interesting individual, former Lutheran who was a member of the Lutheran dialogue team, turned Catholic. He may have some interesting insights on the future of Lutheranism, as it relates to the dialogue with Rome.

Jon
 
You have not directly responded to the questions asked you. Neither have you acknowledged when the historical errors in your posts were dispelled. I’m beginning to suspect that your disregard for what I’ve actually said is deliberate, and not simply the result of misinformation. Out of a genuine, brotherly hope that it is due to the latter and not the former, I’ll give this one more go. God willing, it may provide some understanding.

Please do not put words into my mouth and create Straw Men. I never said that we should ignore St. Peter and St. Paul; in fact, I said quite the opposite earlier in this thread (you have yet to respond to Pope Benedict’s words):

Neither did I say that Dr. Wright’s beliefs were “of no value.” I’m sure some Anglicans find him incredibly compelling (Though certainly not all - a motley crew, those Anglicans). Heck, even Lutherans and Roman Catholics could agree with him insofar as he agrees with our respective beliefs. However, I did assert that using an Anglican’s words as a ‘prooftext’ to condemn Lutheranism is silly because, well, there is nothing cogent or even coherent in that line of thought. It’s like the old adage about apples and oranges - they’re both a type of fruit, but one is not the other. Let’s try this in mathematical terms:

Lutheranism =/= Anglicanism =/= Roman Catholicism =/= Tibetan Buddhism

There is no “Protestant Church.” Anglicanism arose separately from Lutheranism - one did not split off from the other. Any single “protestant’s” viewpoint is not equal to another “protestant’s” view, because “Protestantism” is nothing more than a nebulous umbrella term used to describe many, different groups. Do you understand this concept?

I’d like to add a prediction in regard to the OP: Despite the best efforts of many, in 10-15 years, Christians of all stripes will still be misled into attacking each other. :blackeye: 😦
Really? Then how did they all agree on one “truncated” Bible that leaves out many of Jesus, the Christ’s teaching. King James had no miraculous calling that I am aware of? As for “supposed Christians” attacking the Church that Jesus, the Christ’s Apostles established after being called forth to do so by Our Lord, that started very early in the Church’s history - I believe it had to do with circumcision and was settled by St. Peter, at the first Council of the Catholic Church in Jerusalem. After that came the Gnostics (see Gnosticism at: newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm) and the Arians (see Arianism at:newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm). After that came a stream of “what’s happening now, baby” heretics right up until the present day, none of whom have any proof on their side save the word and biblical interpretation of the founders. All have been built on sand, interesting the heresy that has lasted longer and is the strongest is Mohammedanism, which claim to be the religion of peace while relying on the sword to spread its faith.

There is only ONE TRUTH, steido01, and one day we will all know exactly what that is.
 
If you would like to quote Jaroslav Pelikan, or even Dr. Michael Root, both former Lutherans, the former Orthodox, the latter now Catholic, you may have a leg to stand on.
Whether or not Dr. Wright is an influential Anglican is important, ISTM, to Anglicanism, and I would most interested to hear what he has to say about that.

My investment is in Christ and Him crucified. To the extent and degree that Father Martin preaches said, I find him compelling. Then again, he isn’t the only one I find compelling,
and you don’t know me well enough to know, one way or another.

On the topic, Dr. Root is an interesting individual, former Lutheran who was a member of the Lutheran dialogue team, turned Catholic. He may have some interesting insights on the future of Lutheranism, as it relates to the dialogue with Rome.

Jon
I think it is fascinating the King Henry VIII relied heavily on Martin Luther when he, too, broke with Rome, to establish his Church of England (Anglican) Protestant sect. Interestedly, after executing St. Thomas Moore, a true martyr, both the King and his henchman, Cromwell, had an ignominious end. One died from Syphilis and the other on the gallows. (see Henry VIII at: newadvent.org/cathen/07222a.htm); Anglicanism at: newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm). St. Thomas died like the early Martyrs, including most of the Apostles, while Luther died embittered and alone. I am sure today he now knows the truth. Hopefully, he was able to Reconcile with Our Lord at his death.
 
=movwater;11153196]Really? Then how did they all agree on one “truncated” Bible that leaves out many of Jesus, the Christ’s teaching. King James had no miraculous calling that I am aware of?
Who said they all agree on a 66 book Bible. This seems a rather anglo-centric comment, focused on English Bibles. German Lutheran Bibles are not “truncated” (I wonder if Orthodox think the 73 book Catholic Bible “truncated” :hmmm:), and my suspicion is that is regularly the case in other parts of Europe.
There is only ONE TRUTH, steido01, and one day we will all know exactly what that is.
Indeed. Come Lord Jesus.

Jon
 
Who said they all agree on a 66 book Bible. This seems a rather anglo-centric comment, focused on English Bibles. German Lutheran Bibles are not “truncated” (I wonder if Orthodox think the 73 book Catholic Bible “truncated” :hmmm:), and my suspicion is that is regularly the case in other parts of Europe.

Indeed. Come Lord Jesus.Jon
Hmmm! That’s not what Martin Luther preached. Please note:

German versions

The history of Biblical research in Germany shows that of the numerous partial versions in the vernacular some go back to the seventh and eighth centuries. It also establishes the certainty of such versions on a considerable scale in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and points to a complete Bible of the fifteenth in general use before the invention of printing. Of special interest are the five complete folio editions printed before 1477, nine from 1477 to 1522, and four in Low German, all prior to Luther’s New Testament in 1522. They were made from the Vulgate, differing only in dialect and presenting variant readings. Their worth even to this day has been attested by many scholars. Deserving notice as belonging to the same period are some fourteen editions of the Psalter and no less than ninety editions of the Epistles and Gospels for Sundays and Holy Days. On the authority of a Nuremberg manuscript, Jostes (Histor. Jahrbuch, 1894, XV, 771, and 1897, XVIII, 133) establishes the fact of a complete translation of the Bible by John Rellach, O.P., of Constance (before 1450), and thinks it was the first German version printed. A New Testament by Beringer (Speyer, 1526) was in part a correction of Luther’s version. In 1527 another New Testament was put forth by Emser who worked from the Vulgate and an older version, likewise correcting Luther.

In 1534 John Dietenberger, O.P., gave out a complete version at Mainz based on a primitive translation with aid from Emser’s New Testament and from the deuterocanonical books by Leo Juda. His agreement in places with Luther is due to the use by both of a common source. The Dietenberger Bible underwent frequent revision, and up to 1776 had fifty-eight complete editions. It was revised (1) by Caspar Ulenberg (Mainz, 1549, 1617; Cologne, 1630); (2) by the theologians of Mainz, i.e. Jesuits (1661, 1662, etc.), from whom it received the title of the Catholic Bible; (3) by Th. Erhard, O.S.B. (Augsburg, 1722, 6th ed., 1748); (4) by G. Cartier, O.S.B. (Constance, 1751); (5) by Ignatius Weitenauer (Augsburg, 1783-89), whose version with notes was valued even by Protestants for its fidelity and literary excellence. An important new translation of the Vulgate was published at Augsburg (1788-97) by H. Braun, O.S.B. This was revised by Feder (Nürnberg, 1803) and by Allioli (Landshut, 1830, 1832). In successive editions the last named has almost wholly changed the original so that it is now known only by his name. It is much esteemed as a literary rendering and is widely read. An excellent version made from the Vulgate and compared with original sources was put forth by Loch and Reischl (Ratisbon, 1851-66). From original sources D. Brentano began and Th. A. Dereser finished a version (Frankfurt, 1799-1828), with notes savouring of Rationalism. A second edition was emended by J.M. Scholz. This account includes only the most representative versions made by German Catholics.

Luther’s Biblical translations, begun in 1522, when he issued his New Testament, and carried on to 1545, when he finished the deuterocanonical books and the first complete edition of his Bible, have retained a strong hold on German and other Protestants and by many are esteemed as little less than inspired. He saw to many corrections and revisions himself, and his work went through some ten editions in his own lifetime. Though supposed to translate from the originals, he made use of the Latin version of Lyra, the Hebrew-Latin interlinear of Pagninus, and an older German translation of the Vulgate whose order he retained. His renderings were often excessively free and at times he arbitrarily changed the sense of the original. The Swiss Zwinglians adopted such portions of Luther’s work as had appeared before 1529. That year they added their own version of the Prophets and the deuterocanonical books by Leo Juda, the whole being called the Zurich Bible. In 1860-8 this work was revised and is still in use. An Anabaptist version was made by Hetzer (Worms, 1529), and Calvinist versions by Parens (1579) and by Piscator (Herborn, 1602-4). A Socinian Bible was given out by Crellius (Racovia, 1630). In the eighteenth century versions reflecting different beliefs and doctrinal attitudes were put forth by Michaelis (1709), Moldenhauer (1774), Grynæus (1776), and Vögelin (1781). Of several nineteenth-century versions the most important is that of de Wette and Augusti (Heidelberg, 1809-14). A complete revision by Wette was published in 1831-3 and later. It is considered a good translation but excessively literal.

A Jewish-German Bible (Old Testament) by Athias appeared in 1666. It was reproduced in the Biblia Pentapla (Hamburg, 1711). Another Jewish version (Berlin, 1838) was the work of Arnheim, Füchs, and Sachs. From: Versions of the Bible at: newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm
 
Hmmm! That’s not what Martin Luther preached. Please note:

German versions

The history of Biblical research in Germany shows that of the numerous partial versions in the vernacular some go back to the seventh and eighth centuries. It also establishes the certainty of such versions on a considerable scale in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and points to a complete Bible of the fifteenth in general use before the invention of printing. Of special interest are the five complete folio editions printed before 1477, nine from 1477 to 1522, and four in Low German, all prior to Luther’s New Testament in 1522. They were made from the Vulgate, differing only in dialect and presenting variant readings. Their worth even to this day has been attested by many scholars. Deserving notice as belonging to the same period are some fourteen editions of the Psalter and no less than ninety editions of the Epistles and Gospels for Sundays and Holy Days. On the authority of a Nuremberg manuscript, Jostes (Histor. Jahrbuch, 1894, XV, 771, and 1897, XVIII, 133) establishes the fact of a complete translation of the Bible by John Rellach, O.P., of Constance (before 1450), and thinks it was the first German version printed. A New Testament by Beringer (Speyer, 1526) was in part a correction of Luther’s version. In 1527 another New Testament was put forth by Emser who worked from the Vulgate and an older version, likewise correcting Luther.

In 1534 John Dietenberger, O.P., gave out a complete version at Mainz based on a primitive translation with aid from Emser’s New Testament and from the deuterocanonical books by Leo Juda. His agreement in places with Luther is due to the use by both of a common source. The Dietenberger Bible underwent frequent revision, and up to 1776 had fifty-eight complete editions. It was revised (1) by Caspar Ulenberg (Mainz, 1549, 1617; Cologne, 1630); (2) by the theologians of Mainz, i.e. Jesuits (1661, 1662, etc.), from whom it received the title of the Catholic Bible; (3) by Th. Erhard, O.S.B. (Augsburg, 1722, 6th ed., 1748); (4) by G. Cartier, O.S.B. (Constance, 1751); (5) by Ignatius Weitenauer (Augsburg, 1783-89), whose version with notes was valued even by Protestants for its fidelity and literary excellence. An important new translation of the Vulgate was published at Augsburg (1788-97) by H. Braun, O.S.B. This was revised by Feder (Nürnberg, 1803) and by Allioli (Landshut, 1830, 1832). In successive editions the last named has almost wholly changed the original so that it is now known only by his name. It is much esteemed as a literary rendering and is widely read. An excellent version made from the Vulgate and compared with original sources was put forth by Loch and Reischl (Ratisbon, 1851-66). From original sources D. Brentano began and Th. A. Dereser finished a version (Frankfurt, 1799-1828), with notes savouring of Rationalism. A second edition was emended by J.M. Scholz. This account includes only the most representative versions made by German Catholics.

Luther’s Biblical translations, begun in 1522, when he issued his New Testament, and carried on to 1545, when he finished the deuterocanonical books and the first complete edition of his Bible, have retained a strong hold on German and other Protestants and by many are esteemed as little less than inspired. He saw to many corrections and revisions himself, and his work went through some ten editions in his own lifetime. Though supposed to translate from the originals, he made use of the Latin version of Lyra, the Hebrew-Latin interlinear of Pagninus, and an older German translation of the Vulgate whose order he retained. His renderings were often excessively free and at times he arbitrarily changed the sense of the original. The Swiss Zwinglians adopted such portions of Luther’s work as had appeared before 1529. That year they added their own version of the Prophets and the deuterocanonical books by Leo Juda, the whole being called the Zurich Bible. In 1860-8 this work was revised and is still in use. An Anabaptist version was made by Hetzer (Worms, 1529), and Calvinist versions by Parens (1579) and by Piscator (Herborn, 1602-4). A Socinian Bible was given out by Crellius (Racovia, 1630). In the eighteenth century versions reflecting different beliefs and doctrinal attitudes were put forth by Michaelis (1709), Moldenhauer (1774), Grynæus (1776), and Vögelin (1781). Of several nineteenth-century versions the most important is that of de Wette and Augusti (Heidelberg, 1809-14). A complete revision by Wette was published in 1831-3 and later. It is considered a good translation but excessively literal.

A Jewish-German Bible (Old Testament) by Athias appeared in 1666. It was reproduced in the Biblia Pentapla (Hamburg, 1711). Another Jewish version (Berlin, 1838) was the work of Arnheim, Füchs, and Sachs. From: Versions of the Bible at: newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm
Note the bolded, if you will. Luther’s translation includes the DC’s.

Jon
 
If you would like to quote Jaroslav Pelikan, or even Dr. Michael Root, both former Lutherans, the former Orthodox, the latter now Catholic, you may have a leg to stand on.
Whether or not Dr. Wright is an influential Anglican is important, ISTM, to Anglicanism, and I would most interested to hear what he has to say about that.

My investment is in Christ and Him crucified. To the extent and degree that Father Martin preaches said, I find him compelling. Then again, he isn’t the only one I find compelling,
and you don’t know me well enough to know, one way or another.

On the topic, Dr. Root is an interesting individual, former Lutheran who was a member of the Lutheran dialogue team, turned Catholic. He may have some interesting insights on the future of Lutheranism, as it relates to the dialogue with Rome.Jon
The question is not Consubstantiation (See Consubstantiation at: newadvent.org/cathen/04322a.htm) but Impanation (See Impanation at: newadvent.org/cathen/07694a.htm.) Neither are the truth of Transubstantiation (See: Transubstantiation at: newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3).

IMMHO, It is not evident, Jon, just what you do believe.
 
I can’t, because they are not!
Clearly you are exposing incorrect positions that don’t reflect either Lutheran/ Anglican consensus nor Lutheran/Catholic dialogue. You place yourself in unsubstantiated and duplicitous arguing that has no semblance to reality and not worthy of a response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top