Protestantism Today

[Barb3]

To JonNC –
To be honest, I can’t recall whether or not there was a kneeling rail but I don’t believe there was. Other than that so much in the Lutheran Church was very similar to my Parish Church – it was also in an area of San Francisco where there are MANY Churches, including the Catholic Cathedral.

 

[miztyzo562]

And Peter did not PREACH the principles of the Judaizers. He just behaved around them as if he agreed with them until Paul called him on it. .

Im sorry, “JUDAIZERS”, you do realize that the Lord himself was a Jew.

 

[miztyzo562]

Or, for that matter, what about St. Peter teaching the heresy of the Judaizers before being corrected by St. Paul (“But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong”, Galatians 2:11, NIV).

So… You mean to say that you’ll accept the doctrine of a man who had an unverified revelation as opposed to Peter who witnessed the Baptism of the Lord,witnessed the the ascension, and spent 3years with the Lord Himself?

 

[CopticChristian]

There is so much to comment on when it comes to Protestantism. I will tackle just one aspect.

** Coming from a mixed Catholic-Protestant heritage myself, I always have been interested in ecumenism, getting the two traditions together**, not necessarily as one church but one in spirit, advocating the same Christ and Christian faith. It has never troubled me all that much that there are differences, since I’m inclined to think that all humans ‘see through a glass darkly…’ I would suggest that none of us understand this mammoth, miraculous, magnificent and mysterious universe. With maybe a thousand or a million solar systems, how could we? I am content to go along with an old gospel hymn which begins: “Farther along we’ll know all about it, farther along we’ll understand why…”

 **Sadly - well, in my view - the form of Protestantism that is most attractive is losing ground**. That is mainline Protestantism: Methodism, Episcopalianism, the UCC, Presbyterianism, etc. I admire the freedom these groups allow to think and let think, considerable freedom to believe or not believe, yet with a strong faith in God and a desire to imitate Christ in daily life. Apparently, millions either reject religion altogether or they are attracted to evangelical groups that have plenty of charisma but are inclined to be fundamentalist, not open to varying points of view.

** I worry, too, that Catholicism may be more and more authoritative since the time of John XXIII, my favorite Pope.** John Paul II and Benedict XVI certainly are capable and devout men, but I wonder if they are throw-backs to earlier times. This is being cheered by some, but in the long haul will injure the church, certainly in Europe and North America, where reasonable religion is important to millions of the faithful. I have read the Church Fathers and find them brilliant for their era but full of assumptions based on a time when telescopes were primitive and microscopes were yet to be invented. So, they often taught the three-tier view of the universe with no knowledge of the vastness of space and such false concepts as demons or God’s punishment being the main causes of disease.

** One particular event troubled me**: when Hans Kung was no longer permitted by the Church to teach in Catholic universities. He was one of my favorite theologians. he wanted to make Catholicism broader and less restrictive when it came to matters of doctrine. He elevated respect for the individual and his/her mental ability to think, to weigh, to investigate, to ponder. I personally need the right to do this.

  **So, time will tell. If Catholicism can 'loosen up' **and if church members are permitted to have serious conversations about such matters as marriage of priests, ordaining women as deacons, allowing 'artifical' birth control, etc., it may thrive. Otherwise, I think it will continue to lose ground. The young people want to go forward, not backward. Even the little changes we will have at Mass soon strike me as a move backwards, More like the Latin, the priest here assured the faithful? When will the hierarchy wake up?

  **But God bless all people of faith**, whatever their creed, color, culture or country. May religion become a bridge rather than a barrier.

I find it interesting that you speak for the young people. Young people of what country, what language, you are their spokesperson. This is nothing more than litterary liberalism believing that you write and speak for all. You speak for Roy.

 

[CopticChristian]

Ahimsa:

So, one can hope, it will be as the clock ticks down to October 31, 2017, the quincentennial of the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. On that day 500 years ago a little-known German monk, Martin Luther, posted 95 theses (in Latin) on the door of the Castle Church in Saxon Wittenberg in order to prompt a debate on the Catholic church’s promotion of indulgences. The dispute on indulgences (certificates purchased to reduce time in purgatory for relatives or oneself) soon got out of hand. Within four years, this once obscure monk stood before the most exalted ruler of the western world and told the Holy Roman Emperor, the Habsburg Charles V, that he was “bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.”

…

I find this difficult to comprehend, the celebration of a heretic.

And today? Nearly 500 years after Luther’s initial provocation in Wittenberg, Protestants and Protestant-like movements are all over the map, both literally and figuratively. …

I see no celebration, glory or joy in the evil that Luther caused.

An answer could not even be attempted without acknowledging the extraordinary diversity of world-wide Protestantism. That diversity is structural since it describes a broad religious tradition that began as church-establishments in Europe (challenging Catholic doctrine but preserving the Christendom instincts of Catholicism); that then added a voluntary form exemplified best by the constitutional separation of church and state in American experience; and that over the last century and a half added yet another form as Christian groups throughout the world exploit American-style voluntarism in settings far from Europe or America. Moreover, a multitude of doctrinal differences, differing musical forms, different political attitudes and huge differences in wealth and social power overlays this structural diversity.

The author wants me/you to believe that there is structure and some sort of semblance of unity in diversity…WRONG.

The result is that in form Protestantism more closely resembles Judaism or Islam than Catholicism. Yet if Protestantism lacks structural or organizational coherence, it is nonetheless still possible to perceive the effects of a common inheritance and to note a number of widely shared characteristics.

Well, Duh…did it dawn on the writer that Luther was Catholic, Calvin was Catholic, Knox and Zwingli were Catholic and that the Catholic Church grew out of Judaism…and I doubt that the author would care to point out that there was an oral tradition in Judaism, something that the structurally diverse group, have in a perverse, clandestine, and inability to admit and deny…

Wow what a remarkable insight.

 

[Contarini]

…

I find this difficult to comprehend, the celebration of a heretic.

Obviously the people who celebrate him don’t think he was a heretic! Why is it difficult to comprehend? Why wouldn’t heretics celebrate their heresiarch?

I see no celebration, glory or joy in the evil that Luther caused.

Nobody asked you to celebrate him. I think there are many things to celebrate about Luther, but many other things to mourn. My own preferred way to “celebrate” would be to lead a procession of Protestant scholars barefoot with candles from Wittenberg to Rome, to throw ourselves in penitence at the feet of the Holy Father!

But I’m not sure how many would follow me. . . .

The author wants me/you to believe that there is structure and some sort of semblance of unity in diversity

On what basis do you claim that? He said that Protestantism has “structural diversity.” That’s the opposite of “structural unity.” I think you are misreading him. Yes, he is saying that there is a kind of non-structural unity.

Well, Duh…did it dawn on the writer that Luther was Catholic, Calvin was Catholic, Knox and Zwingli were Catholic and that the Catholic Church grew out of Judaism

Yes, I’m sure it dawned on him. Again, what makes you think otherwise? All he’s saying is that there is a common heritage shared by Protestants that accounts for some common elements among the diversity. Of course that heritage goes back to Catholicism.

and I doubt that the author would care to point out that there was an oral tradition in Judaism, something that the structurally diverse group, have in a perverse, clandestine, and inability to admit and deny

Why wouldn’t he care to point this out? You are reading all sorts of weird things into him.

I understand why, if you’re used to standard Protestant spin. But this isn’t a standard Protestant spinner. Prof. Noll has distinguished himself among evangelical leaders for his criticisms of the flaws of evangelicalism and for his very open attitude to Catholics. I have myself heard him express (respectfully) disagreement with Duane Litfin’s decision to fire a Wheaton professor who converted to Catholicism (Noll moved from Wheaton to Notre Dame shortly after this, and he and Litfin were both guest speakers at my institution shortly after that).

You don’t know this guy. Sure, he’s a Protestant and is going to see more legitimacy to Protestantism than you do, or even than I do. But he’s very learned and very fair, and very interested in constructive dialogue with Catholics. He doesn’t deserve your scorn, and you are misreading him on several points.

Edwin

 

[pablope]

Of course. I would never suspect a good Roman Catholic of believing any differently. However…

What about Honorius I, who taught the heresy of Monothelitism? Or, for that matter, what about St. Peter teaching the heresy of the Judaizers before being corrected by St. Paul (“But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong”, Galatians 2:11, NIV). These are just two examples of a Bishop of Rome teaching erroneous doctrine.

On Pope Honorius:

catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

ccording to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, “To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine.”

Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith—their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): “Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!” While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.

On Paul correcting Peter…Peter was not teaching heresy…Peter had a moral fault…his behaviour.

blog.adw.org/2010/10/what-st-paul-can-teach-us-about-respect-for-church-authority/

1. But here is where we also see a fascinating and somewhat refreshing portrait of what true respect for authority includes. It is clear, from what we have seen, that Paul respected the authority of Peter and had both conferred with him early on and later set forth the gospel that he preached. However, there is also a description of Paul offering fraternal correction to Peter:

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Gal 2:11-14)

**There is something refreshing about this understanding of authority. It understands that having authority does not mean one is above reproof. **T

But here Paul stands face to face (κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην) with Peter and accuses him of a moral fault. Peter had taught rightly of the equality of the Gentiles but drew back from keeping company with them. We as Catholics teach of the infallibility of the pope but we do not teach that he is impeccable (sinless). Even those who teach rightly (as Peter did) sometimes struggle to fully live the truth they preach (believe me, I know).

 

[JHow]

So… You mean to say that you’ll accept the doctrine of a man who had an **unverified revelation **as opposed to Peter who witnessed the Baptism of the Lord,witnessed the the ascension, and spent 3years with the Lord Himself?

Yeah, we’re pretty much okay with Paul around here. But you probably knew that, right?

 

[manualman]

Im sorry, “JUDAIZERS”, you do realize that the Lord himself was a Jew.

Your umbrage is misinformed. While I applaud your caution against potential antisemitism, “Judaizers” is the word applied to early christians who claimed that believers were still bound by all portions of the Mosaic Law. As you know, this isn’t the case. Christians are morally free to eat pork, press elevator buttons on Saturday(!), and are not obligated to circumcize our sons.

There’s nothing antisemitic about the term at all.

 

[miztyzo562]

Yeah, we’re pretty much okay with Paul around here. But you probably knew that, right?

Yup, never thought otherwise.

 

[miztyzo562]

Your umbrage is misinformed. While I applaud your caution against potential antisemitism, “Judaizers” is the word applied to early christians who claimed that believers were still bound by all portions of the Mosaic Law. As you know, this isn’t the case. Christians are morally free to eat pork, press elevator buttons on Saturday(!), and are not obligated to circumcize our sons.

There’s nothing antisemitic about the term at all.

Not to arouse an argument or get into a lenghty debate , but I personally (and many others)take the term Judaizer as derogatory as it is used to demoralize others in alot of contexts. The same can be said If I were to use the word FAG to describe a cigarette, or Gook to describe a Korean.

 

[manualman]

Not to arouse an argument or get into a lenghty debate , but I personally (and many others)take the term Judaizer as derogatory as it is used to demoralize others in alot of contexts. The same can be said If I were to use the word FAG to describe a cigarette, or Gook to describe a Korean.

Would you care to suggest an alternative term to describe those in Acts who made the claim that christians were still morally obligated to obey all aspects of the ritual law that won’t offend you. I’m open to the idea if it doesn’t sacrifice clarity of conversation.

 

[CopticChristian]

Not to arouse an argument or get into a lenghty debate , but I personally (and many others)take the term Judaizer as derogatory as it is used to demoralize others in alot of contexts. The same can be said If I were to use the word FAG to describe a cigarette, or Gook to describe a Korean.

If you are ignorant about the term “judaizing, judaizer” Christians from the letter to the Romans trying to impose the Old Covenant and the letter to Galatians and other writings of Paul then I question your knowledge of Scripture and you ability to speak on much of anything. All Protestants know about Paul’s writing and sending letters about “judaizing” christians.

I can understand your concern about the word FAG for a cigarette. It is what it is. Cigarettes are inanimate. Cigarettes do not try to get me to use the word Yeshua. Cigarettes do not try to impose the Old Covenant. I would be upset if you heard that I opposed you and Jim Staley because you oppose Christmas and do not want to dawn your gay apparel.

Anyway, you operate at a low level.

 

[miztyzo562]

Would you care to suggest an alternative term to describe those in Acts who made the claim that christians were still morally obligated to obey all aspects of the ritual law that won’t offend you. I’m open to the idea if it doesn’t sacrifice clarity of conversation.

To tell you the truth, I dont wholey mind if it offends me or not, for the Lord said Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I just wanted to make a point that people do find it derogatory. But if you want to be gramatically/politically correct with the original translation, then “Essaean” would be a good alternative.

 

[miztyzo562]

If you are ignorant about the term “judaizing, judaizer” Christians from the letter to the Romans trying to impose the Old Covenant and the letter to Galatians and other writings of Paul then I question your knowledge of Scripture and you ability to speak on much of anything.

I think you need to study a little further on the English translation coined by Ephanius. And you’re still alluding as to whether Mary and Yeshua were Greek or Latin for that matter hence negating the name “Jesus/ Ieosus”.

 

[Old_Medic]

I just love the concept that “Protestantism” is monolithic. It is not, there are over 4,000 different groups of churches (such as the various branches of Lutherans, the different branches of Methodists, the different branches of Anglicans, etc.) that LL believe that they have the “true” Christianity.

Martin Luther did NOT become the most important man in Western Europe. In fact, before he died, his “movement” had fractured into so many different paths, that he despaired of what he had done. Many “Protestant’s” considered him to be far too Catholic in his orientation, and they rejected his religion totally.

That is the problem when you have no real “authority” in a Church. Any person can split off, and begin their own Church, rejecting all or portions of their founding theology. In fact, that is exactly what has happened, over and over and over again, and it what is happening with the Presbyterians, the Anglicans, the Methodists, the Lutherans, etc. today. they are splintering, becoming MORE numerous, instead of uniting.

Yet those that belong to those traditions simply can not see what they have done. Instead, they turn to the one actual rock in Christianity, and say, “It is YOU that has to adapt to what we have become”.

To follow that way would merely lead to even more chaos.

I hate to inform the person that started this thread, but the Roman Catholic Church continues to be by far the largest Christian Church in te world, and it is GROWING, not shrinking.

Almost all “Main-Line” Protestant churches are shrinking, rapidly. The numbers of members of the Lutheran, the Presbyterian, the Anglican’Episcopal, the Methodist, and similar churches are declining rapidly. As they become more and more liberal, as they ordain more women, more practicing homosexuals, and as they get further and further away from the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, they are dying. As they should die, because they are no longer Christian in any real sense of that word.

The ONLY Protestant churches that are growing are the Evangelical and Pentacostal ones. The ones that still believe in sin, in condemning wickedness, that actually believe that the Bible means what is says, and that the message should NOT be modified to meet “modern conceptions”.

 

[CopticChristian]

To tell you the truth, I dont wholey mind if it offends me or not, for the Lord said Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I just wanted to make a point that people do find it derogatory. But if you want to be gramatically/politically correct with the original translation, then “Essaean” would be a good alternative.

This is not insulting. To say one has to become a Jew to be Christian is Judaizing. It is what it is. Jews require circumcision to be Jew if you were not born of a Jewish woman and it is part of entry into the Old Covenant. First be fruitful and multiply. Second get circumcised.

You will have a long row to hoe to erase this from the vocabulary. Judaizing is what it is to describe what was.
If you had not noticed, I speak and write in English. I do speak other languages however for clarity I use English in this forum.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers

bible.christiansunite.com/mhcc.cgi?b=Ro

stormharvest.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=405:christians-judaizing-christianity&catid=217&Itemid=65

 

[CopticChristian]

I think you need to study a little further on the English translation coined by Ephanius. And you’re still alluding as to whether Mary and Yeshua were Greek or Latin for that matter hence negating the name “Jesus/ Ieosus”.

I never use anything but Jesus/Jesus/Jesus…since I am too often reminded of the Judaizing Christians/Protestants when I see the other term. I have no obligation to say anything or use anything but Jesus. I am not part of the Old Covenant.

 

[miztyzo562]

I never use anything but Jesus/Jesus/Jesus…since I am too often reminded of the Judaizing Christians/Protestants when I see the other term. I have no obligation to say anything or use anything but Jesus. I am not part of the Old Covenant.

This is not insulting

Again, you’ve managed to dodge the question. And since I have youre attention, you can you tell me how Ἰησοῦς * means “salvation” in the Kione Greek or basic Greek for that matter?
And for the second part, so to says cattle farmers who brand their animals that say the feel nothing.*

 

[CopticChristian]

Again, you’ve managed to dodge the question. And since I have youre attention, you can you tell me how Ἰησοῦς * means “salvation” in the Kione Greek or basic Greek for that matter?
And for the second part, so to says cattle farmers who brand their animals that say the feel nothing.*

Why do I have to tell you anything about what anything means in Greek. I only go to the Greek when I see people using a bible translation to suit their theology as often happens. When you go to the Greek and reason a little, you can see that there are various interpretations. Do you speak Greek?

Cattle farmers brand their animals. I believe that the cattle feel something. I believe they react. I believe that the temple that was destroyed where bulls were slaughtered in the Old Covenant is gone and that the Bulls made noise when slaughtered. They don’t do that anymore.

Do you celebrate Christmas and Easter?