Protestants and the Bible?

[JB_Brother_4446]

And there’s some Catholics who believe the Eucharist is symbolic, and that think they have to work their way to heaven. Look at doctrine

Jon

They’re Catholic in name only. And those Lutherans I mentioned are still Lutheran.

 

[steido01]

You diminish it by saying a book doesn’t have the value of the others. Scripture is an important part of God’s Divine Revelation. To diminish a book of Scripture is to diminish the whole package.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? Am I typing in English? Mea culpa, wherever the fault in my explanation lies!

Look, let’s try it this way: Genesis is not the same book as Mark. They serve a different purpose. In regard to the Source of all things visible and invisible, Gensis is of greater value. In regard to knowing the Savior of all humankind, Mark is of greater value. Does that mean one does not belong in Holy Scripture? Of course not. Does that mean we’re ignoring either Law or Gospel when we read one or the other? Of course not. It only means that we acknowledge the very different purpose one has on a given topic over another. Likewise, James is of lesser value than, say, Romans or the Gospels when it comes to knowing Christ - though James may be helpful to established Christians.

Do I make myself clear, or do you posit that Gensis and Mark are identical?

 

[JonNC]

They’re Catholic in name only. And those Lutherans I mentioned are still Lutheran.

That’s a rather judgemental comment. On what basis do you decide either? Why is that Catholic not Catholic when his beliefs are outside doctrine, but the Lutheran is still Lutheran when his beliefs are outside doctrine?

Jon

 

[commenter]

Originally Posted by JB Brother 4446 View Post
They’re Catholic in name only. And those Lutherans I mentioned are still Lutheran

That’s a rather judgemental comment. On what basis do you decide either? Why is that Catholic not Catholic when his beliefs are outside doctrine, but the Lutheran is still Lutheran when his beliefs are outside doctrine?

Jon

Individual Catholics, and Protestants, may both seem to stray (in our opinion) outside the historic beliefs of their tradition. But Lutheran denominations themselves can sometimes stray outside the historic beliefs of their tradition. The Catholic Church can’t.

If I enter a room with lighting controlled by plural dimmer switches, is it bright, or dark, in here? Kind of a subjective judgement. That’s what a Protestant tradition is like, multiple denominations but no Magisterium. It’s harder to say “this person is non Lutheran” because of agencies like ELCA, or its equivalents in other traditions. Other than observers like you and me, who could make that determination?

The Catholic Church, with Magisterium, has an on/off switch. This person is in communion
with the Holy See. That one is not. I don’t mean the Church hurriedly or frequently makes that declaration, just that there is an agent that could make that declaration. A tradition, by itself, can’t determine such things. Observers can make their best guess, but that’s like asking is it kinda bright in here, or do you think it’s sort of dark? Subjective.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? Am I typing in English? Mea culpa, wherever the fault in my explanation lies!

Look, let’s try it this way: Genesis is not the same book as Mark. They serve a different purpose. In regard to the Source of all things visible and invisible, Gensis is of greater value. In regard to knowing the Savior of all humankind, Mark is of greater value. Does that mean one does not belong in Holy Scripture? Of course not. Does that mean we’re ignoring either Law or Gospel when we read one or the other? Of course not. It only means that we acknowledge the very different purpose one has on a given topic over another. Likewise, James is of lesser value than, say, Romans or the Gospels when it comes to knowing Christ - though James may be helpful to established Christians.

Do I make myself clear, or do you posit that Gensis and Mark are identical?

You never said that. You just said, “Obviously, Paul’s message is more central to our faith.”
Really. I’m not stupid.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Originally Posted by JB Brother 4446 View Post
They’re Catholic in name only. And those Lutherans I mentioned are still Lutheran

Individual Catholics, and Protestants, may both seem to stray (in our opinion) outside the historic beliefs of their tradition. But Lutheran denominations themselves can sometimes stray outside the historic beliefs of their tradition. The Catholic Church can’t.

If I enter a room with lighting controlled by plural dimmer switches, is it bright, or dark, in here? Kind of a subjective judgement. That’s what a Protestant tradition is like, multiple denominations but no Magisterium. It’s harder to say “this person is non Lutheran” because of agencies like ELCA, or its equivalents in other traditions. Other than observers like you and me, who could make that determination?

The Catholic Church, with Magisterium, has an on/off switch. This person is in communion
with the Holy See. That one is not. I don’t mean the Church hurriedly or frequently makes that declaration, just that there is an agent that could make that declaration. A tradition, by itself, can’t determine such things. Observers can make their best guess, but that’s like asking is it kinda bright in here, or do you think it’s sort of dark? Subjective.

Thank you.

 

[Michael68]

No…it would not be confessed in the context of the sacrament of reconciliation by individual penitents, who are not personally guilty of what is related in paragraph 233.

Unless, of course, someone today were doing that very thing “exaggerated and caricatured their opponents in order to make them look ridiculous [and thus] repeatedly violated the eighth commandment, which prohibits bearing false witness against one’s neighbor.” In such an instance, yes the person would be obliged to confess that. Properly, they should confess as well that their actions were willfully the opposite of what the Holy See and the Council Fathers stipulated and mandated by means of the Church’s proper authority.

This is not accurate, either. It is assuredly not a one time event nor is it just for leaders.

The Service of Common Prayer, now published, which Pope Francis together with Bishop Younan, President of the Lutheran World Federation, will inaugurate this coming October in Sweden, and which will be used by clergy of both denominations around the world throughout the following year long commemoration of the Reformation, will include expressions of repentance for the past, which will be articulated not only by the Catholic and Lutheran clerics co-officiating but by all those participating as well.

 

[Michael68]

Michael68:
The post I was referring said it was to commemorate 500yrs. How can this be done more than once?

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by JB Brother 4446 View Post
They’re Catholic in name only. And those Lutherans I mentioned are still Lutheran

Individual Catholics, and Protestants, may both seem to stray (in our opinion) outside the historic beliefs of their tradition. But Lutheran denominations themselves can sometimes stray outside the historic beliefs of their tradition. The Catholic Church can’t.

If I enter a room with lighting controlled by plural dimmer switches, is it bright, or dark, in here? Kind of a subjective judgement. That’s what a Protestant tradition is like, multiple denominations but no Magisterium. It’s harder to say “this person is non Lutheran” because of agencies like ELCA, or its equivalents in other traditions. Other than observers like you and me, who could make that determination?

The Catholic Church, with Magisterium, has an on/off switch. This person is in communion
with the Holy See. That one is not. I don’t mean the Church hurriedly or frequently makes that declaration, just that there is an agent that could make that declaration. A tradition, by itself, can’t determine such things. Observers can make their best guess, but that’s like asking is it kinda bright in here, or do you think it’s sort of dark? Subjective.

I disagree. If I am a member of the ELCA, and I disagree with ELCA doctrine, that is no different than a Catholic disagreeing with Catholic doctrine. Now, how they handle it may be different, but it is the same.
Jon

 

[Reuben_J]

Look, let’s try it this way: Genesis is not the same book as Mark. They serve a different purpose. In regard to the Source of all things visible and invisible, Gensis is of greater value. In regard to knowing the Savior of all humankind, Mark is of greater value. Does that mean one does not belong in Holy Scripture? Of course not. Does that mean we’re ignoring either Law or Gospel when we read one or the other? Of course not. It only means that we acknowledge the very different purpose one has on a given topic over another. Likewise, James is of lesser value than, say, Romans or the Gospels when it comes to knowing Christ - though James may be helpful to established Christians.

Do I make myself clear, or do you posit that Gensis and Mark are identical?

You said this in post #103.

He never mentions the Passion, hardly mentions Christ, and spends his time telling Christians rules for living.

Now tell me, without the other books to put it into context, how useful is James compared to Paul or the Gospels?

You sure needed to create a few posts to explain it and eventually arrived in the above, that they all belong in the Holy Scripture and both Law and Gospel are not to be ignored.

That viewpoint is the same with that of Catholics, and if that is the case, there is certainly no issue.

However, reading your post #103, a Catholic would think you meant that the James epistle is of lesser importance compared to Paul’s. I think that was where the confusion lies.

Having said that, if that is your position, that all books in the scripture are equal (am I rephrasing you correctly?) then from Catholics’ perspective of Lutherans’ stance, you are kind of deviating from it.

We see Lutherans as not putting the books in the Scripture as of equal importance or strength (in their inspiration). Thus you would have the Apocrypha consigned to just ‘profitable reading’ but not necessarily inspired.

Again, an excerpt from a Catholic’s perspective:

Another important development influencing historical-critical methods would be **Luther’s conception of the “canon within the canon,” seeking to determine the “true kernel and marrow of all the books [of Scripture],” a method later exegetes would appropriate in trying to find the true “historical Jesus.”

As, “individual books do not provide unanimous affirmation of the chosen kernel,” leading exegetes to resort to “sorting through individual texts, layering them according to authentic and spurious, early and late, pure and tainted passages.” **

Luther’s influence on the historical-critical method can also be seen in his attempts at revising the canon, questioning the apostolic authorship of the epistle of James and expressing suspicion of the book of Revelation.

Of course, once one begins questioning the canon, it does not take long for others to see the potential “Pandora’s Box” and realize that every book’s authenticity or veracity is up for grabs.

 

[steido01]

You never said that. You just said, “Obviously, Paul’s message is more central to our faith.”
Really. I’m not stupid.

I didn’t think I’d need to spell it out so precisely; I assumed that you’d understand my meaning. And I’d have thought you have it by now; how many times after that did I specifically say I am no Gospel Reductionist or Antinomian? But apparently I overestimated your familiarity with actual Lutheran doctrine - and your ability to debate charitably. I won’t continue to discuss with someone who twists my words to fit their straw man.

 

[steido01]

You said this in post #103.

He never mentions the Passion, hardly mentions Christ, and spends his time telling Christians rules for living.

Now tell me, without the other books to put it into context, how useful is James compared to Paul or the Gospels.

There. I fixed the bolding. Now you’ve emphasized the correct part of my sentence. With the emphasis you added, I could be interpreted as contradicting myself. That’s silly. Context counts.

You sure needed to create a few posts to explain it and eventually arrived in the above, that they all belong in the Holy Scripture and both Law and Gospel are not to be ignored.

That viewpoint is the same with that of Catholics, and if that is the case, there is certainly no issue.

Rather always been the Lutheran (catholic) viewpoint. Not much to disagree with, generally. As is so often typical, Lutherans and Catholics are closer than so many other groups of Christians.

However, reading your post #103, a Catholic would think you meant that the James epistle is of lesser importance compared to Paul’s. I think that was where the confusion lies.

It would require a mid-reading of my words to come to that conclusion, but I will do my best to be clearer in the future. Keep in mind that my responses have been attempts to get JB Bro to understand that Luther was speaking about James as it relates to the point and summit of Christianity - the Passion. James lacks it, so Luther’s personal academic opinion is not unfounded (even if, ultimately, incongruent with the development of tradition today).

Having said that, if that is your position, that all books in the scripture are equal (am I rephrasing you correctly?) then from Catholics’ perspective of Lutherans’ stance, you are kind of deviating from it.

Again, I see it more as a matter of purpose. Each book has its own purpose, connected through an underlying and unifying reflection (or in the case of four, a full recounting) of the Passion. Those that show Christ more clearly naturally hold a higher authority in the canon (If Christ didn’t complete the Law, we’d still be following Levetical guidelines - and poorly)… These are not my, nor Luther’s standards. These have been used by the church catholic since the beginning.

We see Lutherans as not putting the books in the Scripture as of equal importance or strength (in their inspiration). Thus you would have the Apocrypha consigned to just ‘profitable reading’ but not necessarily inspired.

Well, I’d have to ask if you see all Catholics prior to Trent similarly? Because this viewpoint was permitted until then. Perhaps this article can clarify the Lutheran understanding better than I can: internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

 

[steido01]

Another important development influencing historical-critical methods would be Luther’s conception of the “canon within the canon,” seeking to determine the “true kernel and marrow of all the books [of Scripture],” a method later exegetes would appropriate in trying to find the true “historical Jesus.”

As, “individual books do not provide unanimous affirmation of the chosen kernel,” leading exegetes to resort to “sorting through individual texts, layering them according to authentic and spurious, early and late, pure and tainted passages.”

Luther’s influence on the historical-critical method can also be seen in his attempts at revising the canon, questioning the apostolic authorship of the epistle of James and expressing suspicion of the book of Revelation.

Of course, once one begins questioning the canon, it does not take long for others to see the potential “Pandora’s Box” and realize that every book’s authenticity or veracity is up for grabs.

Whoa. No, no. I don’t buy this slippery slope at all. It’s humanist drivel that brings historical-critical garbage into the hermeneutic; Lutheranism is, instead, focused on the cross, as Pope Benedict observed in 2008(I think? I’ll have to find the article). Diligent attention to the historical practices of the church and her doctors can hardly be considered an endorsement of quack, eviscerative theologies that intentionally bring about man-focused trash. Lutheranism was around for 400 years before the first Julius Wellhausen took a crayola to his bible.

And besides, Luther was hardly the first Catholic to understand the importance of certain books over others. Why do you think we stand for the Gospel Reading? He was one of thousands of Catholics who questioned James. That’s why the book was considered antilegomena! Luther didn’t make up 1500 years of academic research.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I didn’t think I’d need to spell it out so precisely; I assumed that you’d understand my meaning. And I’d have thought you have it by now; how many times after that did I specifically say I am no Gospel Reductionist or Antinomian? But apparently I overestimated your familiarity with actual Lutheran doctrine - and your ability to debate charitably. I won’t continue to discuss with someone who twists my words to fit their straw man.

I’m only quoting your words. Apparently Paul is greater than James.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Whoa. No, no. I don’t buy this slippery slope at all. It’s humanist drivel that brings historical-critical garbage into the hermeneutic; Lutheranism is, instead, focused on the cross, as Pope Benedict observed in 2008(I think? I’ll have to find the article). Diligent attention to the historical practices of the church and her doctors can hardly be considered an endorsement of quack, eviscerative theologies that intentionally bring about man-focused trash. Lutheranism was around for 400 years before the first Julius Wellhausen took a crayola to his bible.

And besides, Luther was hardly the first Catholic to understand the importance of certain books over others. Why do you think we stand for the Gospel Reading? He was one of thousands of Catholics who questioned James. That’s why the book was considered antilegomena! Luther didn’t make up 1500 years of academic research.

What Pope Benedict said is different from what Luther claimed. Those Catholics who questioned that authority submitted to the Church. Luther did not.

This is what he actually meant:

What others have said here is correct. If by “faith” you include the “obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5; Romans 16:26), then “faith alone” is not only true, it’s the teaching of the Council of Trent. Catholics don’t teach that works are worth anything apart from faith. They’re tied to, and responsive to, faith. The major areas of disagreement are:

(1) Whether faith is imputed or imparted. That is, whether a person is simply declared righteous, or whether the Holy Spirit beings a process of transformation within their life;

(2) Whether a person’s sins (other than loss of faith) after justification can harm their standing before God. That is, there’s no theology of “mortal sinning” within Lutheranism (although Lutheranism does reject Once Saved, Always Saved); and

(3) Whether it’s possible for a person to have true faith and not work.

Catholics says faith is imparted by the Holy Spirit, and can be lost through intentional mortal sin. However, # 3 is largely a question of definition. If by “faith” you mean “belief,” then yes, you can believe and not respond to that belief. Stupid decision, but one you’re free to make. Paul says that you can have faith to move mountains and not love (1 Cor 13:2). In that sense, he clearly means faith as belief. But if by “faith” you mean something broader, to include the “obedience of faith,” or “faith working in love,” what Lutherans call an “active faith,” then yeah, that’s all you need.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I disagree. If I am a member of the ELCA, and I disagree with ELCA doctrine, that is no different than a Catholic disagreeing with Catholic doctrine. Now, how they handle it may be different, but it is the same.
Jon

Some of your brethren disagree with the belief in the PV of…oh wait that’s already been discussed.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

You said this in post #103.

You sure needed to create a few posts to explain it and eventually arrived in the above, that they all belong in the Holy Scripture and both Law and Gospel are not to be ignored.

That viewpoint is the same with that of Catholics, and if that is the case, there is certainly no issue.

However, reading your post #103, a Catholic would think you meant that the James epistle is of lesser importance compared to Paul’s. I think that was where the confusion lies.

Having said that, if that is your position, that all books in the scripture are equal (am I rephrasing you correctly?) then from Catholics’ perspective of Lutherans’ stance, you are kind of deviating from it.

We see Lutherans as not putting the books in the Scripture as of equal importance or strength (in their inspiration). Thus you would have the Apocrypha consigned to just ‘profitable reading’ but not necessarily inspired.

Again, an excerpt from a Catholic’s perspective:

Apparently, the person I was debating obviously didn’t get what I was saying either.

 

[thephilosopher6]

That’s a rather judgemental comment. On what basis do you decide either? Why is that Catholic not Catholic when his beliefs are outside doctrine, but the Lutheran is still Lutheran when his beliefs are outside doctrine?

Jon

Because Lutheranism is a theology while Catholicism is a single Church. Many Lutheran denominations don’t agree with all of what Luther taught but they are still Lutheran as they adhere to the basic principles of the theology and belong to a particular Lutheran denomination. Catholicism is a single Church and anyone outside of the Church cannot be considered Catholic. Groups such as Old Catholics are not Catholic. They have the word ‘Catholic’ in their name, but that does not make them Catholic.

 

[benhur]

Seriously? Mighty deeds and miracles won’t get you into heaven.

Hi JB,

You brought up the Lord’s Word on the matter. Apparently it is quite a serious matter to get this right.

Blessings

 

[JonNC]

Some of your brethren disagree with the belief in the PV of…oh wait that’s already been discussed.

For the Lutheran, belief in the PV is adiaphoron.

Jon