I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Aha!!!Yes, I am aware of those portions since I chose to include them rather than snipping them out and using ellipses.
So you are picking and choosing!?
- Status
So you are picking and choosing!?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
This morning our parochial vicar, a Scriptural scholar, was talking about Traditionā¦
We go back to the knowledge that the apostles taught us about faith and how it is lived out in Christā¦and we are not to turn away from our faith in the Lordā¦given us through them as they were witnesses to Himā¦and to live out the traditions they have given us.
Fr also spoke this morning that our Traditions have rules and regulations to insure the Gospel and the depth of its understanding is not lostā¦However, he did say the only time the Church has changed Traditionā¦is in response to a real need in the Church.
Christ did not give us burdens or heavy yokes but to know freedom in living in Him.
I think back to the Church laws for ordinary Catholicsā¦Sunday Mass and Holy Day obligatory, confession required for mortal sin, to practice some form of abstinence. and other norms that uphold the sanctity of human life.
We grow together in sanctity in the Lord. We do not have heavy burdens and the Church can be flexible when it is necessary.
We go back to the knowledge that the apostles taught us about faith and how it is lived out in Christā¦and we are not to turn away from our faith in the Lordā¦given us through them as they were witnesses to Himā¦and to live out the traditions they have given us.
Fr also spoke this morning that our Traditions have rules and regulations to insure the Gospel and the depth of its understanding is not lostā¦However, he did say the only time the Church has changed Traditionā¦is in response to a real need in the Church.
Christ did not give us burdens or heavy yokes but to know freedom in living in Him.
I think back to the Church laws for ordinary Catholicsā¦Sunday Mass and Holy Day obligatory, confession required for mortal sin, to practice some form of abstinence. and other norms that uphold the sanctity of human life.
We grow together in sanctity in the Lord. We do not have heavy burdens and the Church can be flexible when it is necessary.
J
Jubilarian
Guest
No you didnāt. Again, nice slippery try. You know I wasnāt talking about my OP but about my post in which I asked you to show me a decent source with the words āLutherans are not Protestant.ā You canāt do it and are attempting to employ every tactic possible to avoid my request.
The fact that you keep replying without presenting what I ask of you is a sign of fear and of failure to prove your assertion.
J
Jubilarian
Guest
What do mean āok?ā Are you affirming my statement that Lutherans are Protestant? Because I then need to ask you what you think a Protestant Lutheran is.
But to satisfy your question; Lutheran teaching harkens back to protesting the Catholic Church and those teachings remain.
In the historical sense, yes, Lutherans are protestant, meaning the Evangelical churches participated in the formal protest of the 2nd Diet of Speyer in 1529. Yes, we are protestant in the loose, general vernacular grouping of many western non-Catholic Christians.
And here is your misuse of the term. The protest that spawned the term was not against Catholic teaching, as Father K and I have informed you. Further, Lutheran teaching insofar as it challenged the teaching of the Catholic Church in the 16th century is not necessarily the same as other Reformation era movements, including the Reformed/Calvinist and Anabaptists, much less other groups whose advents are later, most of which come from the Reformed movement.
Are there similarities? Of course. But then Lutheranism in many ways is far more similar to Catholicism than to some of these other groups, the use of Tradition, liturgy, and sacraments as examples.
Your OP asks this question: * Of course Sola Scriptura is the Protestant mantra and they deny that tradition is as equally authoritative as the bible . What traditions are they following that are required to maintain their view of the ābible alone?ā Contradictory?*
As Lutherans, we do not consider the following or use of Tradition to be in any way shape, manner or form contradictory to sola scriptura. We only maintain that Tradition is subject to scripture, which is the final norm.
Jon
K
KjetilK
Guest
And this is where your ignorance starts to show even more. It is understandable. It is pretty common amongst online Catholic apologists who think that reading a blog makes them theologians.
Lutherans have never, ever claimed that Luther himself has formal authority because he is Luther. He had no more formal authority than anyone else amongst the ordained, and the focus is not on Luther, but the confessions. He didnāt even write the most important one ā Confessio Augustana ā and even had issues with its formulations.
No, it does not. The word Protestant had nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with protesting the Roman Catholic Church. It had to do with protest against the Empire, not the Church.
I do not protest the Catholic Church. I am simply Norwegian. Had I been from Italy, France or Ireland (to name a few), I would have been a Roman Catholic. Had I been from England, I would have been a member of the Church of England (founded in 597, when St. Augustine of Canterbury was elected and consecrated as Archbishop of Canterbury). But I am from Norway, and am thus naturally a member of the Church of Norway, founded over a period of about 30 years, from 995 to 1030.
And, as I have said many times already: You want to define āProtestantsā as āthose who protest the Roman Catholic Church,ā which of course isnāt the definition of āProtestant.ā (But why bother with facts?) But if you want to use that definition, you have to logically admit that the Orthodox are Protestants. You cannot give a definition, then refuse to acknowledge the logical outcomes of the definition in question. And you cannot simply say āwell I define this to be those who do that, except those over there.ā You need to provide an adequate reason to exclude the people in question from the definition, and it cannot simply be because you donāt want them there. The problem, of course, is that you are operating under a idiosyncratic definition of āProtestantā with no basis in history.
You really need to take a course in logic.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
:nope:
The fact that you keep replying without presenting what I ask of you is a sign of fear and of failure to prove your assertion.
You mean what you said on Post #386:
First, using āCAPSā is the functional equivalent of screaming. No need to scream.
Second, why would I want to lower myself to answer a question in which you say and I quote again:
Implying that if I canāt respond to your specific demands I am āhung upā on an āin-houseā āhair splitting gameā that gives me āsome form of solaceā.
Perhaps you can enlighten me by delineating how the absence of my answer implies what you just wrote?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
bump
J
Jubilarian
Guest
How many times do I have to type the same explanation over and over to you? Itās not about reading a āblogā, I have constantly referred you to ENCYCLOPEDIAS, DICTIONARIES and LUTHERAN WEBSITES .
I never said Luther was an āauthorityā. I have simply pointed out that you follow many of the the teachings of Luther. I mean cāmon, if you donāt, should you be calling yourself Lutheran?
And protesting the empire had no trickle down effect towards the Church? Okay, you also donāt like the word āprotestā. What word is better? Why not just say you are Catholic and do away with this Lutheran thing?
What relevance does āI would have beenā have on this discussion? I really believe that you have an intense desire to create a unique status for yourself.
I told you that my definition is derived from academic sources. Orthodox are not Protestant because of the many differences in their belief system from from what is traditionally connected to and associated with the Reformation. Personally, I feel they are Protestant, but most if not all theological expositions do not categorize them as such. Ive stated this before. You are quite practiced at hurling the word āignorantā around. I suggest you further consider the Protestant connection to Lutheranism and ease up on ego driven replies.
J
Jubilarian
Guest
K
KjetilK
Guest
Well, itās always interesting to hear other pontificate on my real opinions. My position IS the position of the Church of Norway. It is the historical Church of the realm, just like the Church of England is the historical Church of the British isles, and the Russian Church (Moscow Patriarchate) is the historical Church of all of Russia.
The Church exists in particular Churches. The Church of Norway happens to be the one with jurisdiction in Norway.
Academic sources tell us that the word Protestant derives from those who protested certain edicts of the Holy Roman Empire.
I donāt think you understand logic. You are totally incapable of seeing the logical implications of your arguments. I agree that the Orthodox arenāt Protestants. But it is not I who say they are. That they are Protestants follows logically from YOUR definitions. That should tell you something important, that the definitions in question are wrong.
And furthermore, the definition you provide above, that a Protestant has a ābelief system from what is traditionally connected to and associated with the Reformation,ā would exclude Anabaptists, Pentecostals, modern Evangelicals from the label Protestant. Their belief systems are NOT connected to, or associated with, the Reformation. You are simply being inconsistent.
And I suggest that stop being inconsistent and learn logic. It is clear that you have no grasp of it.
Yes, Lutherans are Protestants, in a historical sense, if you keep to the historical definition. But you do not do that. You keep insisting on your own idiosyncratic and inconsistent definition(s) that sometimes makes Orthodox into Protestants, sometimes not, sometimes makes modern Evangelicals into Protestants, sometimes not, sometimes makes Anabaptists into Protestants, sometimes not, sometimes makes Pentecostals into Protestants, sometimes not, etc.
J
Jubilarian
Guest
When are you going to stop saying āyourā definition? You write as if I am an anomaly, and no one else is in agreement with my position.
You claim superiority over encyclopedias and Protestant sources by avoiding them. Steer clear of outside sources, I get it, logic might creep in.
And finally you admit that Lutherans are Protestant, but you toss in ,āin a historical senseā. No kidding, Iāve never said otherwise. Has the history of Lutheranism vanished? No, itās alive today, and you are part of it.
And one more time on this Orthodox issue. If you can post a good source stating that Orthodox are Protestant , do so. Your answers get more self focused by the minute. You are a Protestant and will remain so as long as Luther is your identifying label.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
No. To emphasize a point you can use bold or *italics *or underline or a combination of them. It would be the courteous approach in lieu of using a practice that can be seen as ambivalent.
]It is lowering because you are unable to form an intelligent response and it would require me to reach your level of insults. Which is what you should be apologizing for and not for the alleged sensitivity.
I see you have not been able to explain what you mean in your original post yet.
How can you answer a straw man? What are Lutherans protesting still, in order to be called Protestant?
A Lutheran just told you that he is not protesting. Should a Christian be still called a Christian if he no longer believes in Christ? Why should he accept a fallible and anonymous source as you to define what he is or isnāt.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
J
Jubilarian
Guest
Not every forum allows for what you outlined. Your claim is therefore non universal. In other words, your wrong.
My responses are intelligent, its just easier for you to pump yourself up with juvenile self empowerment claims. Your intelligence should rise above that.
Still trying the āflip it back to me gameā when you have yet to post a credible source stating that Lutherans are not Protestant. How many more times can you avoid my request?
The Reformation is long over and you wonāt find the 'marching in the streetās ā style protests you seem to desire to prove a point. Lutherans are not in agreement with the CC on many issues very much like other denominationsā¦period.
You are not reading my posts. Look at the named sources on the internet that support Lutherans as Protestants. The āyou against meā mentality has worn pretty thin.
It actually isnāt a juggling act, Randy. What father K and I are saying is rather direct:
#If one is using the historic meaning of the term protestant, that being of those whose issued the formal protest against the civil authoritiesā decision at Speyer in 1529, then yes, we are protestant.
If one is using the term to mean generally, loosely, those of (most) communions in the west that are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, then by that definition, virtually useless though it is, yes.
If one uses it, as the OP does, to imply, unintentional though it may be, a church of monolithic belief, either historically or currently, then no, we are not protestant. We hold to beliefs that most other protestant communions reject: sacraments, baptismal regeneration, the real presence, and germane to this thread, an acceptance of Tradition, while not the same as the CC, which is far more extension than many other communions.
The point of contention here is that the OP said:Of course Sola Scriptura is the Protestant mantra and they deny that tradition is as equally authoritative as the bible . What traditions are they following that are required to maintain their view of the ābible alone?ā Contradictory?
And our reply is that one cannot accurately use the term protestant to imply a uniformity of belief, neither now nor historically. The understanding of sola scriptura, in the classical sense, is not contradictory to the use of Tradition.
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
As you know, this seems pretty straightforward to me.
Jon, my only disagreement is that sola scriptura itself was unknown to the apostles and the early church. Thus, it is a noveltyā¦500 years old at this point, but a novelty in the grand scheme of things nonetheless.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Yes, you have, repeatedly. The historical definiton is applicable only of those Churches who made formal protests against the Edict of Worms and the Diet of Speyer, which restricted the religious practice of the evangelic Churches in Europe during the Reformation. (And this has nothing to do with the modern evangelical movement.) The name was not, and I repeat not, a reference to a protest against Roman Catholic teaching.
The problem, of course, is that this does not include Anabaptists, baptists, or Pentecostals, to name a few. They have nothing to do with the European Reformation. Anabaptists (and their Baptist offshoot) were in fact contrary to the Reformation, and Pentecostals arose just over 100 years ago.
Seriously!? I never said they were. I said that your definition makes them Protestants. That means your definition is wrong. I just showed you the logical outcome of your own words.
And I ask you to stop calling me that, because I am not a Protestant after your definition. Please heed this question from Isaiah45_9: āWhat are Lutherans protesting still, in order to be called Protestant?ā
And neither are the Orthodox. Yet they are not āProtestants.ā I agree that they are not Protestants. But that means that ānot being in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church on many issuesā is not the definition of āProtestant.ā Yet you cling to it for some reason.
I am not a Protestant according to Jubilarianās idiosyncratic definition.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Well, that depends on what you mean by Sola Scriptura. It is quite true that the term itself was not used by the Apostles or the early Church. But that doesnāt tell you anything, really. Theologians invent new terminology all the time. The question is: What does Sola Scriptura mean, and can this be either found in, or be seen as compatible with, the apostolic faith?Jon, my only disagreement is that sola scriptura itself was unknown to the apostles and the early church. Thus, it is a noveltyā¦500 years old at this point, but a novelty in the grand scheme of things nonetheless.
Well, I have explained before what Sola Scriptura means, but I can repeat it here.
We can start off by this quote from , art I:50Confessio Augustana: āFor this reason our preachers have diligently taught concerning these subjects, and have delivered nothing that is new, but have set forth Holy Scripture and the judgments of the holy Fathers.ā This is pretty typical of the arguments made by the early Lutherans. The emphasis is on Scripture, but it is read in the context of Tradition and with emphasis on the consensus of the Fathers. Luther, for instance, fameously held that even though there is not a strict example of a child being baptised in the New Testament, we should still hold to it, because the undivided Tradition held to it, the tradition which gave us the Creeds.*] For Luther, Sola Scriptura was a principle which gave preeminence to Scripture, but which read it through Tradition, in the Church, and with emphasis on reason.
The following paragraph (#442) of The Apostolicity of the Church, a study document of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity, encapsulates the early Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura:
Catholics and Lutherans agree, not only that Scripture developed historically from a process of tradition both in Israel and the apostolic church, but as well that Scripture is oriented toward a process of being interpreted in the context of ecclesial tradition.
Source: The Apostolicity of the Church, p.190. It is also available online, but without the page numbers of the book.
What is meant by Sola Scriptura is that Scripture is the most central source of Revelation, but that it should be read in the context of Tradition (especially the Creeds, Dogmas, and the teachings of the Church Fathers). The classical way of putting this is that Scripture is norma normans non normata (the norm or rule that regulates all other norms but is not itself regulated by them), and that Tradition is norma normata (the norm or rule that regulates us, but does not regulate Scripture). Scripture and Tradition is to be interpreted by those who are properly called ā and ordained ā to do so (cf. XIVConfessio Augustana).
This is, interestingly, pretty much the position of Joseph Ratzinger, which can be found in his book Dogma and Preaching (Ignatius Press 2011), pp.26-39. These pages are all available at Google Books.
So Sola Scriptura, understood in its historical context, is not necessarily āunknown to the apostles and the early church.ā
- The only source I have for this, at the moment, is Norwegian. Oddvar Johan Jensen, a Norwegian professor of Church History (with specialisation in the Reformation and Luther studies) at my alma mater in Bergen, Norway, explains Lutherās positionin a feature article in Norwegian Christian Newspaper Dagen, November 29, 2013, p.35. This article was part of a long debate in said newspaper when some students at my Lutheran alma mater was horrified when the teachers wasnāt fundamentalists and/or calvinists. There is an overview of the debate here, with links to the different posts and articles. Unfortunately it is all in Norwegian.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
This Sunday afternoon, I spent time going through āThe Shaping of Biblical Criticism Politicizing of Bibleā, by Casey Chalk and Ray Stamper on www.calledtocommunion.com.
It is very good and draws on alot of backgroundā¦speaks of problems in how the Bible is approached, the issue of regionalism and nationalism, the position of Luther and his minimalist approach to Sacred Scripture, flawed Catholic theological approach by some, insights from former Cardinal Ratzingerā¦and comments on the likes of theologian, Dr Bart Ehrman, and so on.
It is very deep and academic and I will have to read it a few more timesā¦but I am with the ācalled to communionā of Christianity to be oneā¦excellent website and they have been on EWTN.
It is very good and draws on alot of backgroundā¦speaks of problems in how the Bible is approached, the issue of regionalism and nationalism, the position of Luther and his minimalist approach to Sacred Scripture, flawed Catholic theological approach by some, insights from former Cardinal Ratzingerā¦and comments on the likes of theologian, Dr Bart Ehrman, and so on.
It is very deep and academic and I will have to read it a few more timesā¦but I am with the ācalled to communionā of Christianity to be oneā¦excellent website and they have been on EWTN.
- Status