Protestants reforming ?

[GaryTaylor]

The trouble with Catholics is that they throw all protestants into the same category and usually don’t have a clue what we believe in. I know very few Protestants who would say that the erred within its first 500 years. I agree the a lot of what your saying here, but the early Church fathers don’t back Roman Catholicism anymore than they back Lutheranism. Your not saying anything here that I disagree with other than that you think it only applies to Roman Catholicism. Which leads me to believe that you don’t understand Anglicanism and you’ll say anything to show that your Church has superiority. The problem with this is that Roman Catholics don’t do a very good job in showing their superiority. The more I study scripture, how the councils were carried out and, the early church fathers, the more convinced I am that Roman Catholics do not have superiority. The Catholic teachings go way beyond anything that the early Church ever declared. I have no problem giving honor to Mary, I believe in the sacraments, and don’t have a problem with the bishop of Rome as the first among equals as the early councils understood him as such. Again what you have written does not show your superiority above any mainline Church. Its shows you don’t understand the nature of Protestantism. You don’t have anymore proof for your religion than anybody else. It takes faith. That might hurt your pride but its the reality.

I’m sorry did I compare Catholic’s to Anglican’s somewhere in the post? Or is this an assumption on your part?

Not sure what superiority has to do with anything either.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What are you trying to show me?

Why would I want to show you something? You already know about I Clement

However, to the board: The context of the quoted text and the rest of the letter.

 

[Prosmith]

I’m sorry did I compare Catholic’s to Anglican’s somewhere in the post? Or is this an assumption on your part?

Not sure what superiority has to do with anything either.

I’m pretty sure he is speaking of how the RCC has made it’s own assertion that it is the one and only true Church. I also totally agree that more often than not, Protestants of all kinds get lumped together here and stereotyped and ultimately it shows a serious lack of knowledge on the poster’s part because those stereotypes (sola scriptura etc.) are completely wrong when applying them to us Anglicans.

 

[Prosmith]

I’ve been a Lewis collector for nigh unto 50 years. Gimme a source for that one, if you have it.

GKC

You know, I heard it in a sermon a few years back and C.S. Lewis’ name was affixed to it so if it’s not a quote of his, then it’s more of a generalization of something else that he said I’m sure. If I had more time to read, I’m sure I would have better knowledge regarding that.

 

[Contarini]

I am glad you pointed this out. I will talk to my Priest. I cannot really answer on something I am unsure about. But if the Clergy have to believe it then why would the laity believe anything else?

Obviously the intent is for the laity to follow the teachings of the clergy. But laity have greater freedom.

Edwin

 

[JPeter]

Obviously the intent is for the laity to follow the teachings of the clergy. But laity have greater freedom.

Edwin

I agree. That is what I was always taught.

 

[GKC]

You know, I heard it in a sermon a few years back and C.S. Lewis’ name was affixed to it so if it’s not a quote of his, then it’s more of a generalization of something else that he said I’m sure. If I had more time to read, I’m sure I would have better knowledge regarding that.

Thanks anyway. After 48 years of collecting books by and about Lewis, I tend to automatically consider what a source might be, when I see a quote. Most often the quotes are fairly well known ones, but this wasn’t (to me), and it doesn’t sound much like Lewis. Could be, though; I’ll look in a few more of my references.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Obviously the intent is for the laity to follow the teachings of the clergy. But laity have greater freedom.

Edwin

Much greater. They are not legally bound, as the clergy were, by the Act.

GKC

 

[JPeter]

“We are justified by faith alone, but justifying faith is never alone.” Living faith produces works that give evidence of faith.

The only thing that justifies us, that is, that gives us forgiveness of sins is the merit of Christ, which we receive through faith.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven…"

God’s will begins with believing in Christ as our Savior. Read John 6:28-29.

James 2:24 “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”

Justified means declared righteous. Our works declare to us and to others that our faith is alive.

Matthew 25:34-35

Jesus on Judgment Day points to the good works believers have done as evidence of their faith.

Romans 3:28 “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.”

The text does not say works of the ceremonial law. It says works of the law.

 

[SteveVH]

I also totally agree that more often than not, Protestants of all kinds get lumped together here and stereotyped and ultimately it shows a serious lack of knowledge on the poster’s part because those stereotypes (sola scriptura etc.) are completely wrong when applying them to us Anglicans.

I could not agree more. In discussions at my Church I am constantly reminding people not to use the word “Protestant” when speaking of a particular belief because it is not even close to true across the board.

On the other hand, it is somewhat understandable that one cannot expect Catholics to keep up on the beliefs of every Protestant community. You all share at least one thing in common; you are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, some to much greater degrees than others. So it really matters little to most Catholics what you believe. It is not as if we are seeking another “one, true Church” out there somewhere. We are already in it and invite all those who are separated from us to join us. As for many Anglicans, this is occurring as we speak.

 

[Prosmith]

I could not agree more. In discussions at my Church I am constantly reminding people not to use the word “Protestant” when speaking of a particular belief because it is not even close to true across the board.

On the other hand, it is somewhat understandable that one cannot expect Catholics to keep up on the beliefs of every Protestant community. You all share at least one thing in common; you are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, some to much greater degrees than others. So it really matters little to most Catholics what you believe. It is not as if we are seeking another “one, true Church” out there somewhere. We are already in it and invite all those who are separated from us to join us. As for many Anglicans, this is occurring as we speak.

 

[hn160]

Not nearly as many as you think. Anglicans who are steadfast in their faith such as the 25 million Anglicans worshipping on a Sunday morning in Uganda are surely not in any way wanting to swim the Tiber. In fact, many Anglicans are now uniting as opposed to dividing as several churches and diocese in AMIA are seeking union or have already joined ACNA.

 

[GKC]

Prosmith;9653710:

just a side note The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Anglican Church in North America concluded the first round of theological talks this past May. One sticking point would be woman ordination as the LC-MS does not ordain woman.

The ACNA is divided on the issue.

GKC

 

[JPeter]

Prosmith;9653710:

just a side note The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Anglican Church in North America concluded the first round of theological talks this past May. One sticking point would be woman ordination as the LC-MS does not ordain woman.

Most of the ACNA does not ordain women but the differences between Anglicans and Lutherans is deeper than that. conciliaranglican.com/2011/10/16/ask-an-anglican-confessionalism-vs-conciliarity/

 

[benjohnson]

hn160;9655376:

Most of the ACNA does not ordain women but the differences between Anglicans and Lutherans is deeper than that. conciliaranglican.com/2011/10/16/ask-an-anglican-confessionalism-vs-conciliarity/

I my opnion, the article you linked to is incorrect in how it defines Lutheran Sola Scriptura as saying “[for Lutherans] Holy Scripture is not only the highest source of authority for doctrine but the only source”

We Lutherans don’t deny other sources of authority (tradition, or teaching) - we only say that those sources are corrected by scripture.

That said, I have no doubt that some other Protestants use the definition given in the article, and otherwise I agree with the article’s admonision of better adherence to correct ecumenical councils would be beneficial.

If you’re wondering why I’m being sort of touchy about Sola Scriptura - it’s because I don’t think the definition in the article is defensible. I would say it would lead to a lessening of our ability to worship as Christians.

 

[CopticChristian]

JPeter;9656397:

I my opnion, the article you linked to is incorrect in how it defines Lutheran Sola Scriptura as saying “[for Lutherans] Holy Scripture is not only the highest source of authority for doctrine but the only source”

We Lutherans don’t deny other sources of authority (tradition, or teaching) - we only say that those sources are corrected by scripture.

That said, I have no doubt that some other Protestants use the definition given in the article, and otherwise I agree with the article’s admonision of better adherence to correct ecumenical councils would be beneficial.

If you’re wondering why I’m being sort of touchy about Sola Scriptura - it’s because I don’t think the definition in the article is defensible. I would say it would lead to a lessening of our ability to worship as Christians.

Ben,

I read your post and thought well then if Scripture is what sources are corrected by then we are left with Formal or Material Sufficiency and one interpretation vs another. Then I read the article. So much for a new idea. I never have one.

As the early nineteenth century Irish Anglican John Jebb put it, “From the commencement of the Reformation, it has been the common principle of all continental Protestants, that the interpretation of scripture is to be exclusively derived from scripture itself.” Jebb contrasts this with the Anglican approach of reading Scripture through the lens of the early Church. Quoting Saint Vincent, he says:

‘From the very depth of holy scripture, all men cannot receive it in one and the same sense: one person interprets the divine oracles in one manner; another person, in a manner totally different; insomuch that, from the same source, almost as many opinions may be plausibly elicited as there are men. Therefore, amidst so great perplexities, of such various error, it is extremely necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be regulated by the standard of ecclesiastical and catholic judgment.’

This leaves me with the question for you as to who decides in testing teaching sources with Scripture as to who is correct and why?

 

[benjohnson]

benjohnson;9657026:

This leaves me with the question for you as to who decides in testing teaching sources with Scripture as to who is correct and why?

I freely admit that this is problem for us.

I wish we could say we had an iron-clad way to follow a God’s plan. Sadly, we Lutherans don’t claim this.

If I was wise, I could come up with a plausible and systematic description of how our Church makes these decisions - it would probably be impressive and I could take comfort in it. But logically, I don’t think any worldly system applied by wordily men could be free from error.

In our defense, I do trust our Church because I do see God and God’s people at work in the Church. I also see the true body and blood of Christ. And I do have faith that errors will be corrected over time as God draws us closer to him in spite of ourselves.

But indeed, I find myself saying and praying “Come Holy Spirit! Come!”

I pray for our Church, and myself, to do God’s will.

 

[JPeter]

CopticChristian;9657136:

I freely admit that this is problem for us.

I wish we could say we had an iron-clad way to follow a God’s plan. Sadly, we Lutherans don’t claim this.

If I was wise, I could come up with a plausible and systematic description of how our Church makes these decisions - it would probably be impressive and I could take comfort in it. But logically, I don’t think any worldly system applied by wordily men could be free from error.

In our defense, I do trust our Church because I do see God and God’s people at work in the Church. I also see the true body and blood of Christ. And I do have faith that errors will be corrected over time as God draws us closer to him in spite of ourselves.

But indeed, I find myself saying and praying “Come Holy Spirit! Come!”

I pray for our Church, and myself, to do God’s will.

Hi Ben,

This link is from Fr. Fenton. He is an ex-Lutheran Pastor now Orthodox Priest. I think he made a mistake in converting to Orthodoxy, yet he shows some great evidence for the Catholic Principle within the Lutheran confessions. holyincarnation.org/pub/options.pdf

 

[benjohnson]

benjohnson;9657280:

Hi Ben,

This link is from Fr. Fenton. He is an ex-Lutheran Pastor now Orthodox Priest. I think he made a mistake in converting to Orthodoxy, yet he shows some great evidence for the Catholic Principle within the Lutheran confessions. holyincarnation.org/pub/options.pdf

Thanks for that!

Fr. Fenton’s call for Lutherans to be a continuation of the western catholic church rather than continue to slip into being just another narrow church among many is very compelling.

I’ll be rereading this a few times, that’s for sure!

 

[pablope]

benjohnson;9657280:

Hi Ben,

This link is from Fr. Fenton. He is an ex-Lutheran Pastor now Orthodox Priest. I think he made a mistake in converting to Orthodoxy, yet he shows some great evidence for the Catholic Principle within the Lutheran confessions. holyincarnation.org/pub/options.pdf

Hmmmm…interesting read. Why do you think Fr. Fenton made a mistake in converting to Orthodoxy? Should he have converted? Or turned Latin instead?

Did he convert prior to writing this?

He writes:

That is why the Book of Concord exists, and why it insists on listing what is to be
believed, taught and confessed. For our confessional standard is not Holy Scriptures alone.Neither is it interpreting the Confessions according to the Scripture. Rather, as C. F. W.Walther reminds us, our confessional standard is reading, interpreting, and expounding
Holy Scripture according to the Confessions.7

In other words, he is saying is the B of C and the confessions are some sort of Magisterium…or pope…only on paper?
Additionally, opposing the confession’s catholic
principle by requiring that all doctrines and practices rely exclusively on “clear passages of
Scripture” makes it extremely difficult to defend (among other things) infant Baptism, the
true understanding of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the christological
nature of the office of the holy ministry. For it is well known that heterodox communions
which subscribe to the sola scriptura principle reject these catholic traditions.
The persistent, willful and deliberate rejection of traditional dogmas which do not
contradict Scripture has led to the anti-confessional notion of the Scriptures as the sole
source of doctrine and practice. This is one of the two major pillars for both the false
doctrine and its illegitimate false practice which not only plagues the LCMS, but has
infected all Lutheran churches today.*