The end of Protestantism

  • Thread starter Thread starter smead2942
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomyris said:
I don’t think there is one Protestant position,
Click to expand...
This is true, in general. There are as many Protestant positions are there are, well, Protestants.

However, there is one thing all Protestants agree with: there is no need for a magisterium to tell us how to interpret Scripture.

Are we agreed on that?
as there are relativists here (as also are in the Catholic Church, you must admit).
Click to expand...
Protestants are being good Protestants when they are being relativists (I don’t need to conform my views to my pastor’s. He’s a fallible man (or woman, as the case may be) and therefore his/her views are just as correct as mine).

Catholics are being bad Catholics when they are being relativitists.

#hugedistinction.
It’s more like ‘let’s keep working at the solution, since there is still doubt here.’
Click to expand...
Hmmmm…and who has the final say when the answers are not the same?
There is, ultimately, only one truth, only one thing that is right. It is ultimately either a polynomial or a 3. It cannot be both.
Click to expand...
Absolutely right. 👍

(Math geeks: please do not address the above with math nerd language. Point is that the answer to the math problem cannot be “triangle” and “Cincinnati” at the same time.)
 
PRmerger said:
So how would your elders handle someone doing what Martin Luther did?

Please note, the question is not about what Luther professed–for, of course, I understand that your elders would state, “His theology is correct”.

My question has to do more with the process of a man in your church declaring that your elders are incorrect theologically in their interpretations of the Bible.

Which is what Luther did, right?
Click to expand...
He wasn’t a layman, so it would correspond more to an assistant pastor or Sunday school teacher ‘crossing a line’ theologically. At our church, if you are a small group leader or a Sunday school teacher or whatever, you serve with the understanding that you will not teach anything contrary to the WCF (I think there are some denominational statements as well, which is beside the point) and if you come to the place where you disagree with them, you will notify the appropriate people (like the pastor) immediately.

So Joe teacher wakes up and decides that verse about breath in the book of Job isn’t in Scripture. Violation of Article I, WCF. He tells the pastor. The pastor decides on what to do. Maybe it’s not really a problem. They will meet for lunch and talk it out.

That was Sunday. Monday he tosses Job and brings in “Ripley’s Believe it or Not” and Wednesday everything ever written by Edgar Rice Burroughs. Wednesday, when the pastor meets him, Joe is dressed like Tarzan and eats only bananas…The point being that theological problems have other manifestations…If it is a serious problem Joe will be removed.

If a preacher preaches a sermon that is seriously off, things happen, and happen fast. The elders step in and confront him. The presbytery examines a copy of the sermon. While this is taking place he only preaches at the discretion of the elders and presbytery, depending on the charges.

The point being that it would happen fast.

Not the main point, however, which is whether there are serious issues of unteachability and spiritual pride at play. If there aren’t and there is honest disagreement, he really will be happily elsewhere.
 
dronald said:
But there are actually Catholic Church’s with Priests who do a bad job, and the laity move on. Again I would say it’s prevalent in every Religious group.
Click to expand...
We’re talking doctrine here, ronald.

A pastor preaches.
A Christian listens.
Disagrees with pastor’s -]message/-] DOCTRINE.
Understands that this pastor is fallible, and by definition is going to be wrong at some point in his interpretation.
Christian says, “I can not abide by this erroneous -]interpretation/-] DOCTRINE”.
Christian leaves.
Christian church shops.
Christian joins a new church, hopeful.
 
PRmerger said:
This is true, in general. There are as many Protestant positions are there are, well, Protestants.

However, there is one thing all Protestants agree with: there is no need for a magisterium to tell us how to interpret Scripture.

Are we agreed on that?

Protestants are being good Protestants when they are being relativists (I don’t need to conform my views to my pastor’s. He’s a fallible man (or woman, as the case may be) and therefore his/her views are just as correct as mine).

Catholics are being bad Catholics when they are being relativitists.

#hugedistinction.

Hmmmm…and who has the final say when the answers are not the same?

Absolutely right. 👍

(Math geeks: please do not address the above with math nerd language. Point is that the answer to the math problem cannot be “triangle” and “Cincinnati” at the same time.)
Click to expand...
So…I am a Protestant but not a relativist (both of which you admit, but you say someone cannot be simultaneously both).

God has the final answers.

And the Catholic Church has not pinned every last little detail down, either. You can be a Thomist or a Molinist, for example. Many Catholics believe things in addition to official Catholic teaching - witness your assertions here, which you admit are not official Catholic teaching, yet you say they are true (and I, of course, argue with :)) and there may be some other Catholics who disagree with your statements. So Catholics are not in agreement on everything.
 
PRmerger said:
We’re talking doctrine here, ronald.

A pastor preaches.
A Christian listens.
Disagrees with pastor’s -]message/-] DOCTRINE.
Understands that this pastor is fallible, and by definition is going to be wrong at some point in his interpretation.
Christian says, “I can not abide by this erroneous -]interpretation/-] DOCTRINE”.
Christian leaves.
Christian church shops.
Christian joins a new church, hopeful.
Click to expand...
And people move in and out of the Catholic Church on these grounds, ja?
 
Tomyris said:
And the Catholic Church has not pinned every last little detail down, either. You can be a Thomist or a Molinist, for example. Many Catholics believe things in addition to official Catholic teaching - witness your assertions here, which you admit are not official Catholic teaching, yet you say they are true (and I, of course, argue with :)) and there may be some other Catholics who disagree with your statements. So Catholics are not in agreement on everything.
Click to expand...
But Catholics sure have pinned a lot of things down. Some Catholics complain about Protestants having too many different opinions about Scripture and other things without a Magisterium to tell them what it all means. But in my opinion, the Catholic Church has gone too far in the other direction and pronounced supposedly infallible doctrines about too many things and thereby kind of put themselves into a strait-jacket which they will have a hard time getting out of if any of those doctrines turn out not to be correct.
 
Tomyris said:
And people move in and out of the Catholic Church on these grounds, ja?
Click to expand...
They are being bad Catholics when they do this.

Protestants, however, are just being true to their Protestantism when they do this.
 
JonNC said:
PR is, to some degree, correct, except that she can’t apply it exclusively to protestants.

Jon
Click to expand...
Again, when Catholics do this they are being bad Catholics.

But when Protestants do this they are simply doing what Martin Luther and all the reformers stated you can do.
 
Tomyris said:
If I disagreed with the pastor on something in the Confession, the WORST way to approach it would be to say,“I heard your sermon today. You spoke of Heaven or Hell as the only destinations. I disagree. There is also New Jersey.”

He would look at me oddly and we would go over all the reasons why New Jersey is un-Biblical. If I were obstinate, at some point that would be discussed. If I insisted that it had to be Heaven, Hell, or New Jersey, and he was wrong, then I am departing from the Confession and church discipline is in order, not necessarily for my odd faith in Newark but for my stubborn pride and refusal to be corrected.
Click to expand...
So insert “John Calvin” above for “I”.

What would be the final outcome of Calvin disagreeing with the Confession?
But I am not going to pray that New Jersey is not anyone’s final destination. I’ve been there.
Click to expand...
😃
 
Tomyris said:
I already pointed it out.

is wrong, because there really isn’t one. Many will say justification by faith, but not all.

I certainly don’t say I can form my own church.

And your final statement has been demonstrated to be false.
Click to expand...
Ah.

So the scenario of people leaving a church when they disagree with their fallible pastor, church shopping, and eventually starting their own church is NOT what you were saying was false?
 
LutheranScholar said:
Indeed, the job of the clergy is to rebuke and correct errant laity according to the guidelines laid down by the Book of Concord or the Westminster Confession of Faith ( maybe the Book of Common Prayer…** ducks**).
Click to expand...
Let’s say Martin Luther was a member of your congregation and was rebuked and corrected…but still was adamantine and recusant.

Then what?
 
PRmerger said:
Again, when Catholics do this they are being bad Catholics.

But when Protestants do this they are simply doing what Martin Luther and all the reformers stated you can do.
Click to expand...
Aren’t Catholics doing what the Bishop of Rome did in 1054 (or the reverse)?

Jon
 
PRmerger said:
So how would your elders handle someone doing what Martin Luther did?

Please note, the question is not about what Luther professed–for, of course, I understand that your elders would state, “His theology is correct”.

My question has to do more with the process of a man in your church declaring that your elders are incorrect theologically in their interpretations of the Bible.

Which is what Luther did, right?
Click to expand...
Sure he did. If the elders were dealing with somebody who was declaiming against our Confessions, he would be corrected and if he remained obstinate, he’d be asked to leave. The beauty of Protestantism is that if somebody in one church disagrees with that theology, why, he’s perfectly free to go over to another denomination that his conscience can more readily settle in. If he’s a liberal Lutheran, he can join up with the ELCA, if he wants to leave the Protestant orbit entirely, he can join up with the Catholics or the Orthodox. The only authority our clergymen have is to proclaim the Word, distribute the Sacraments, pronounce forgiveness for the penitent and excommunicate the recalcitrant. We don’t murder people for heresy and we don’t issue anathemas against them. He or she may " go in peace, to love and serve the Lord."
 
PRmerger said:
We’re talking doctrine here, ronald.

A pastor preaches.
A Christian listens.
Disagrees with pastor’s -]message/-] DOCTRINE.
Understands that this pastor is fallible, and by definition is going to be wrong at some point in his interpretation.
Christian says, “I can not abide by this erroneous -]interpretation/-] DOCTRINE”.
Christian leaves.
Christian church shops.
Christian joins a new church, hopeful.
Click to expand...
In Lutheranism, the pastor doesn’t set doctrine.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top