What are some of the main reasons that people are attracted to the Protestant faith?

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by House Harkonnen
No. Not at all. Sola Scriptura is a practice of the church, not of individuals. That’s what the first reformers taught and their subsequent communions today.

Source for this, please.

The Augsburg Confession:

Article I: Of God.

5] They condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article, as the Manichaeans, who assumed two principles, one Good and the other Evil: also the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all such. 6] They condemn also the Samosatenes, old and new, who, contending that there is but one Person, sophistically and impiously argue that the Word and the Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but that “Word” signifies a spoken word, and “Spirit” signifies motion created in things.

They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ’s merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason

There are many other "We condemn"s, which indicates that not all things go for Lutherans, or that Lutherans are free to determine doctrine.

On the affirmative, it is constantly repeated that “They teach ____”, or “they also teach ____”. If we believe, teach, and confess something, it is not open to personal interpretation.

Jon

 

[steido01]

House Harkonnen: you’ve made at least 3 claims to which I asked for sources.

Could you please provide your sources?

Um. Did my earlier post get ignored? I provided Lutheran sources.

You’ve made several false claims about Lutherans and “protestants” that you’ve yet to retract. That’d be a nice start.

 

[PRmerger]

The Augsburg Confession:

There are many other "We condemn"s, which indicates that not all things go for Lutherans, or that Lutherans are free to determine doctrine.

On the affirmative, it is constantly repeated that “They teach ____”, or “they also teach ____”. If we believe, teach, and confess something, it is not open to personal interpretation.

Jon

Thanks, Jon for the references. But that says nothing at all about SS being a function of a church not individuals.

And who wrote the Augsburg confession?

 

[PRmerger]

Nonsense. Christians knew Hebrews was inspired long before your Pope or magisterium declared it so. No pope or magisterium was necessary. That’s how Athanasius knew what was inspired a few decades before the local council of Rome.

What you are saying, then, is that Sacred Tradition is a channel for the Word of God.

Very Catholic, this!

 

[adawgj]

I don’t know, but it could be due to all coffee and donuts they give out in their church lobbies. Food makes for happy worshipers. Heck, we have fried chicken in our mosque on Fridays.

That’s cool. Never thought of fried chicken and a mosque going together.

In my opinion it is probably the rock band music or the hip pastor with jeans that makes people attracted, or “The Bible says this and that” type attitude.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, Jon for the references. But that says nothing at all about SS being a function of a church not individuals.

If it is the Church that sets doctrine, and those doctrines are specific with statements of what we believe, teach, and confess, as well as statements of what we condemn, then those statements hold accountable the conscience of the believer, not leaving open the element of interpretation for the individual. Therefore, if I am to be Lutheran, I am bound by the doctrines of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as found in the Book of Concord.

And who wrote the Augsburg confession?

The leaders of the evangelical Catholic churches, who wished to present their statement of faith, their confession, the Emperor Charles V.

The above articles we desire to present in accordance with the edict of Your Imperial Majesty, in order to exhibit our Confession and let men see a summary of the doctrine of our teachers. 7] If there is anything that any one might desire in this Confession, we are ready, God willing, to present ampler information according to the Scriptures.

8] Your Imperial Majesty’s faithful subjects:
9] John, Duke of Saxony, Elector
10] George, Margrave of Brandenburg.
11] Ernest, Duke of Lueneberg.
12] Philip, Landgrave of Hesse.
13] John Frederick, Duke of Saxony.
14] Francis, Duke of Lueneburg.
15] Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt.
16] Senate and Magistracy of Nuremburg.
17] Senate of Reutlingen.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

The leaders of the evangelical Catholic churches, who wished to present their statement of faith, their confession, the Emperor Charles V.

8] Your Imperial Majesty’s faithful subjects:
9] John, Duke of Saxony, Elector
10] George, Margrave of Brandenburg.
11] Ernest, Duke of Lueneberg.
12] Philip, Landgrave of Hesse.
13] John Frederick, Duke of Saxony.
14] Francis, Duke of Lueneburg.
15] Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt.
16] Senate and Magistracy of Nuremburg.
17] Senate of Reutlingen.

Jon

Now while I am not an expert by any means on the Protestant Reformation, I am also no rube when it comes to religious dialogue…and I have never heard of any of the above as being Reformers.

Are you telling me that these men above are Reformers?

If so, why are they not mentioned in this general article on Protestant Reformers?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformers

 

[lutheranyouth]

"Marriage is another issue. Someone whose marriage turns bad and divorces, but doesn’t have grounds for an annulment or doesn’t wish to go through the annulment process, may leave the Catholic church for a Protestant one so they can get remarried.

Likewise I’ve seen Catholics leave the church because they don’t fully understand Catholic teaching on certain issues (homosexuality, birth control, women’s issues, Marian doctrines) and don’t want to take the time to learn. It’s an ego thing.

The third group I see leaving the Catholic church are those who feel they’ve been hurt by a clergy member or some other church representative (a teacher, an administrator). The victims of clerical sexual abuse are the most obvious ones in this group."

Are you saying that the only reason one could have left the roman-catholic church is because of non religious thoughts or leanings?

 

[PRmerger]

"Marriage is another issue. Someone whose marriage turns bad and divorces, but doesn’t have grounds for an annulment or doesn’t wish to go through the annulment process, may leave the Catholic church for a Protestant one so they can get remarried.

Likewise I’ve seen Catholics leave the church because they don’t fully understand Catholic teaching on certain issues (homosexuality, birth control, women’s issues, Marian doctrines) and don’t want to take the time to learn. It’s an ego thing.

The third group I see leaving the Catholic church are those who feel they’ve been hurt by a clergy member or some other church representative (a teacher, an administrator). The victims of clerical sexual abuse are the most obvious ones in this group."

Are you saying that the only reason one could have left the roman-catholic church is because of non religious thoughts or leanings?

Hi, lutheranyouth. Welcome to the CAFs!

It’s nice to see young people interested in dialoguing about their faith.

As far as the bolded statement above: no. No one is saying any one thing is the only reason one could have left the CC.

Or, to put it without the double/triple negatives: we are saying that there are lots of reasons people leave the CC.

But no one leaves the CC who truly understands her teachings. They leave because of issues below the belt (abortion or Birth Control), or of the heart–meaning that someone was rude to them, or they want to marry after a divorce and know that the CC won’t permit this.

Incidentally: can anyone give a good reason why the CC would stand her ground on this issue, except that she knows she has no authority to change God’s Word?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Now while I am not an expert by any means on the Protestant Reformation, I am also no rube when it comes to religious dialogue…and I have never heard of any of the above as being Reformers.

Are you telling me that these men above are Reformers?

If so, why are they not mentioned in this general article on Protestant Reformers?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformers

Oh yes, at least John Frederick I was indeed a Reformer and sentenced to death by Charles V - later changed to life imprisonment after he agreed to name the politically savvy Maurice Elector of Saxony — son of Catholic - Henry IV (The Pious) and Protestant - Catherine of Mecklenburg. Making him one of the first fruits of inter-Christian Reformation marriages.

 

[steido01]

Now while I am not an expert by any means on the Protestant Reformation, I am also no rube when it comes to religious dialogue…and I have never heard of any of the above as being Reformers.

Are you telling me that these men above are Reformers?

If so, why are they not mentioned in this general article on Protestant Reformers?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformers

Goodness! This must mark the first time a Wikipedia article wasn’t perfectly accurate or complete!

Inter-religious dialogue can often (sadly) consist of caricatures and simplifications - especially on the interwebs. It shouldn’t be surprising that humans from outside a given tradition are unfamiliar with the less-well-known figures in that tradition. Or with the beliefs of a given tradition. Sometimes, we even neglect facts and sources when they are presented us. This is why it’s important to acknowledge sources when they’ve been presented. No snark intended, here; I’m guilty of it at times, too.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh yes, at least John Frederick I was indeed a Reformer and sentenced to death by Charles V - later changed to life imprisonment after he agreed to name the politically savvy Maurice Elector of Saxony — son of Catholic - Henry IV (The Pious) and Protestant - Catherine of Mecklenburg. Making him one of the first fruits of inter-Christian Reformation marriages.

Okey dokey then.

 

[PRmerger]

If it is the Church that sets doctrine, and those doctrines are specific with statements of what we believe, teach, and confess, as well as statements of what we condemn, then those statements hold accountable the conscience of the believer, not leaving open the element of interpretation for the individual. Therefore, if I am to be Lutheran, I am bound by the doctrines of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as found in the Book of Concord.

I am not understanding your position here, Jon.

Are you saying that since the Augsburg Confession uses the term “We”, this necessarily means, “not I”?

That is, as it applies to my question: “We as a church follow sola scriptura but I as an individual cannot”?

 

[Sy_Noe]

But no one leaves the CC who truly understands her teachings.

I understand why Catholics like to or need to think this because of what they believe, being so sure their church is the one and its teachings are infallible. But it’s not necessarily true. It’s possible a person can understand CC teaching and why the CC teaches what it does but simply not believe as you do or not have the faith in its teaching authority that you do. Or not see history as Catholics do. Such encounters of “we’re certainly right on everything and you’re wrong” or “I do but you don’t fully understand”, might even be a reason some leave for a Protestant church. And imho it might even be partly why Catholic-Protestant dialogue can be so difficult at times. Granted depending on the denomination it can work both ways.

 

[Stilldreamn]

I am not understanding your position here, Jon.

Are you saying that since the Augsburg Confession uses the term “We”, this necessarily means, “not I”?

That is, as it applies to my question: “We as a church follow sola scriptura but I as an individual cannot”?

Not speaking for Jon, but an individual member of the Lutheran church has no authority to interpret Scripture and proclaim that as doctrine. None. My understanding is guided by my pastor, and he is bound by the Book of Concord, including the Augsburg Confession. You could think of it as our sacred tradition.

Yet the Book of Concord itself is not considered to be Scripture, only a faithful exposition of it.

 

[PRmerger]

I understand why Catholics like to or need to think this because of what they believe, being so sure their church is the one and its teachings are infallible. But it’s not necessarily true. It’s possible a person can understand CC teaching and why the CC teaches what it does but simply not believe as you do or not have the faith in its teaching authority that you do. Or not see history as Catholics do. Such encounters of “we’re certainly right on everything and you’re wrong” or “I do but you don’t fully understand”, might even be a reason some leave for a Protestant church. And imho it might even be partly why Catholic-Protestant dialogue can be so difficult at times. Granted depending on the denomination it can work both ways.

I have never met an ex-Catholic, IRL or here on the CAFs (and believe me, I’ve been in dialogue with a whole lot o’ them), who can articulate Catholic teaching and offer any kind of apologia for even fundamental beliefs such as the Mass.

I suspect you are an ex-Catholic, and I challenge you!

 

[Peter_J]

Goodness! This must mark the first time a Wikipedia article wasn’t perfectly accurate or complete!

I am shocked!

Then again, maybe you shouldn’t go by me, since I have almost completely stopped reading the conversation between you, PRmerger and others.

 

[PRmerger]

Not speaking for Jon, but an individual member of the Lutheran church has no authority to interpret Scripture and proclaim that as doctrine. None. My understanding is guided by my pastor, and he is bound by the Book of Concord, including the Augsburg Confession. You could think of it as our sacred tradition.

Yet the Book of Concord itself is not considered to be Scripture, only a faithful exposition of it.

Then isn’t the founder of the Prot Ref, Martin Luther, contradicting his own paradigm?

For did he not divorce himself from that which he was bound by–to assent to the teachings of the magisterium?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Even if we accept this adultery loophole, are you telling me that your pastor won’t marry someone who divorced her husband for, let’s say, the fact that he was a jerk? He was faithful from Day 1 of his marriage–not a pornographic thought entered his mind–but he was a jerk and she decided to take her 3 kids and leave him.

Your pastor wouldn’t permit her to marry again in his church?

Yes? or No?

By a landslide, the marriages in the two churches with which I’m involved have been first marriages. For the handful of second marriages, adultery, physical abuse with eventual imprisonment, and abandonment of a mother with children have been the reasons the pastor and parties involved considered the first marriage vows to have been irreparably broken and the marriage contract breached. All those reasons are reasons given in the Bible to consider a marriage broken with the innocent party free to remarry.

I hope to post some Jewish Encyclopedia entries, an article, and a fuller answer plus some questions of my own for you after my work day, but as usual for me, don’t hold your breath…my elderly mom is sick, I have other family responsibilities, and as last night, power outages from thunderstorms are possible the next few evenings.

 

[PRmerger]

For the handful of second marriages, adultery, physical abuse with eventual imprisonment, and abandonment of a mother with children have been the reasons the pastor and parties involved considered the first marriage vows to have been irreparably broken and the marriage contract breached.

Marriage vows irreparably broken?

That is, friend, an impossibility according to Scripture.

Only death can sever a vow.

All those reasons are reasons given in the Bible to consider a marriage broken with the innocent party free to remarry.

Could you provide verses which state that divorce and remarriage is permitted for physical abuse or abandonment?