What were the traditions in Catholicism challenged by luther?

[pablope]

Well, my friend…you just made the case for why there is a need for a teaching authority, a Magisterium…so that the actual understanding of what the Reformers actually taught and believed is carried over to today…and also, you just made the case for the Papacy…and central authority to determine what is and is not dogma/doctrine.

And the question you asked…what brought about all this? Two words…“Sola Scripture.”:

I think that your logic is very weak here.

Huh… Why is it very weak? What is weak about what I said and concluded? I just pointed to you a fact of life about the protestantism…the lack of an authority, a magisterium…just look at the 30000 plus protestant denoms.

Are 30000 plus protestant denoms weak enough for you? Do you want more? Where will the splitting stop?

Even if the church is the body that decided what books should be in the canon and which ones shouldn’t, it only proves authority in that matter, even if that.

 

[pablope]

Well to be fair I would say that I beleive what scripture teachs in a general sense.

And what is that general sense?

Actually…you believe in the interpretation of Scripture of someone…and you blindly accept that as the teaching of the Scripture.

In essence…you follow that someone’s tradition…but how would you know that what he is teaching you is true? According to traditional Christianity? Is orthodox Christianity?

I do hope you read this article which I posted previously…it will be an eye opener for you…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

Mohler claims that we have an “objective standard” by which to define what is and what is not Christianity. That objective standard is “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” But this subtly pushes back the question: What is the objective standard for what counts as “traditional Christian orthodoxy”? Mohler appeals to the early creeds, and the first four ecumenical councils. He seems to think that the end of the fifth century is roughly the cutoff for “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” But picking the fifth century as the cutoff for “traditional Christian orthodoxy” is no less ad hoc than picking the first century.

The problem here is that Mohler’s position faces a very serious dilemma regarding the tradition to which he is appealing as the basis for “Christian orthodoxy.” On the one hand, Mohler cannot reject the tradition of the early Church, because that would make his own position fail to count as “traditional Christian orthodoxy,” and thus fail to count as “Christian,” by the very same argument he uses to claim that Mormonism is not Christian. On the other hand, Mohler cannot embrace the tradition of the early Church, because, as shown above, in many important ways that tradition is incompatible with his own Baptist theology.

If Calvin beleived something that, supposidly since I have seen evidence to suggest that he agrees on the whole marian doctrine, we Reformed regect now, so what? We refer to scripture not our own beleifs as you suggest.

Well, if Calvin believed it, why do you not believe it now? Who decided not to believe it?

If the Early Church, the early Christians, the early catholics, believed in the Marian doctrines, and Calvin also…so where did you get the idea not to believe them now?

So, in essence, your beliefs cannot be traced back to the start of Christianity, it can only be traced to someone deciding for themselves to disregard the Marian doctrine…and where did that someone get his authority to disregard the Marian doctrine?

So in essence, you are following the tradition of a man who decided for himself what to disregard and believe in.

This is what is discussed in the link I provided…and describes you also…picking and choosing what you want to believe…this is you also, isn’t it…this is what you are doing…

• What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation*.

So, my friend…you just made the case again for the need of a teaching authority…a Magisterium…that will teach infallibly, without error.

Let me ask you this…do you know why protestant bibles have less books than a Catholic bible? Do you know how this came about?

Even you have this problem since the magesterium is only a group of people agreeing on something, a logical fallacy.

Actually we do not. We catholics do not need to resort to a pick and choose or ad hoc approach.

The Church teaches…and we consent to the teachings, we conform ourselves to what the Church teaches.

As contrasted against what protestants generally do…choose the teachings they agree with, and conform the teachings to what one agrees too.

So the logical fallacy is on you…

 

[jwright82]

Yes but we always must set every tradition against scripture to see what is biblical or not. If you could convince me that the Reformed faith were unbiblical rather than unCatholic, I would change my mind. The bible is the “word of God” not tradition. But we reformed place a high emphasis on tradition but for us our tradition can be wrong. Hence changable.

Mohler claims that we have an “objective standard” by which to define what is and what is not Christianity. That objective standard is “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” But this subtly pushes back the question: What is the objective standard for what counts as “traditional Christian orthodoxy”? Mohler appeals to the early creeds, and the first four ecumenical councils. He seems to think that the end of the fifth century is roughly the cutoff for “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” But picking the fifth century as the cutoff for “traditional Christian orthodoxy” is no less ad hoc than picking the first century.

The problem here is that Mohler’s position faces a very serious dilemma regarding the tradition to which he is appealing as the basis for “Christian orthodoxy.” On the one hand, Mohler cannot reject the tradition of the early Church, because that would make his own position fail to count as “traditional Christian orthodoxy,” and thus fail to count as “Christian,” by the very same argument he uses to claim that Mormonism is not Christian. On the other hand, Mohler cannot embrace the tradition of the early Church, because, as shown above, in many important ways that tradition is incompatible with his own Baptist theology.

Mohler would be like most orthodox protastants in that we regognize the creeds of the early church to be biblical and binding on christians. I mean if the early church is as authoritative as you claim than the unrefined Trinitarian theology of the post-apostalic fathers must be binding too. But you are forced to criticaly receive what agrees with your complex and refined Catholic dogma not simply taking the texts at face value. In short you can only offer an interpretation of tradition not tradition itself.

Well, if Calvin believed it, why do you not believe it now? Who decided not to believe it?

If he did, it is unbiblical.

If the Early Church, the early Christians, the early catholics, believed in the Marian doctrines, and Calvin also…so where did you get the idea not to believe them now?

I do not think that the earliest christians beleived this. But your argument already assumes your conclusion and presupossitions about tradition, so you are making a circuler argument.

So, in essence, your beliefs cannot be traced back to the start of Christianity, it can only be traced to someone deciding for themselves to disregard the Marian doctrine…and where did that someone get his authority to disregard the Marian doctrine?

So in essence, you are following the tradition of a man who decided for himself what to disregard and believe in.

This is what is discussed in the link I provided…and describes you also…picking and choosing what you want to believe…this is you also, isn’t it…this is what you are doing…

• What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation*

.

So, my friend…you just made the case again for the need of a teaching authority…a Magisterium…that will teach infallibly, without error.

Let me ask you this…do you know why protestant bibles have less books than a Catholic bible? Do you know how this came about?

And you you are simply choosing based on what a group of people decided what was “Catholic” or not. You have the same problem, which proves why Sola Scriptura is so important. You are proposing a false dillema, either we have an infallable tradition or we have nothing. This assumes that a third option, Sola Scriptura, is impossible. That is a logical fallacy.

Actually we do not. We catholics do not need to resort to a pick and choose or ad hoc approach.

The Church teaches…and we consent to the teachings, we conform ourselves to what the Church teaches.

As contrasted against what protestants generally do…choose the teachings they agree with, and conform the teachings to what one agrees too.

So the logical fallacy is on you…

So everything that Origen said was true? If not than what basis do you appeal to in order to judge? It is one of three possibilities:

1. Everything that every christian said is true, obviously not.
2. Everything that every christian said is false, obviously not.
3. Or some of what they said is true and some is false. But with this we must have an objective and outside source to judge them by. If we say tradition than you are only going in a circle back to number one. In essence this is circuler reasoning.
   But scripture is and can be a seperate and objective source to judge these things by.

 

[JonNC]

You are making a lot of claims that may or may not be true. I know of no such quotes regarding Marian doctrines and the Reformed. You may want to find these quotes and from sources that are more scholarly in nature. If modern Lutherans and Reformed churches universally recognize their traditions as regecting these Marian doctrines than how did they go so wrong?

Just wanting to add:

Lutherans, when it comes to Marian beliefs, have doctrines and beliefs we consider adiaphora.
It is doctrine amongst Lutherans that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to the Christ.
Therefore, she is the Holy Theotokos. Addtionally, the Formula of Concord states that she “nevertheless remained a virgin”.

regarding the Assumption, IC, and perpetual sinlessness, Lutherans are free to believe as they choose. It is adiaphora. It is not a fact that Lutherans reject these. In a general sense, I believe them all. What we reject is binding the conscience of the believer on these things which are not explicit in scripture, and frankly, are not universally accepted by both east and west.

In addition, the confessions reject, albeit in a tepid way, invocation of saints, though we know that they do pray for us the Church Militant in a general way.

For us our tradition can change. The Westminster Confession of Faith can be changed according to new and better understandings of Scripture, which is still hard to do.

There are some who continue to claim to be Lutheran who say this about the Lutheran Confessions. The results for them have been disasterous liberalism.

Jon

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

jwright82:

I do not think that the earliest christians beleived this. But your argument already assumes your conclusion and presupossitions about tradition, so you are making a circuler argument.

Really? Did the early Christians believe in a canonized Bible and ratified doctrines by ecumenical councils? Do you consider that circular?

 

[Nicea325]

Well to be fair I would say that I beleive what scripture teachs in a general sense. If Calvin beleived something that, supposidly since I have seen evidence to suggest that he agrees on the whole marian doctrine, we Reformed regect now, so what? We refer to scripture not our own beleifs as you suggest. Even you have this problem since the magesterium is only a group of people agreeing on something, a logical fallacy.

Logical fallacy? Jesus’ promise to guide His Church by the Holy Spirit is logical fallacy? Hhmmm…who should one believe? Jesus or a mere mortal?

 

[dontknow]

Just wanting to add:

Lutherans, when it comes to Marian beliefs, have doctrines and beliefs we consider adiaphora.
It is doctrine amongst Lutherans that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to the Christ.
Therefore, she is the Holy Theotokos. Addtionally, the Formula of Concord states that she “nevertheless remained a virgin”.

regarding the Assumption, IC, and perpetual sinlessness, Lutherans are free to believe as they choose. It is adiaphora. It is not a fact that Lutherans reject these. In a general sense, I believe them all. What we reject is binding the conscience of the believer on these things which are not explicit in scripture, and frankly, are not universally accepted by both east and west.

In addition, the confessions reject, albeit in a tepid way, invocation of saints, though we know that they do pray for us the Church Militant in a general way.

There are some who continue to claim to be Lutheran who say this about the Lutheran Confessions. The results for them have been disasterous liberalism.

Jon

Thank you Jon.

 

[jwright82]

Just wanting to add:

Lutherans, when it comes to Marian beliefs, have doctrines and beliefs we consider adiaphora.
It is doctrine amongst Lutherans that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to the Christ.
Therefore, she is the Holy Theotokos. Addtionally, the Formula of Concord states that she “nevertheless remained a virgin”.

regarding the Assumption, IC, and perpetual sinlessness, Lutherans are free to believe as they choose. It is adiaphora. It is not a fact that Lutherans reject these. In a general sense, I believe them all. What we reject is binding the conscience of the believer on these things which are not explicit in scripture, and frankly, are not universally accepted by both east and west.

In addition, the confessions reject, albeit in a tepid way, invocation of saints, though we know that they do pray for us the Church Militant in a general way.

Fair enough, the OP was that we who do not beleive these things how can we deny our tradition? The essence of the argument is this

1. The RCC’s view of tradition is true
2. If we deny some aspect of our tradition we violate premise 1
3. Therefore we are wrong or incosistant

Well calling into question premise 1 is all that I am saying.

There are some who continue to claim to be Lutheran who say this about the Lutheran Confessions. The results for them have been disasterous liberalism.

Jon

Jon

I agree but it would be very very hard to change our confession and it should be. We simply say, and I beleive Lutherans agree on this, that our confession is not equal to scripture.

 

[jwright82]

Really? Did the early Christians believe in a canonized Bible and ratified doctrines by ecumenical councils? Do you consider that circular?

So it was the early christian’s beleif that made the bible the bible? Thus sayth the early church? This is obviously unbiblical.

 

[jwright82]

Logical fallacy? Jesus’ promise to guide His Church by the Holy Spirit is logical fallacy? Hhmmm…who should one believe? Jesus or a mere mortal?

Jesus did promise this. If we look at the OT we see that God has always had a people but the visible manafistation of his people changed. In the same way He will have a church but the visible manafistation of this church can change from time to time. You equate His promise as a promise to the RCC alone, which is reading into the text. I layed out why the magesterium is a logical fallacy in one of my last posts.

 

[jwright82]

Maybe it’s just me but…

If it is hypothetical then why would you say -

I mentioned a historical fact.

 

[jwright82]

If it is based on the only sure foundation the bible than it is not built on sand. But going over to the other extreme of saying that in order to protect the bible we must protect our interpretation of the bible as equal to the bible is to go overboard. You are trying to swat a fly with a bazooka. You are invoking a boogy man to fight against that isn’t really there. God does not need us to make His word known to people.

 

[Nicea325]

Jesus did promise this. If we look at the OT we see that God has always had a people but the visible manafistation of his people changed. In the same way He will have a church but the visible manafistation of this church can change from time to time. You equate His promise as a promise to the RCC alone, which is reading into the text. I layed out why the magesterium is a logical fallacy in one of my last posts.

Visible manifestation changing has no bearing on docrinal truth…that is your fallacy.Second, no one is reading into the text,rather you are assuming it is not the Catholic Church Jesus is referring to in the text. Tell me which non-Catholic church out of thousands is Jesus making reference to in the text? The Baptist? The Lutheran? The fundamentalist church on the street corner? Which one?

To believe the teaching church of Christ is a fallacy is to state you are the Judge of divine revelation and God is your teacher. Now that is fallacy on your part.

 

[Nicea325]

So it was the early christian’s beleif that made the bible the bible? Thus sayth the early church? This is obviously unbiblical.

That is not what I asked you,read it again:

Did the early Christians believe in a canonized Bible and ratified doctrines by ecumenical councils? Do you consider that circular?

I am merely applying your own standard:

I do not think that the earliest christians beleived this. But your argument already assumes your conclusion and presupossitions about tradition, so you are making a circuler argument

 

[JonNC]

Fair enough, the OP was that we who do not beleive these things how can we deny our tradition? The essence of the argument is this

1. The RCC’s view of tradition is true
2. If we deny some aspect of our tradition we violate premise 1
3. Therefore we are wrong or incosistant

Well calling into question premise 1 is all that I am saying.

On 2, what do you mean by “our” tradition? I would say that if we do deny some aspect of our tradition, then we are inconsistent. This is the my complaint regarding some spects of the leaders of the ELCA. The deny our tradition regarding ordination or women, for instance.

If the point is we deny some aspect of Catholic tradition we are inconsistent, then no we aren’t, depending on what apsect of that tradition we are speaking of. For example, the Lutheran view of the IC, and the Assumpton is quite consistent with the historic traditon of the Church, in that prior to 1854, it was the Tradition.

I agree but it would be very very hard to change our confession and it should be. We simply say, and I beleive Lutherans agree on this, that our confession is not equal to scripture

Correct. We just view our Tradition as a right reflection of scripture. Scripture doesn’t change, so neither should our confession, at least in terms of doctrine.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

On 2, what do you mean by “our” tradition? I would say that if we do deny some aspect of our tradition, then we are inconsistent. This is the my complaint regarding some spects of the leaders of the ELCA. The deny our tradition regarding ordination or women, for instance.

If the point is we deny some aspect of Catholic tradition we are inconsistent, then no we aren’t, depending on what apsect of that tradition we are speaking of. For example, the Lutheran view of the IC, and the Assumpton is quite consistent with the historic traditon of the Church, in that prior to 1854, it was the Tradition.

Correct. We just view our Tradition as a right reflection of scripture. Scripture doesn’t change, so neither should our confession, at least in terms of doctrine.

Jon

Jon…my friend. Blessings!

 

[JonNC]

Jon…my friend. Blessings!

And also with you.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

And also with you.

Jon

Jon,

Is the ELCA the largest group of Lutherans? I am assuming the ECLA are more conservative?

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

Is the ELCA the largest group of Lutherans? I am assuming the ECLA are more conservative?

The ELCA is the largest, but the more liberal synod. I was raised in the ELCA, but left about a dacade ago for the LCMS. We do not ordain women. They do. And we have taken a firm stance against their sexual orientation statements.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

The ELCA is the largest, but the more liberal synod. I was raised in the ELCA, but left about a dacade ago for the LCMS. We do not ordain women. They do. And we have taken a firm stance against their sexual orientation statements.

Jon

Wow! Very interesting. I am assuming both are independent of each other? If so,is there any possibilty of both sides uniting as one? Were they one entity as one point in time?