Which Church??

[stewstew03]

Is cynacism due to someone finding truth outside one’s established comfort zone ?

Cynical? No. Jaundiced? Probably.

Where is our rejoicing for one soul that is converted ?

I’m sorry, this isn’t the 14th century. I cannot rejoice when a Catholic leaves the Church and boasts as she exits the door. Even Catherine of Siena found a way to remain Catholic.

Shall we be bah humbug like the Sanhedrin towards the healed blind man ?

Wait a second… I’m confused. Are you saying there’s a moral equivalence between my comment and the pharisaic questioning of the blind man before the Sanhedrin? Seems like a stretch. Or are you saying that former Catholics who flee the Church to another denomination were blind but now see? Either way, seems like you’re throwing a surreptitious insult my way for no apparent reason, benhur.

As a Catholic posted, the proof is in the pudding. Christ apparently has many wells besides the one we are accustomed to drink from.

To this I do not object (see CCC #838, and my reply to rinnie for a fuller response).

 

[benhur]

Oh, all right. I retract the D-3 comment, and will leave it at NC State, Duke, and UNC.

In all sincerity, the underlying implication Randy is making with his comment is he knows that, with due respect to the other groups he mentioned, I would never consider moving to any of them, but would rather be Catholic given those choices.

Jon

That is how I took it Jon. What I did like however, is that I think like me, you like “Bama” ! Actually I like ND also (Joe Montana, Bobby Thomas-kicker)

 

[JonNC]

That is how I took it Jon. What I did like however, is that I think like me, you like “Bama” !

Actually, I don’t particularly like 'Bama, but they were the first good team to pop into my head.

Jon

 

[benhur]

Yep. And Sunday worship, too. That’s courtesy of the authority of the magisterium as well.

What do you expect . We are all reformed Catholics. You chose to call us “protestant”.

 

[PRmerger]

What do you expect . We are all reformed Catholics. You chose to call us “protestant”.

Fair enough.

So you defer to the authority of the CC when it comes to Sunday worship.

Which makes you NOT a Sola Scriptura advocate.

Which also prompts the question: if you defer to the authority of the CC on Sunday worship, and the canon of the NT, why do you believe she got it wrong on all the other areas?

 

[PRmerger]

What do you expect . We are all reformed Catholics. You chose to call us “protestant”.

Fair enough.

So you defer to the authority of the CC when it comes to Sunday worship.

Which makes you NOT a Sola Scriptura advocate.

Which also prompts the question: if you defer to the authority of the CC on Sunday worship, and the canon of the NT, why do you believe she got it wrong on all the other areas?

What do you use for the canon of when she is right and wrong, except “I submit to her authority only when I agree”…which, of course, turns out to mean that the only one you really submit to…

is you.

 

[benhur]

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here, rinnie.

My comment was short (because I don’t have a lot of time to spend on CAF these days) and mostly tongue-in-cheek. It also must be understood in the context of another comment by Faithdancer; to wit,

"I will never again recognize the authority of the magisterium over my faith life - been there, done that."

I can’t help but cringe when I hear former Catholics say things like this because it carries an implication that we, as practicing Catholics, are quasi-Manchurian Candidates being controlled by the Pope. Meanwhile, former Catholics have “broken free” from this Magisterial Mind Control and have experienced the freedom to become their own pope. I think it’s a terrible witness to the world…

http://media3.giphy.com/media/144AwUhyWDaCiI/200.gif

Yes, something to ponder. Yet David Armstrong does say we all have private interpretation, can be personally be enlightened (not robots or “controlled”). So the only difference between C’s and P’s then is that when personal “opinion” differs from church, C’s acquiesce and P’s might not, due to former believing church infallibility and the latter not. So maybe the world may understand the Catholic security and comfort of stability and uniformity on one hand, but like the Protestant vitality from independence and freedom on the other.

 

[benhur]

What do you use for the canon of when she is right and wrong, except “I submit to her authority only when I agree”…which, of course, turns out to mean that the only one you really submit to…

is you.

I think D. Amrstrong would say we both submit to our God revived conscience and new internal man. What else does God speak to ? Your submission is all you, as is mine, as we are both fully convinced. You do not go against anything willingly you are not convinced is of God.

 

[benhur]

Fair enough.

So you defer to the authority of the CC when it comes to Sunday worship.

Which makes you NOT a Sola Scriptura advocate.

Which also prompts the question: if you defer to the authority of the CC on Sunday worship, and the canon of the NT, why do you believe she got it wrong on all the other areas?

Well thank you. Got that from other posters here. Hope I can remember it every time you bring that up again.

Sunday worship is in scripture but yes as tradition (and can be any day).

As to your last question, that is big, like asking what is the reformation. Ikes!

 

[benhur]

Actually, I don’t particularly like 'Bama, but they were the first good team to pop into my head.

Jon

I was gonna change my words to "hope’’ you like Bama but was lazy and did not act upon my inklings. I grew up when college football seemed to be run,run, run. So Joe Namath was wild and exciting with his passing game way back when at Bama. North meets South.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thank for your response.

But you see, Topper, that actually is the point, even if it is not the point you wish to make.

The beauty of these forums is that you can make your points and I can make mine. People can read them both and determine for themselves which are the more compelling.

The point was, in my earliest posts on the topic in this thread, and is in this my current post, that the Lutheran practice, regarding doctrine, does not include personal interpretation. That is the point. what Luther, or Melanchthon, or anyone prior thought of personal interpretation isn’t important to the point I was making.

I would agree except for the fact that Lutheranism was founded on the basis of what Luther thought about Personal Interpretation. In fact, Lutheranism would not exist if Luther had not taken Private Interpretation to an unprecedented extreme. The validity of Lutheranism as having the authority to determine its own doctrine depends on whether Luther was right or wrong to do so.

Furthermore Jon, I think that you do Martin Luther a great disservice here in that you don’t come even close to giving him the proper amount of ‘credit’ for Lutheran theology. History shows that early Lutheranism, including that of the period of the Confession and Formula, considered Martin Luther to be something MUCH greater than a simple Theologian like all others. In fact, Lutheran Professor Robert Kolb wrote an amazing book about Lutheranism’s view of Luther’s authority over its 500 years (Martin Luther, as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero). Early Lutheranism’s ‘belief in Luther’ would cause modern Lutherans to wonder how they could have believed SO greatly in the man. Kolb’s book is well worth reading if you want to gain an understanding of the historical perception of Luther within Lutheranism.

Early Lutheranism believed that Luther was an Old Testament type Prophet, sent by God literally, and that he should be obeyed as such. This was not a concept that he denied, claiming much the same himself and very literally.

If you wish to refute the Martin Luther of 1517-1525 who taught Sola Scripture PLUS Private Interpretation (by all) – that’s one thing. But that would still leave you with the astonishing claims to personal authority that Luther made during the time of the Augsburg Confession and the Catechisms. In addition, you would have to also take stock of what Lutheranism believed in regards to Luther’s authority for the next couple of hundred years. Post Luther Lutheranism assigned Luther a level of authority that modern Lutheranism has completely repudiated and ‘under-reported’

Contrary to the view of some, while Luther’s influence on our theology is important, and in some measures extensive, Luther’s teaching falls under the same sola scripturist practice that any other teacher does, and where he was right, we affirm it, and where he was wrong we deny it.
It really isn’t hard to figure out.

That statement sounds good Jon, until you actually begin to dig into it a little bit. You say that you will affirm him when he was right and deny him where he was wrong. OK, so who, specifically and exactly, makes that determination? And by what Authority do they do so? What happens if a portion of the people making that decision disagree with the other portion (which of course happens all the time)? To say the least, that all seems to be extremely subjective and fraught with potential disagreements leading to denominalization. By what ‘standard’ do you judge the various issues?

That isn’t important to me, anymore than to determine why Zwingli was wrong about the Eucharist, or where any number of Catholics were wrong about any number of things in history.
The Lutheran practice excludes personal judgement when regards doctrine.

Again, how, specifically and exactly do you determine that Zwingli and ‘any number of Catholics’ were wrong without using your personal judgment OR the corporate judgment of your particular communion, which of course is only one of many who disagree on doctrine?

And I disagree with anyone who takes that view. It isn’t the view I take, so I feel no urge or obligation to defend something I do not agree with, regardless of its (human) source.

I commend you for disagreeing with Luther on this important matter, however the ramifications of your disagreement with him leads to much more significant conclusions than what you might think. The fact of the matter is that if Luther had followed Lutheran teaching on the matter, Lutheranism would not exist. If that fact isn’t important in the Lutheran/Catholic debate then I don’t know what could be.

And I would contend, as I did earlier, that this is not entirely true. Lutherans today take essentially the same view as Luther did regarding, for example, the Marian doctrines of the perpetual virginity, the IC, and the the Assumption. They are not articles of faith (unlike the virgin birth and Holy Theotokos), and therefore Lutherans have the liberty of personal judgement on them. It is only regards doctrine that we exclude it.

Jon, what I said is 100% true and I am not interested in switching the discussion to Marian doctrines, the virgin birth, the IC, or anything else. The discussion here is Luther and Lutheranism’s conflicting teachings on Authority and the ramifications and implications of that disagreement.

 

[Topper17]

I don’t see where we have repudiated scripture or the confessions.

By what authority were the Lutheran Confessions founded? Would that be on Scripture? That is exactly the claim made for the Westminster Confessions and all of the other Confessions. Who is to decide which of them (if any) are really Scriptural?

If one reads the conclusion, one sees the intention. The UAC is a confessional statement of our faith, which laid out what the Reformers believed was the true faith of the Church Catholic.

First of all Jon, what the Lutheran church professes is NOT, I repeat NOT, the true faith of the Catholic Church. I also have to note that it is your confessions which depict the Pope as the antichrist and me as an ‘adherent’:

“But those who agree with the Pope, and defend his doctrine and [false] services, defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, become guilty of the blood of the godly, whom the Pope [and his adherents] persecutes, detract from the glory of God, and hinder the welfare of the Church, because they strengthen errors and crimes to all posterity [in the sight of all the world and to the injury of all descendants].”

Jon, given the above and much else, I don’t think you can ask me to be all that ‘impressed’ with your Formula. I would also say that as proven by the 30,000 (or whatever) denominations, good ‘intentions’ do not always result in a correct representation of the Christian Gospel.

The Reformers were given the opportunity to present the Confession at Augsburg in 1530, by the authorities of the time.
But let’s be clear here, that the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome was well-practiced at competing and doctrinally opposition long before the Reformers. Whether or not one believes Rome right or the Eastern Orthodox, the fact is that these were and remain two traditions within the One Holy Church that continue to compete doctrinally, and claim authority. Somehow, the claim of authority is in dispute, Topper.

As you know, the Augsburg Confession was not exactly a completely honest representation of the Lutheran theology of the time. If you need the documentation on this fact, it can be provided again.

Furthermore, Christianity managed to remain unified doctrinally for the first 1500 years of existence, splitting into basically only two communions. The reason for such unity is that the “Right of the Individual” to interpret was NEVER taught and never considered to be Christian doctrine during those 15 centuries. However, IMMEDIATELY upon Luther beginning to practice and teach Private Interpretation, Christianity, or rather the Protestant portion of it began to schism at an astonishing rate. Even before he returned to Wittenberg from the Wartburg, he had ‘competition’ in Wittenberg from people who were using HIS teaching of PI to refute him.

Jon, you may wish to divorce yourself from Luther on this matter, and how could you not. However, the fact that you disagree with what he did, does not change the historical facts. Those facts point directly at Luther for the denominalization which Protestantism suffers. If he had followed Catholic (or current Lutheran) teaching, he NEVER begun this ever expanding doctrinal competition.

I see the topic important, but not your approach to it, with all respect. The point of the earlier discussion was the use of private interpretation, and there are indeed some communions that allow for unfettered PI, but Lutheranism isn’t one of them. If Luther’s view was different than the position of the Lutheran tradition within the One Holy Church, then honestly, other than as a mention, it isn’t all that important.

I can certainly understand that you do not appreciate my ‘approach’. Personally though, I don’t think that we can just jump past Luther historically and land upon the Lutheran Confessions as if the one didn’t lead to the other, and the one not dependent on the other. The fact is that it is the very early history of the ‘Reformation’ which reveals whether it was a valid “Reformation” or simply one of the most divisive religious Revolts in Christian History.

My position is that I believe people deserve to know the truth about the history of the early Reformation, and that once it is known, it becomes very clear which side was right and which side was wrong.

Jon, I know that like me, you are very interested in achieving doctrinal unity amongst all Christians. As you know, some people want to achieve that doctrinal unity by watering down doctrine to the point where it is no longer important. That is NOT the kind of ‘agreement’ that we should be striving for, as I know you agree. Given that Lutheranism and Catholicism are so greatly divided in some very important issues, one side or the other is going to have to be proven wrong, even if it is just to one soul at a time. I am pursuing the argument that the Catholic Church is what it says it is and that Lutheranism is what the Catholic Church says it is.

The very fact that we are having such a hard time connecting in this conversation is evidence that it is an extremely difficult subject to discuss and the fact that we are having such a hard time connecting on this matter is an indication of its importance.

The fact of the matter Jon is that Martin Luther is largely responsible for the whole question of ‘Which church’. You can refute his teaching of Private Interpretation and state correctly that Lutheranism repudiated Luther on the matter, but that still does not mean that Luther is not responsible.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Randy_Carson]

A MITIGATING FACTOR: THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE REFORMERS

They only went to the doctrine of private judgment because all of Christian history was against them, and so they had to find a way of shucking all of Christian history and leaving only their own Bible interpretations standing. They then immediately prohibited their followers from exercising the same private judgment that they insisted on for themselves.

Typically, when they started out and were in politically precarious positions, they preached the free exercise of private judgment and its corollary, tolerance of others’ public exercise of private judgment. However, once their own positions were consolidated and they saw the chaos that the public exercise of private judgment led to, they backed off of the principle and tried to reign it in. Historian Will Durant writes:

“It is instructive to observe how Luther moved from tolerance to dogma as his power and certainty grew. Among [the 95 Theses was the proposition] that ‘to burn heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit.’ In the Open Letter to the Christian Nobility (1520) Luther ordained ‘every man a priest,’ with the right to interpret the Bible according to his private judgment and individual light; and added, ‘We should vanquish heretics with books, not with burning.’ … [But] Luther should have never grown old. Already in 1522 he was outpapaling the popes. ‘I do not admit,’ he wrote, ‘that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved’” (Durant, The Story of Civilization, volume 6 “The Reformation”], 420-2).

Thus in 1529, Luther wrote:

“No one is to be compelled to profess the faith, but no one must be allowed to injure it. Let our opponents give their objections and hear our answers. If they are thus converted, well and good; if not, let them hold their tongues and believe what they please…. In order to avoid trouble we should not, if possible, suffer contrary teachings in the same state. Even unbelievers should be forced to obey he Ten Commandments, attend church, and outwardly conform” (Letter of August 26, 1529 to Jos. Metsch).

Now that Luther’s own position had been secured, he was able to survey the anarchy caused by the principle he had used to rise to power–the public exercise of private judgment–and he was put in the same paradoxical position as a modern Protestant pastor, needing to preach private judgment to validate his own teaching, yet needing to prohibit the public exercise of private judgment to hold off the forces of chaos and keep the group together. Durant writes:

“Luther now agreed with the Catholic Church that ‘Christians require certainty, definite dogmas, and a sure Word of God which they can trust to live and die by.’ As the Church in the early centuries of Christianity, divided and weakened by a growing multiplicity of ferocious sects, had felt compelled to define her creed and expel all dissidents, so now Luther, dismayed by he variety of quarrelsome sects that had sprouted from the seed of private judgment, passed step by step from toleration to dogmatism. “All men now presume to criticize the Gospel,’ he complained; ‘almost every old doting fool or prating sophist must, forsooth, be a doctor of divinity.’ Stung by Catholic taunts that he had let loose a dissovent anarchy of creeds and morals, he concluded, with the Church, that social order required some cloture to debate, some recognized authority to serve as ‘an anchor of faith.’ … Sebastian Franck thought there was more freedom of speech and belief among the Turks than in the Lutheran states, and Leo Jud, the Zwinglian, joined Carlstadt in calling Luther another pope” (ibid., 423).

But everyone knows that Luther was a man of fierce temper. Surely this was responsible for his attitude and made him unique among the Reformers in his inconsistency with regard to private judgment. Right?

“Other reformers rivaled or surpassed Luther in hounding heresy. Bucer of Strasbourg urged the civil authorities in Protestant states to extirpate all who professed a ‘false’ religion; such men, he said, are worse than murderers; even their wives and children and cattle should be destroyed. The comparatively gentle Melanchthon accepted the chairmanship of the secular inquisition that suppressed the Anabaptists in Germany with imprisonment and death. ‘Why should we pity such men more than God does?’ he asked… He recommended that the rejection of infant baptism, or of original sin, or of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, should be punished as capital crimes. He insisted on the death penalty for a sectarian who thought that heathens might be saved, or for another who doubted that belief in Christ as the Redeemer could change a naturally sinful into a righteous man. He applauded… the execution of Servetus. He asked the state to compel all the people to attend Protestant religious services regularly. He demanded the suppression of all books that opposed or hindered Lutheran teachings; so the writings of Zwingli and his followers were formally placed on the index of forbidden books in Wittenberg” (ibid., 423-4).

jimmyakin.com/library/sola-scriptura-and-private-judgment

 

[Jubilarian]

A MITIGATING FACTOR: THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE REFORMERS

They only went to the doctrine of private judgment because all of Christian history was against them, and so they had to find a way of shucking all of Christian history and leaving only their own Bible interpretations standing. They then immediately prohibited their followers from exercising the same private judgment that they insisted on for themselves.

Typically, when they started out and were in politically precarious positions, they preached the free exercise of private judgment and its corollary, tolerance of others’ public exercise of private judgment. However, once their own positions were consolidated and they saw the chaos that the public exercise of private judgment led to, they backed off of the principle and tried to reign it in. Historian Will Durant writes:

“It is instructive to observe how Luther moved from tolerance to dogma as his power and certainty grew. Among [the 95 Theses was the proposition] that ‘to burn heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit.’ In the Open Letter to the Christian Nobility (1520) Luther ordained ‘every man a priest,’ with the right to interpret the Bible according to his private judgment and individual light; and added, ‘We should vanquish heretics with books, not with burning.’ … [But] Luther should have never grown old. Already in 1522 he was outpapaling the popes. ‘I do not admit,’ he wrote, ‘that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved’” (Durant, The Story of Civilization, volume 6 “The Reformation”], 420-2).

Thus in 1529, Luther wrote:

“No one is to be compelled to profess the faith, but no one must be allowed to injure it. Let our opponents give their objections and hear our answers. If they are thus converted, well and good; if not, let them hold their tongues and believe what they please…. In order to avoid trouble we should not, if possible, suffer contrary teachings in the same state. Even unbelievers should be forced to obey he Ten Commandments, attend church, and outwardly conform” (Letter of August 26, 1529 to Jos. Metsch).

Now that Luther’s own position had been secured, he was able to survey the anarchy caused by the principle he had used to rise to power–the public exercise of private judgment–and he was put in the same paradoxical position as a modern Protestant pastor, needing to preach private judgment to validate his own teaching, yet needing to prohibit the public exercise of private judgment to hold off the forces of chaos and keep the group together. Durant writes:

“Luther now agreed with the Catholic Church that ‘Christians require certainty, definite dogmas, and a sure Word of God which they can trust to live and die by.’ As the Church in the early centuries of Christianity, divided and weakened by a growing multiplicity of ferocious sects, had felt compelled to define her creed and expel all dissidents, so now Luther, dismayed by he variety of quarrelsome sects that had sprouted from the seed of private judgment, passed step by step from toleration to dogmatism. “All men now presume to criticize the Gospel,’ he complained; ‘almost every old doting fool or prating sophist must, forsooth, be a doctor of divinity.’ Stung by Catholic taunts that he had let loose a dissovent anarchy of creeds and morals, he concluded, with the Church, that social order required some cloture to debate, some recognized authority to serve as ‘an anchor of faith.’ … Sebastian Franck thought there was more freedom of speech and belief among the Turks than in the Lutheran states, and Leo Jud, the Zwinglian, joined Carlstadt in calling Luther another pope” (ibid., 423).

But everyone knows that Luther was a man of fierce temper. Surely this was responsible for his attitude and made him unique among the Reformers in his inconsistency with regard to private judgment. Right?

“Other reformers rivaled or surpassed Luther in hounding heresy. Bucer of Strasbourg urged the civil authorities in Protestant states to extirpate all who professed a ‘false’ religion; such men, he said, are worse than murderers; even their wives and children and cattle should be destroyed. The comparatively gentle Melanchthon accepted the chairmanship of the secular inquisition that suppressed the Anabaptists in Germany with imprisonment and death. ‘Why should we pity such men more than God does?’ he asked… He recommended that the rejection of infant baptism, or of original sin, or of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, should be punished as capital crimes. He insisted on the death penalty for a sectarian who thought that heathens might be saved, or for another who doubted that belief in Christ as the Redeemer could change a naturally sinful into a righteous man. He applauded… the execution of Servetus. He asked the state to compel all the people to attend Protestant religious services regularly. He demanded the suppression of all books that opposed or hindered Lutheran teachings; so the writings of Zwingli and his followers were formally placed on the index of forbidden books in Wittenberg” (ibid., 423-4).

jimmyakin.com/library/sola-scriptura-and-private-judgment

Good reading and extremely informative . As a Catholic revert, I just can’t see how I didn’t see obvious Protestant history and the chaos it caused. The truth is that I probably didn’t want to see it. I fell into contentment listening and reading anti Catholic materials that appeared true. Once a Protestant can be shown that the bible alone can not hold up, all else falls into place.

 

[benhur]

Cynical? No. Jaundiced? Probably.

OK perhaps the poster you responded to was also jaundiced.

I’m sorry, this isn’t the 14th century. I cannot rejoice when a Catholic leaves the Church and boasts as she exits the door. Even Catherine of Siena found a way to remain Catholic.

Not sure the poster (FaithDancer) left the CC. Thought they came to spiritual life in P church,may have even been raised in it. So can you or I rejoice when one finds Christ , though not from the well we are accustomed to ?

Wait a second… I’m confused. Are you saying there’s a moral equivalence between my comment and the pharisaic questioning of the blind man before the Sanhedrin?

Yes, if you don’t like someone drinking from the Lord from a well you are not accustomed to.

Or are you saying that former Catholics who flee the Church to another denomination were blind but now see?

No, but for sure it is true for some, just as vice versa for some (P to C). Not sure Faithdancer was ever Catholic.

Either way, seems like you’re throwing a surreptitious insult my way for no apparent reason, benhur.

No insult intended. Thought it was more tit for tat, at most. Seemed like you criticized the poster as in only thinking of himself when you posted, “As long as it (resting on scripture) works for** you,** right…?” Seemed like a jaundiced response as you said. Sorry if I responded in like kind.

To this I do not object (see CCC #838, and my reply to rinnie for a fuller response)

Sorry i just reread your posts . Maybe FaithDancer was Catholic, or at least was in a church that had a magisterium , that was strict (P’s have magisteriums also). But thank you for otherwise not objecting to “other” wells as Vat 2 suggests. And yes, leaving one church for another is a sticky topic. Not sure if anybody likes that. But if their “pudding” gets better, even by our standards, may it caution our mouths and heart from jaundice even. Blessings.

 

[Randy_Carson]

[Some Protestants say], “There are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age:”—Hence they are forced, whether they will or not, to fall back upon the Bible as the sole source of Revelation, and upon their own personal private judgment as the sole expounder of its doctrine. This is a fair argument, if it can be maintained, and it brings me at once to the subject of this Essay . . .

“Before setting about this work, I will address one remark to [these people]:—Let them consider, that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. It might, I grant, be clearer on this great subject than it is. This is no great concession. History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.

“And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [history] aside, unless they had despaired of it … To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, 4,5)

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jubi,

Good reading and extremely informative . As a Catholic revert, I just can’t see how I didn’t see obvious Protestant history and the chaos it caused. The truth is that I probably didn’t want to see it. I fell into contentment listening and reading anti Catholic materials that appeared true. Once a Protestant can be shown that the bible alone can not hold up, all else falls into place.

It does all become obvious once the scales fall from your eyes doesn’t it Jubi?

I think that my favorite Protestant Theologian Alister McGrath offers some interesting comments about the subject of Sola Scriptura and its impact on resolving doctrinal disputes.
**
“The difficulty for Protestantism was that it was found to possess no higher authority that can declare on or the other (opinions) to be in the right. If Scripture is the supreme rule of faith, no interpretative authority can be place above Scripture…… **The problem here is that heresy is ultimately a teaching judged unacceptable by the entire church, the term is not properly applicable to either Calvinism or Arminiansm, which represent divisions within one constituency of Protestantism – namely, the Reformed church. One can speak of heresy arising within Protestantism – for example the revival of Arianism in seventeenth and eighteenth century Anglicanism. Yet in that case, ideas that the entire church regarded as heretical made their reappearance. The nature of Protestantism is such that it is very difficult to use the term “heresy” to refer to divergent schools of thought within that movement, and limited to that movement, unless they reproduce ideas that the church as a whole had already agreed to be orthodox. **We find here a set of competing Protestant orthodoxies, each with its own grounding in the Bible, its own internal understanding of the internal dynamics of faith, and its own parameters of adjudication as to what is acceptable and what is not.” **Alister McGrath, “A History of Defending the Truth”, pg. 215-6

“The problems that Protestantism faced here were famously set out by John Dryden (1631 – 1700) in his satirical poem ‘Religio Laici’ (A Layperson’s Religion) (1682). **Dryden here argued that the great Protestant emphasis on the Bible merely led to the proliferation of heresy, due to the absence of any universally acknowledged, authoritative interpreter. ****The attitude toward biblical interpretation found within Protestantism, Dryden argues, not merely leaves it powerless to resist heresy, but actually encourages the emergence of heresy, through Protestantism’s naïve idea that ordinary Christians will be led, inerrantly and inevitably, to orthodox as they browse the scriptural pages. **The text of Scripture was open to all; but what of the rule by which it was to be interpreted? Protestants agreed on and respected a common authority, but they had no shared notion of a meta-authority. Dryden invites us to imagine an orthodox Protestant convinced that the Bible clearly teaches the divinity of Christ, yet disturbingly confronted with another Protestant who interprets the same passage purely in terms of Christ’s humanity – the Socinian heresy, which emerged in the sixteenth century and held that Christ was a human devoid of divine identity.” McGrath, “Heresy, a History of Defending the Truth”, pg. 52

“The early Reformation was characterized by the optimistic belief that it was possible to establish exactly what the Bible said on everything of importance and make this the basis for a reformed Christianity.” McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 161

As we know, the original believer in that false ‘optimism’ was Martin Luther. That optimistic belief turned out to be completely refuted by the fact of the doctrinal diversity of those who advocated that belief. The Magisterial Reformation steered away from Luther’s teaching of Private Interpretation after they saw what a disaster it was. The genie though released by Luther,(Private Interpretation) simply would not go back into the bottle. The result is the catastrophic doctrinal dissension that continues to weaken Christianity overall.

McGrath goes on to state:

**“It is one of the ironies of the Lutheran Reformation that a movement which laid stress upon the importance of Scripture should subsequently deny it less educated members ****direct access to that same Scripture, for fear that they might misinterpret it (in other words, reach a different interpretations from that of the magisterial reformers)………****The direct interpretation of Scripture was thus effectively reserved for a small, privileged group of people. ****To put it crudely, it became a question of whether you looked to the pope, to Luther or to Calvin as an interpreter of Scripture. ****The principal of the ‘clarity of Scripture appears to have been quietly marginalized, in the light of the use made of the Bible by the more radical elements of the Reformation. Similarly, the idea that everyone had the right and the ability to interpret Scripture faithfully became the sole possession of the radicals.” **McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 165

This is exactly the point that I have been making all along. The principals that Luther used to start the Reformation, SS+PI, did not work in the real world. He had to backtrack towards the “Catholic model”. Because Protestantism has no central authority, it has no capability to refute beliefs which are outside the mainstream (whatever that mainstream might be according to the individual). This cannot be said of the Catholic Church.

God Bless You Jubi, Topper

 

[Randy_Carson]

Elsewhere, I have been arguing that Orthodoxy has the same problem as Protestantism. They reject the Magisterium of the Catholic Church along with the infallibillty and the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

The difference is that Orthodoxy’s own heretical past and the experience of a highly-fragmented Protestantism has driven them to anchor themselves in the past, the Byzantine era specifically, to such an extreme that they can no longer move forward in any meaningful way.

The Orthodox theologian, Soloviev, referred to this problem as “ossification”.

 

[Faithdancer]

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here, rinnie.

My comment was short (because I don’t have a lot of time to spend on CAF these days) and mostly tongue-in-cheek. It also must be understood in the context of another comment by Faithdancer; to wit,

"I will never again recognize the authority of the magisterium over my faith life - been there, done that."

I can’t help but cringe when I hear former Catholics say things like this because it carries an implication that we, as practicing Catholics, are quasi-Manchurian Candidates being controlled by the Pope. Meanwhile, former Catholics have “broken free” from this Magisterial Mind Control and have experienced the freedom to become their own pope. I think it’s a terrible witness to the world…

http://media3.giphy.com/media/144AwUhyWDaCiI/200.gif

I dont know anyone who refers to him or her self as " my own pope." I do know a number of Christians who don’t rely on the Catholic magisterium in understanding Scripture, however. They do rely on their God-given reason, expository preaching, formal and and informal education, Bible commentaries, etc.

And yes, I was a Roman Catholic. Completed two years of graduate theology course work, too, from a highly regarded, fully accredited very orthodox RC college with a 3.7 something gpa. Not boasting, just pointing out that I did that, worked as a Catholic youth minister as well, but still moved on. All part of my faith journey.

 

[Jubilarian]

I dont know anyone who refers to him or her self as " my own pope." I do know a number of Christians who don’t rely on the Catholic magisterium in understanding Scripture, however. They do rely on their God-given reason, expository preaching, formal and and informal education, Bible commentaries, etc.

And yes, I was a Roman Catholic. Completed two years of graduate theology course work, too, from a highly regarded, fully accredited very orthodox RC college with a 3.7 something gpa. Not boasting, just pointing out that did that, worked as a Catholic youth minister as well, but still moved on. All part of my faith journey.

What do YOU rely on to interpret scripture?