B
benhur
Guest
Right, but you mentioned we both aren’t catholic first. I initially said we are all catholic. No we are not all Roman Catholic.
- Status
J
joe371
Guest
Oh, you mean all Christians, regardless of denomination, belong to the invisible catholic church - small c? If so - OK.
P
Porknpie
Guest
I’ve been liking the use of the map below. Where since the time of Christ can one find a Church, not believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - or a “symbolic” Eucharistic meal, before the year ~1,500?
Name just one city on the map and when.
Just one city.
B
benhur
Guest
J
joe371
Guest
B
benhur
Guest
Every one of the thirty thousand churches is quite visible. How else could PR post images of some of them ?
J
joe371
Guest
Well, then I have no idea what you mean when you say that we both belong to the catholic church?
B
benhur
Guest
Your post 609 i think answered that.
B
benhur
Guest
That portion of inspired scripture is not Aramaic but Greek. The Greek differentiates between the two and effectively has been debated as to what is proper interpretation for almost two milennia.
J
joe371
Guest
No, it didn’t. Who founded the Catholic Church and when? You might have answered this but I can’t find the post.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
So from what I understand from your post…in order to call or refer to yourself as catholic…you redefine the word so that it suits you…in calling yourself catholic…pablope;12639822 said:
Except…you pick and choose what you want to believe…not everything believed by the early church…otherwise…you would really be catholic…correct?
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Randy,
Thanks for your response.
It was a GREAT idea, it sounded really good, but it didn’t work in the real world. Unfortunately there were billions and billions wasted on this disaster. There were engineers who warned that the test results were not conclusive and that the steel would rust through to failure, but the ‘powers that be’ would not listen.
In your analogy it was the improper formulation of the steel that was a problem. In this case, it was the steel that failed to perform as planned. I would bet that in both cases, there were people who were warning that there was a potential for disaster.
Sola Scriptura sounds like a great idea, the problem is that there is anybody who wants to can define it however they want. When you throw in Luther’s clearly anti-Scriptural teaching on Private Interpretation, you have a recipe for theological chaos, which is exactly what resulted in the roughly 30,000+ denominations that have resulted from Luther’s ‘Reformation’.
Someday I am going to finish compiling a list of the (much better) Theologians who warned Luther that his Sola Scriptura + Private Interpretation was going to result in doctrinal anarchy. There were at least three dozen of them at last count. How could Luther have been so foolish as to not accept their warnings and return to the Catholic Fold? How could he not recognize that his Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation was going to result in disaster – exactly as warned?
Luther’s theology contained a flaw that INSURED that doctrinal confusion and dissension would result. Interestingly though, with Calvinism, not as much. The “steel” from which Lutheranism was made is flawed. It doesn’t work in the real world, that is unless the goal is to produce doctrinal dissension.
Lutheran Professor Hans Hillerbrand:
“**In the generation after Luther’s death **(in fact, already anticipated in Luther’s last years) something else of importance for Luther’s legacy came to the fore – **stark disagreement among Martin Luther’s own followers as to what was, in fact, the reformer’s authentic teaching. ** **In a way, this is surprising, for no such disagreement characterized the followers of John Calvin. **
This had, at least on the face of things, a good reason. Luther was not a systematic theologian in the sense of having written a systematic exposition of theology. He was what might be called a ‘polemical’ theologian – Karl Barth used the term ‘irregular’ theologian to characterize the likes of Luther……This fact makes it understandable why there was among Martin Luther’s flowers far more disagreement about his teaching than, say, among the followers of John Calvin……[Luther] wrote on specific topics, usually in the context of fierce controversy……That some of his followers were able to read one kind of notions into his writings, and others quite different theological notions becomes understandable.
In the sixteenth century this disagreement among Luther’s disciples found expression, beginning already during Luther’s own lifetime, in several theological controversies and disagreements among his followers. ** No less than six theological controversies beset German Lutheranism in the sixteenth century………”**
Hillerbrand to be continued
Thanks for your response.
I think that is a perfect analogy and I have another one for you. In the 60’s and 70’s all of the steel companies produced a ‘weathering steel’ mostly to be used in girder type bridges. Painting was not necessary because the steel would rust, just a little bit, and then that thin film of rust would protect the base metal. The rust process would be halted. As a country we put up probably at least a hundred thousand of these bridges. The problem – it didn’t work. The rust process was NOT halted at the exterior layer of the steel, it proceeded right through the section.
It was a GREAT idea, it sounded really good, but it didn’t work in the real world. Unfortunately there were billions and billions wasted on this disaster. There were engineers who warned that the test results were not conclusive and that the steel would rust through to failure, but the ‘powers that be’ would not listen.
In your analogy it was the improper formulation of the steel that was a problem. In this case, it was the steel that failed to perform as planned. I would bet that in both cases, there were people who were warning that there was a potential for disaster.
Sola Scriptura sounds like a great idea, the problem is that there is anybody who wants to can define it however they want. When you throw in Luther’s clearly anti-Scriptural teaching on Private Interpretation, you have a recipe for theological chaos, which is exactly what resulted in the roughly 30,000+ denominations that have resulted from Luther’s ‘Reformation’.
Someday I am going to finish compiling a list of the (much better) Theologians who warned Luther that his Sola Scriptura + Private Interpretation was going to result in doctrinal anarchy. There were at least three dozen of them at last count. How could Luther have been so foolish as to not accept their warnings and return to the Catholic Fold? How could he not recognize that his Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation was going to result in disaster – exactly as warned?
Luther’s theology contained a flaw that INSURED that doctrinal confusion and dissension would result. Interestingly though, with Calvinism, not as much. The “steel” from which Lutheranism was made is flawed. It doesn’t work in the real world, that is unless the goal is to produce doctrinal dissension.
Lutheran Professor Hans Hillerbrand:
“**In the generation after Luther’s death **(in fact, already anticipated in Luther’s last years) something else of importance for Luther’s legacy came to the fore – **stark disagreement among Martin Luther’s own followers as to what was, in fact, the reformer’s authentic teaching. ** **In a way, this is surprising, for no such disagreement characterized the followers of John Calvin. **
This had, at least on the face of things, a good reason. Luther was not a systematic theologian in the sense of having written a systematic exposition of theology. He was what might be called a ‘polemical’ theologian – Karl Barth used the term ‘irregular’ theologian to characterize the likes of Luther……This fact makes it understandable why there was among Martin Luther’s flowers far more disagreement about his teaching than, say, among the followers of John Calvin……[Luther] wrote on specific topics, usually in the context of fierce controversy……That some of his followers were able to read one kind of notions into his writings, and others quite different theological notions becomes understandable.
In the sixteenth century this disagreement among Luther’s disciples found expression, beginning already during Luther’s own lifetime, in several theological controversies and disagreements among his followers. ** No less than six theological controversies beset German Lutheranism in the sixteenth century………”**
Hillerbrand to be continued
T
Topper17
Guest
Hillerbrand continues:
“It is an important characteristic of these controversies, however,** that all protagonists, especially the Gnesio-Lutherans, claimed fealty to Martin Luther. **That they were able to do so, at least with a modicum of justification, was the outgrowth of the nature of Luther’s theologizing, to which should be added Luther’s rather broadminded attitude when it came to ensuing disagreements among his followers during his lifetime. **The fierceness of these controversies about Luther’s theological legacy was no less fierce than that between Catholics and Protestants in that age. **
After the Peace of Augsburg, of 1555, **this internal Lutheran discord in Germany had woeful consequences. The Gnesio-Lutherans rejected the Philippist’s claim of the Augsburg Confession as their confessional statement, thus arguing that the theological disagreement between the two factions was not over peripheral matters but pertained to the very heart of the Lutheran understanding of the Christian faith. ** Even more importantly, the internal controversies sapped the external vitality of German Lutheranism. Energies were consumed by these controversies, and little attention was paid to the dissemination of the Lutheran faith beyond the territories and cities in which Lutheranism had been established. **Calvinism, on the other hand, was free from such internal dissension and was able to devote its energies to a dramatic expansion of the Calvinist faith throughout Europe.” **Hillerbrand, “Companion”, pg. 230-1
What really impresses me is the honestly that Lutheran Scholars like Hillerbrand demonstrate.
For the record, I am not a big fan of Calvin or his theology, but at least his theology was consistent within itself. The same cannot be said of Luther’s.
I think Randy that your point was that Luther’s doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation made for a fatal flaw within Lutheranism that MUST result in massive doctrinal disagreements. I agree 100%.
We are fallen man, and as such we are prone to having our egos get in the way. Nobody in Christian history had the kind of ego that Luther had. All of the teaching of the prior 1500 years was worthless compared to his theological insights. What he didn’t realize though, is that as fallen man, we NEED a central authority ON EARTH. In fact, Christ established that central authority in HIS Church, the Church that He intends us ALL to belong to. Once you kick that authority to the curb, religious and doctrinal chaos reigns.
Of course we hear a lot about how this or that competing and conflicting Confession is ‘authoritative’, and also that Scripture is the ‘final authority’, but none of that has worked out all that well has it?
At the end of my search for the truth, I concluded that I had no choice but to become a Catholic. I decided that I wanted to be a part of a Church that COULD be the Truth, rather than part of something (Protestantism) which has very clearly proven itself to be false.
My guess Randy is that you might have come to a similar conclusion.
God Bless You Randy, Topper
“It is an important characteristic of these controversies, however,** that all protagonists, especially the Gnesio-Lutherans, claimed fealty to Martin Luther. **That they were able to do so, at least with a modicum of justification, was the outgrowth of the nature of Luther’s theologizing, to which should be added Luther’s rather broadminded attitude when it came to ensuing disagreements among his followers during his lifetime. **The fierceness of these controversies about Luther’s theological legacy was no less fierce than that between Catholics and Protestants in that age. **
After the Peace of Augsburg, of 1555, **this internal Lutheran discord in Germany had woeful consequences. The Gnesio-Lutherans rejected the Philippist’s claim of the Augsburg Confession as their confessional statement, thus arguing that the theological disagreement between the two factions was not over peripheral matters but pertained to the very heart of the Lutheran understanding of the Christian faith. ** Even more importantly, the internal controversies sapped the external vitality of German Lutheranism. Energies were consumed by these controversies, and little attention was paid to the dissemination of the Lutheran faith beyond the territories and cities in which Lutheranism had been established. **Calvinism, on the other hand, was free from such internal dissension and was able to devote its energies to a dramatic expansion of the Calvinist faith throughout Europe.” **Hillerbrand, “Companion”, pg. 230-1
What really impresses me is the honestly that Lutheran Scholars like Hillerbrand demonstrate.
For the record, I am not a big fan of Calvin or his theology, but at least his theology was consistent within itself. The same cannot be said of Luther’s.
I think Randy that your point was that Luther’s doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation made for a fatal flaw within Lutheranism that MUST result in massive doctrinal disagreements. I agree 100%.
We are fallen man, and as such we are prone to having our egos get in the way. Nobody in Christian history had the kind of ego that Luther had. All of the teaching of the prior 1500 years was worthless compared to his theological insights. What he didn’t realize though, is that as fallen man, we NEED a central authority ON EARTH. In fact, Christ established that central authority in HIS Church, the Church that He intends us ALL to belong to. Once you kick that authority to the curb, religious and doctrinal chaos reigns.
Of course we hear a lot about how this or that competing and conflicting Confession is ‘authoritative’, and also that Scripture is the ‘final authority’, but none of that has worked out all that well has it?
At the end of my search for the truth, I concluded that I had no choice but to become a Catholic. I decided that I wanted to be a part of a Church that COULD be the Truth, rather than part of something (Protestantism) which has very clearly proven itself to be false.
My guess Randy is that you might have come to a similar conclusion.
God Bless You Randy, Topper
P
PRmerger
Guest
Firstly, where do you get this idea that “the bible is self authenticating”? It sounds like some sort of teaching…but I know that this teaching isn’t found in the Bible.
Secondly, what does that even mean? How do you read the Epistle of Barnabas and know it’s not “not authenticated” but read Hebrews and know it is “authenticated”?
Please show me what that looks like–“self authentication”.
J
joe371
Guest
How can a book, or a series of books such as the bible, be self authenticating? If someone asks me how I know if the bible is the authentic word of God all I need to do is tell them that the bible tells us that it is authentic with no spurious books or information?
B
benhur
Guest
Right, I thought he was getting at the name “catholic”. We all agree the church was founded by Christ. It is said that Luther founded Lutheranism and calvin and wesley other churches. Historically speaking, in a certain fashion, no one person founded the Roman Catholic church. Some would say a city, even an empire,(or lack thereof) helped form, shape the church. I understand this is not the CC teaching. In my opinion it is hard to separate the secular from church politics, even at junctures of the schism and the reformation.
B
benhur
Guest
Perhaps the gist of his answer is that the Holy Scriptures are God-inspired/written and God aids in their reception even preservation, and lastly but perhaps most importantly, God aids in illuminating scripture to human beings, individually and or collectively. In essence He authenticates.
B
benhur
Guest
No, you redefine (limit) for church politics ? You tell me ? Catholic is a word outside the boundaries of the Catholic(Roman) Church. I am allowing for both usages, which is historical, and ask why can’t you.So from what I understand from your post…in order to call or refer to yourself as catholic…you redefine the word so that it suits you…in calling yourself catholic…
Only if you mean in the same fashion that Peter “picked and chose” what was proper to say to Jesus when He asked , “who do men say that I am?”… We all pick and choose. Our churches chose not be Arian or gnostic . Both our churches chose not to include all the books of the Septuagint though you kept a few more.
B
benhur
Guest
right, meant #603 where you post of the history of the term “catholic” a bit.
- Status