500 years of protesting what?

[faroukfarouk]

sexy

 

[BobRyan]

The "doctrine of discovery" was for all intents and purposes adopted into law by a USA Supreme Court decision in 1818 (?)

Sounds like fiction.

I don't know of any U.S. Law that says if an indian fails to convert to Catholicism they can be murdered.

But I do know of plenty of examples where that is most certainly NOT the case.

In any event - whether you made that up on the spot or not -- it is unlikely that such an off-the-wall argument is being made in Germany to reconcile Protestants with Catholicism.

 

[BobRyan]

Actually, "Protestant" is a legal term and comes fromt the Diet of Speyer in 1529. The Diet reversed the earlier religious toleration of the reformation in the Holy Roman Empire. The Electors and other "barons" entered a formal protestation of the Diet proceedings. The protestation was an appeal of sorts and the signers were known as "protestants".

Religious toleration prior to 1529... so then Wycliffe? Huss? Jerome?

In the 1300's
One Pope issued five bulls against John Wycliffe for heresy, the Catholic Church in England tried him three times, and two Popes summoned him to Rome, but Wycliffe was never imprisoned nor ever went to Rome.

 

[Albion]

The idea that you can pick up a Bible - read it... and tell if a given church doctrine or tradition measures up to scripture - was a key part of the Protestant Reformation... "Sola Scriptura"

No, sorry, no. Sola Scriptura does not include or imply that idea.

 

[Albion]

Religious toleration prior to 1529... so then Wycliffe? Huss? Jerome?

In the 1300's
One Pope issued five bulls against John Wycliffe for heresy, the Catholic Church in England tried him three times, and two Popes summoned him to Rome, but Wycliffe was never imprisoned nor ever went to Rome.

It wasn't a general declaration of religious toleration of all dissenters from the RCC but, more narrowly, a legal recognition of the evangelical (i.e. Lutheran) churches, with their property, within the Holy Roman Empire. And the time involved between granting it and taking it back was only from 1526 to 1529. So Wycliffe would be centuries out of place, not to mention that England was a different country.

 

[JackRT]

I don't know of any U.S. Law that says if an indian fails to convert to Catholicism they can be murdered.

The Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with Catholicism per se, how could it? That is ridiculous. What it had to do is the right of the dominant American (Christian) culture to shove aside any resistance from indigenous (pagan) peoples by whatever ways possible. This led inevitably to cultural genocide. The European/American culture dominated not because it was morally superior or braver but because of weight of numbers and technological superiority in weapons.

 

[faroukfarouk]

No, sorry, no. Sola Scriptura does not include or imply that idea.

I guess we are talking cross-purposes, then. The definition given by @BobRyan is a widely accepted one.

 

[Albion]

I guess we are talking cross-purposes, then. The definition given by @BobRyan is a widely accepted one.

"Widely accepted?" No. And not by people who understand what Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and Sola Gratia actually do mean--and it is important that they do, since these are the foundation principles of the Protestant Reformation.

That said, yes, we do read posts saying something along the lines of "Sola Scriptura means that everyone can decide for himself what the Bible means," but that most often comes from Roman Catholics here and they have simply heard it from someone else in their own religious circles. I think of it as another religious 'old wives tale' or slur not unlike "Catholics worship the Pope" except going in the opposite direction.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Not by people who understand what Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and Sola Gratia actually do mean--and it is important that they do, since these are the foundation principles of the Protestant Reformation.

That said, yes, we do read posts saying something along the lines of "Sola Scriptura means that everyone can decide for himself what the Bible means," but that most often comes from Roman Catholics here and they have simply heard it from someone else in their own religious circles.

Meaning, I think, not private interpretations, but it's the individual conscience that is responsible to search the Scriptures as led by the Holy Spirit.

Exegesis - getting the meaning out of the text - is not eisegesis - supposedly putting meaning into the text.

 

[Albion]

Meaning, I think, not private interpretations, but it's the individual conscience that is responsible to search the Scriptures as led by the Holy Spirit.

To be clear, you COULD associate some version of that idea with the Reformation. But not with Sola Scriptura.

The Reformers did, we know, assert that the Bible should be available to every church member and not forbidden to them by church authorities (as was the case during the Middle Ages).

 

[faroukfarouk]

To be clear, you COULD associate some version of that idea with the Reformation. But not with Sola Scriptura.

The Reformers did, we know, assert that the Bible should be available to every church member and not forbidden to them by church authorities (as was the case during the Middle Ages).

Could you then explain your point further, please?

 

[Albion]

Sola Scriptura means that it's the Bible (Alone) that is our ultimate, final authority for determining doctrine, as opposed to Papal decrees, "Holy Tradition" as used by the RCC at that time, the decisions of the historic church councils, etc.

By the way, this does not rule out using reason, archaeology, church history, etc in order to understand Scripture properly, but all these are just aides or tools to be used towards understanding the Bible. They are not the authorities in themselves.

The other point that came up concerned the availability of the Bible to ordinary people, but that--although important to the Reformers--actually is separate from Sola Scriptura.

 

[redleghunter]

The USA certainly has a lot of Protestants - but this month in Germany there are a lot of meetings and focus with church leaders from many different denominations coming together to work out a document of common understanding and to declare that the protesting in the protestant reformation - is less of a doctrinal issue now - between Protestants and Catholics.

So it is raises the question about defining just exactly what are the items in that "gap" that would need to be addressed before declaring that the gap had narrowed over the 500 year span of time.

It's mostly with Lutherans.

The document in question deals with the papacy primacy:

Differing Attitudes Toward Papal Primacy

Edit: interesting paragraph here:

(9) Any biblical and historical scholar today would consider anachronistic the question whether Jesus constituted Peter the first pope, since this question derives from a later model of the papacy which it projects back into the New Testament.10 Such a reading helps neither papal opponents nor papal supporters. Therefore terms such as "primacy" and "jurisdiction" are best avoided when one describes the role of Peter in the New Testament. Even without these terms, however, a wide variety of images is applied to Peter in the New Testament which signalizes his importance in the early church.11

 

[redleghunter]

Westminster Confession of Faith

The above will take folks to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter 1 will define sola scriptura.

I'm sure @Albion will help us out with the Anglican confession addressing sola scriptura.

 

[redleghunter]

Lutheran Book of Concord:

The Bible and the Book of Concord

In the US the Lutheran Church Missouri Snyod (LCMS) adheres to this confession.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

With regards to point 5 you mention Catholicism only, as if Protestant state authorities did not use the threat of force to institute their own vision of how things ought to be. Calvin's Geneva could be said to be more totalitarian than the Papal states with it's strict adherence to what the Reformed believed to be true Christianity. Queen Elizabeth made it illegal to be Catholic in England which set a precedent for much of Protestant England till a relatively short time ago. The medieval world did not think in terms of "thought crime" they thought in terms of divinity, of correct religion, of maintaining the faith, that goes for Protestant and Catholic. To maintain the unity of the faith within one's realm was a responsibility that monarchs were to take very seriously and to allow heretics to disrupt that unity and threaten the cohesion of society was thought to break that society. Think from the perspective of those Monarchs, if disunity in the Church happened on your watch, did you think God was not going to hold you to account?

I think given today's secularism where we hold nothing to be sacred and nihilism reigns supreme they were partially right even if they were wrong in the use of violent force and persecution when suppressing dissidents. It was not clear and don't think it is clear today that Christian politics should be governed by modern American notions of freedom of speech which do not come from the bible but from enlightenment rationalism and consequences of the thirty years war.

I will also respond to point Seven. There is simply no way you can prove the so called Apocryphal books don't belong in scripture. Jerome is but one authority we can consider and there are a whole host of authorities to consider besides him who disagreed with him both in the Greek East and Latin West. It is not evident from scripture that there should only be 66 books of the bible and to suggest it is, is to read into the bible one's preference. All we have to judge the biblical canon by is the tradition we have received which the reformation partially rejected not on biblical precedent but on Jewish tradition regarding the canon.

 

[GingerBeer]

Sola Scriptura (testing all doctrine and practice against the standard of the Bible and not Bible+traditions-of-men).

Don't Seventh Day Adventists count Ellen G White as an authoritative interpreter of scripture and aren't at least some of her written words regarded as revelations from God in effect making some of her writings a secondary source as important in Seventh Day Adventist teaching and practise as anything that a church council, says in Orthodoxy and anything that a Pope approves in Catholicism?

 

[mark kennedy]

Since there is at least some focus this month on the reformation, the protestant reformation and how wide the GAP is between protestant doctrine and Catholicism - lets work out some of the details.

While Luther may have "started" with 95 objections to selling indulgences.. that is not the sum total of the "gap" between protestantism and catholicism.

Foundational in Protestanism is this - (at the very least).

1. Sola Scriptura (testing all doctrine and practice against the standard of the Bible and not Bible+traditions-of-men).

2. Grace alone (mankind is saved by grace through faith - Ephesians 2) not saved by powers of sacrament or powers in a "rite" or ritual plus ...

3. Faith alone - justified by faith alone - meaning that when the lost person comes to Christ - they are saved not on the basis of good works done as a lost person - but saved by faith alone.

4. Christ alone - "there is no OTHER name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved" -- so then no earthly priest or pope stands between us and Christ who is the "one mediator between God and man" 1 Tim 2:5-6

We come boldly to the throne of grace - directly to God in prayer. No earthly mediator or Pope between.

(And of course both sides agree that all the glory goes to God alone for the plan of salvation)

===============================================

I am not sure that whatever meetings are going on this month and next .. in Germany are going to find agreement on the points listed above.

In addition there is in the "gap" between the Bible and catholicism

1. Prayers to the dead -- called "the Dead in Christ" in 1Thess 4.
2. Claims to confect the "body, blood,soul and divinity of Christ in the mass" - by contrast Christ was offered up "once for all" Hebrews 10 and no earthly priest has been given the powers to confect the "body, blood,soul and divinity of Christ in the mass"
3. The "doctrine of discovery" regarding what Catholics are allowed to do to the natives of newly discovered lands in cases where those natives refuse to convert to Catholicism
4. Infallibility of Catholic church councils and popes.
5. Authorizing violence against Christians for "thought crimes" for doctrinal differences with the Pope.
6. Editing the Sabbath Commandment to point it to week-day-1
7. Apocryphal books injected into the Bible canon -- (books that even Jerome declared were not legitmately part of the Canon of scripture)
8. The Pope's claim to in any way be the head or leader of any denomination on earth - other than his own denomination - the Roman Catholic Church.
9. Purgatory -- does not exist according to the Bible but the RCC promotes it anyway.

I am probably missing a few of the topics in "the gap" between Catholicism and Protestantism
==================================

So then what are the odds that the folks in Germany are ever going to be able to close the gap on such key doctrinal points of difference?

The reason for Luther's call to reform was the tyranny of Rome. It comes down to the sacraments, Rome effectively teaches you cannot be properly baptized unless by them, so they are defacto agents of salvation rather then ministers of the gospel.

 

[Anguspure]

Not really in context my friend:
Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing....

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God"

Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

Nevertheless: And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

Romans 8:4-9 points to the fact that the lost "do not submit to the law of God - neither indeed CAN they" by contrast to the saved in Romans 8:4-9

through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

It is the Law of the Spirit that is the Law of God, not the Law of sin and death.

Romans 6 - you have an entire chapter on that subject.

Yes, slaves to righteousness.
We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

 

[BobRyan]

Still missing quite an important detail
People can keep busy all day trying to practice Moses's Law and never quite get there

Every religion does that

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God"

Romans 8:4-9 points to the fact that the lost "do not submit to the law of God - neither indeed CAN they" by contrast to the saved in Romans 8:4-9

Romans 6 - you have an entire chapter on that subject.

Not really in context my friend:
Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing....[

Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

Interesting where cut the key point out of the text.

Let's quote it without your edit -- highlighting your deleted-text-edit in red

1 Cor 7
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

In that example the commandments of God are specifically contrasted to the ceremonial law (in this case circumcision).

through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

The Spirit is the one that gave us the Law -- scripture ... 1 Tim 3:16

Hence the affirmation of it specifically in 1 Cor 7 and in Ephesians 6:2 "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth."

And as for the partial quote of Romans 8 you offered - notice the context for that in Romans 7 that you left out.

21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Then notice the full quote of it in Romans 8 for which you only gave a snip.
Rom 8
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

====================

Not sure how you are saying that this applies to the Catholic vs Protestant gap being discussed in Germany these days unless it is to make the point that the Bible is consistent when we show all the context for a given text - as I have shown above.