Why some Lutheran's disagree with Luther on the EV of Mary -Please let's discuss...

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Exactly. Luther, Augustine, my Pastor, you and me, are all subject to the norma normans of Scripture.

And THAT'S the issue.


While all agree that Luther personally embraced this pov as pious opinion, the implication of the OP that ergo all Lutherans should embrace it as dogma is a misunderstanding of the epistemology of Lutheranism.


Thank you.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Peace be to all in the grace of Jesus Christ,

Hey, Josiah, ... good old friend ... thought I'd never see you again ... where have you been?

Josiah and I have had a very very lengthy discussion on this matter in another Christian Forum and he knows how I believe about the matter.

I believe that the Truth of Mary's Perpetual Virginity is solidly biblical ... and therefore true ... and therefore ... the Word of God.

There is ONE VERSE which contains all the proof that a diligent seeker needs to discover how biblical the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is.

Luke 1:34, "And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?" (St. Luke 1:34, DRB)

By stating this Mary reveals her INTENTION to REMAIN a Virgin (eventhough in Jewish eyes she was already practically a married woman ... remember that in Mt. Joseph was going to "divorce" her privately ...)

This intention is so KEY.

I will not go into the plethora of reasons that I have for this biblical argument. I am just putting this out there for someone to arrive at the same conclusion that I did.

The Holy Spirit will help you if you seek diligently.

If you believe that this is shown to be true from the Holy Bible then one is responsible to the light that is given by Sacred Writing ... (Catholics are bound to believe it as Dogma because Catholics believe that the Word of God also comes to us through Divine [not human] Tradition and not Scripture Alone).

Not only Martin Luther believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary but also Calvin, and Zwingli.



God bless you.

Good to see you again Josiah.

Even if you could show from this verse (and you can't) that Mary INTENDED to remain a virgin up to and including the second of Her death (or was it undeath, which?), that does not substantiate that She did so. So, even if your point was valid (and it's not), it's irrelevant to the dogma herein being discussed. I INTENDED to buy a new car last year (in this case, you know my intent - in Mary's case, no one does). Did I? No. You're entire apologetic is empty.


But again, I'm NOT saying the pov is wrong (and certainly not heresy). I DO currently think...
1. Scripture doesn't substantiate EITHER view; it is silent regarding how often Mary had (or didn't have) sex up to and including the second of Her death (or was it undeath, which was it?). Ergo, I find it ... difficult.... to call a view DOGMA or HERESY.
2. The original and oldest Tradition appears to have been silence. The same position of 48,998 denominations. And this seems to best "match" Scripture.
3. No one has yet been able to explain to me why how often a wife has had sex is "a matter of highest importance for all persons of Earth to know and believe." In fact, ODDLY (very oddly) the VERY SAME PEOPLE who affirm that it IS such a matter also insist that how often THEY have had sex is no one's business, indeed, even OFFENSIVE to even discuss. I'm very perplexed about this contradiction. If it's offensive to even think about this, if it's rude to discuss this issue, why it is a dogma? Why do they perpetually discuss it? I don't know - and I've given up TRYING to understand this. MY point: Not only has no one yet been able to explain WHY this matters SO much (more than anything else on the planet, NO point has higher status that de fide dogma), indeed, they regard the whole issue as rude and profoundly offensive. Just a puzzle for me, I've entirely given up trying to understand this (so don't "go there").

Again, I don't DISAGREE with the pov, I don't AGREE with the position. IMO, I'm currently standing with what seems to be the position of Scripture and the earliest Tradition and of 49,998 of the 50,000 denominations (Catholics insist exist): Silence. Just as I'm silent on how often my mother will have had sex up to and including the moment of her death. And until someone shows me that there is solid evidence that She DID or DID NOT have sex (once or more), AND I have some permission from Her to shout this normally private matter - I suspect I'll remain in my "silence" position.


We'll all meet Our Lady someday.... I'd rather not apologize to Her for violating privacy or spreading rumor. I'm NOT saying ANY will have such a need, but that is a matter that looms large for me. I'd rather be silent than need to apologize for what I shouted as a dogmatic fact of highest importance for all 7 billion to know and believe, a matter of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter impacting the eternal savlation of souls - but admit I have little to nothing to support it as true. And little to nothing to suggest why I'm SO interested in THAT subject with Her. Just ME. I'm NOT - in no sense - in no way - questioning the faith, motive or even position of anyone else. To ME, it's a matter of RESPECT. RESPECT for Our Lady, for marriage, for the marriage bed. Especially for the most esteemed, most revered woman of all - the Chief of Saints, the Queen of Heaven, the Mother of God. Because She hold such a very, very, very high position - what is said about Her (especially in such a normally very private matter all here regard as rude and offensive to even discuss) must meet an equally very, very, very high "bar." It's called respect.


Just MY view. I've NEVER, EVER asked ANYONE to agree with me. Nor have I EVER declared that I'm even right. And I know - boy do I know - that my position of respectful silence, neither affirming or denying any position here - REALLY, DEEPLY bothers so many here, which is yet another "puzzle" for me, which I will NOT pursue - I've given up trying to understand why silence in this matter bothers them SO very, very, very, to their very core. This is a strange dogma..... I can think of none stranger - including the "attitude" around it. Oh, well.


BTW, I largely SHARE the Marian devotion of those that support this. I LOVE Our Lady. I revere Her, adore Her, hold Her in highest esteem, I worship Her. I regard Her as the most important fully human ever to have lived, the greatest example of faith and obedience, the Queen of Heaven, the Chief of Saints, the Mother of God. My SILENCE on this part is BECAUSE of that devotion and respect. B.E.C.A.U.S.E. of it. I know this makes some Catholics and Orthodox posters here hate me profoundly, but again, I have a LOT of unanswered puzzles when it goes to this DOGMA about this matter.... and I will not pursue that anymore; it remains a puzzle.



The point HERE is why do Lutherans not parrot docilicly every personal opionion that Martin Luther may have expressed in some manner or way. I think the Lutherans here have addressed that.




.

 

[Kristos]

Ok. Since I have been hanging around EO bishops (most of my life) almost for ever...I would say this...The EO do not excommunicate someone for he does not believe in a dogma. Bishops do not go around chasing faithful around to see if they agree with this canon or the other.... Unless this person would openly preach against the EV they would not "lift a finger" to harm such individual. I know personally some of the converts who do come to the EO but deny to venerate any icons or believing the EV or Mary. Our faith is not so legalistic and deviations to the EO tradition and dogma can indeed happen....
Faithful to be called "heretics" they have to preach that heresy and trying to divide the faithful...thus the word "heretic". It is NOT someone who for this or that reason beliefs something different (we all do to a point as we are NOT the same in our background and level of understanding)...There are shades of the Truth for sure and ONLY God understands it 100% we are all vulnarable humans after all....

The fathers named someone heretic who constantly preaches the "wrong" truth according to the canons and the dogma of the church. Unless a person does if he keeps to his own counsel and whatever he believes he keeps it private although not good ...still not in the verge of being ex-communicated.Rather the Church using despensaton would allow it to go on seeing it as a weakness of one's faith. Like any other things that are sinful...For example we do have many agnostics in our midst who are in our church as in a lot of churches even the RC or OO...These faithful are trying depserately to hang to our church and community as long as they do not harm and divide the flock they are to remain in the "ship of salvation"

My 0.2 cents on the matter

Thanks Mark and Kristos for the interesting discussion

This has generally been my experience as well, although I don't get to hang with bishops very often Historically, I don't see a propensity in the east for inquisition into personal belief. Condemnation normally results from preaching, not necessarily believing. The iconclast controversy is the major exception, but other than that, there were almost always people left on the "losing" side who probably never really changed their view and were not persecuted for it. Justinian for example, was largely viewed a hold monophysite Christology, but he didn't preach it and so was never condemned. Today, I think that most controversy has nothing to do with doctrine at all - people fight over stupid and meaningless things...

 

[Philothei]

And THAT'S the issue.


While all agree that Luther personally embraced this pov as pious opinion, the implication of the OP that ergo all Lutherans should embrace it as dogma is a misunderstanding of the epistemology of Lutheranism.


Thank you.






.

There is no implication it is a legit question coming from someone who does not belong to a church with "doctrinal latitude" as the Lutheran Church. It is a 'different" theological tradition for sure. Also the Lutherans about 200 years ago I am sure they believed differently about the EV than Lutherans today... They adopted their beliefs to include all opinions about the EV. I never implied anything but what it is...a pious opinion then(at the time that all Lutherans probably believed it) and now who some do and some do not. None of the above is valid that you claim as anyone who reads the op can see that I do not say that Lutherans believe that "dogma" but belief...

 

[Kristos]

There is a tendency to parse ideas into a diametrically opposing categories. In this case it seems to be dogma vs. pious belief. An idea must either be a pious belief or dogma by definition. I feel like this case blurs the line a bit but that defies the dualistic view.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

There is no implication it is a legit question coming from someone who does not belong to a church with "doctrinal latitude" as the Lutheran Church. It is a 'different" theological tradition for sure. Also the Lutherans about 200 years ago I am sure they believed differently about the EV than Lutherans today... They adopted their beliefs to include all opinions about the EV. I never implied anything but what it is...a pious opinion then(at the time that all Lutherans probably believed it) and now who some do and some do not. None of the above is valid that you claim as anyone who reads the op can see that I do not say that Lutherans believe that "dogma" but belief...

That's how most of us took your original post.

This has generally been my experience as well, although I don't get to hang with bishops very often Historically, I don't see a propensity in the east for inquisition into personal belief. Condemnation normally results from preaching, not necessarily believing. The iconclast controversy is the major exception, but other than that, there were almost always people left on the "losing" side who probably never really changed their view and were not persecuted for it. Justinian for example, was largely viewed a hold monophysite Christology, but he didn't preach it and so was never condemned. Today, I think that most controversy has nothing to do with doctrine at all - people fight over stupid and meaningless things...

I don't think that I would call either of the three positions that CJ cited as either meaningless or stupid. One's own faith is something of grave seriousness to one's self. Fighting over such things is, however stupid, particularly when one's theology holds such things as adiaphora.

There is a tendency to parse ideas into a diametrically opposing categories. In this case it seems to be dogma vs. pious belief. An idea must either be a pious belief or dogma by definition. I feel like this case blurs the line a bit but that defies the dualistic view.

The peacable mind set of Eastern Orthodoxy is one of the reasons many Lutherans, such as myself see their Church as a bit of a kindred spirit. I believe that the Tubingen Theologians felt the same way, which is why they opened dialogue with Jeremiah II. Yes, there was some disagreement (civil disagreements though), and lots of agreement. The exchange of letters is a good example of how Christians of different confessions can discuss differences without condemning each other.

I truly wish that history had allowed the dialogue to continue.

Blessings and Peace.

Addendum: In reality, such dialogue does continue here at CF, but in a less "official"way!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There is no implication it is a legit question coming from someone who does not belong to a church with "doctrinal latitude" as the Lutheran Church.

There can only be "doctrinal latitude" where there is doctrine. In this case, such exists in only 2 of the 50,000 + denominations (as Catholics tend to claim there is).

It is a 'different" theological tradition for sure. Also the Lutherans about 200 years ago I am sure they believed differently about the EV than Lutherans today... They adopted their beliefs to include all opinions about the EV. I never implied anything but what it is...a pious opinion then(at the time that all Lutherans probably believed it) and now who some do and some do not. None of the above is valid that you claim as anyone who reads the op can see that I do not say that Lutherans believe that "dogma" but belief...

I'm not aware that there has EVER been ANY doctrine on this matter in ANY denomination other than the EOC and RCC. 2,000 years ago or 200 years ago.


The point of the opening post seemed to be that Luther believed it AND YET many Lutherans do not. There being some indication that one would be expected to follow the other. I tried to address that.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I don't think that I would call either of the three positions that CJ cited as either meaningless or stupid. One's own faith is something of grave seriousness to one's self. Fighting over such things is, however stupid, particularly when one's theology holds such things as adiaphora.

I WHOLLY agree with BOTH parts of that....


Faith is NEVER frivolous. I ALWAYS take faith as a point of great importance (if only to that one) and a matter deserving respect. I do that whether it is a matter that I strongly disagree with (as when I chat with my Mormon friends), a matter a strongly agree with (as is often the case with Catholics) or as in this matter - where I hold no position. Religion deals with relationships.... such is never frivolous. And in FEW areas am I more sensitive to this than when it comes to people's devotion to Christ and to Our Mother. Passions run HIGH here! I totally agree with you, Mark. It's a point of great sensitivity to me.


On the other hand, when Christians are divided sharply by a denomination on an issue (thus, the prayer of Jesus hindered), when people are said to be "WRONG" in the very strongest way and on a most important issue, then it's the opposite of adiaphora. It is a "line in the sand" dawn to divide, to condemn, to rebuke. To me, when something is declared a matter of HIGHEST importance possible, of GREATEST certainty possible, a matter impacting eternal salvation; when the Church is divided in the sharpest way over some issue - the truthfulness of it matters. So we aren't talking passionate opinions, we're talking dogma.

Addendum: In reality, such dialogue does continue here at CF, but in a less "official"way!

It's the hope of MANY of us posting here. It's the sole reason why we are here. As hard as this seems to realize.





.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

There can only be "doctrinal latitude" where there is doctrine. In this case, such exists in only 2 of the 50,000 + denominations (as Catholics tend to claim there is).

I'm not aware that there has EVER been ANY doctrine on this matter in ANY denomination other than the EOC and RCC. 2,000 years ago or 200 years ago.


The point of the opening post seemed to be that Luther believed it AND YET many Lutherans do not. There being some indication that one would be expected to follow the other. I tried to address that.

.

Wile I hold fast to our Lutheran position regarding adiaphora, I tend to view beliefs that we consider adiaphora that other Churches have deemed "dogmas" still as adiaphora. This I can do without prejudice, since in matters of adiaphora there is no prohibition to holding such belief; they have made a choice in accepting this teaching, just as I have. If they are at odds with what we consider adiaphoral teachings, no one is forcing them to stay where they are. It's their choice, I respect that; my choice is mine and I would hope that others respect that as well (if they don't that's ok too).

 

[AHJE]

Even if you could show from this verse (and you can't) that Mary INTENDED to remain a virgin up to and including the second of Her death (or was it undeath, which?), that does not substantiate that She did so. So, even if your point was valid (and it's not), it's irrelevant to the dogma herein being discussed. I INTENDED to buy a new car last year (in this case, you know my intent - in Mary's case, no one does). Did I? No. You're entire apologetic is empty.

CaliforniaJosiah,

You are responsible for the full import of St. Luke 1:34. After all I have shown you regarding the CONTEXT and the GRAMMAR of this verse ... you know well enough that there is more to this verse than meets the eye at first sight.

The Word of God as transmitted by Sacred Writing is inerrant, is it not? Then I urge you to make true sense of this verse and see where it leads you.

I will not get into it as before with you, ... we've been there before. If you will you may review the threads I posted in the past. They are still there for you to examine and review.

God bless you.

Your signatures seem to indicate that you believe that the Holy Catholic Church is a cult. I consider this to be absurd unto the infinite degree. Ecclesiastical Authority can be Divinely given by our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ and it has been given to His Apostolic Church SENT from the beginning. The Hierarchy of the Church is one of SERVICE for the Lord and His People.

Glory be to Jesus Christ the Wise Master Builder!

 

[Philothei]

Wile I hold fast to our Lutheran position regarding adiaphora, I tend to view beliefs that we consider adiaphora that other Churches have deemed "dogmas" still as adiaphora. This I can do without prejudice, since in matters of adiaphora there is no prohibition to holding such belief; they have made a choice in accepting this teaching, just as I have. If they are at odds with what we consider adiaphoral teachings, no one is forcing them to stay where they are. It's their choice, I respect that; my choice is mine and I would hope that others respect that as well (if they don't that's ok too).

Can I frame this Mark ?? I think that is the healthier attitude for a Christian to do in general...Ok. we disagree yours is of importance mine is not... There is no reason to hit each other over the head about. Like I said in my OP I wanted to know and understand the Lutheran position...and you just said it... in a way that I can understand it finaly

Thanks

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Can I frame this Mark ?? I think that is the healthier attitude for a Christian to do in general...Ok. we disagree yours is of importance mine is not... There is no reason to hit each other over the head about. Like I said in my OP I wanted to know and understand the Lutheran position...and you just said it... in a way that I can understand it finaly

Thanks

You are most welcome; such is why we get along so well.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Even if you could show from this verse (and you can't) that Mary INTENDED to remain a virgin up to and including the second of Her death (or was it undeath, which?), that does not substantiate that She did so. So, even if your point was valid (and it's not), it's irrelevant to the dogma herein being discussed. I INTENDED to buy a new car last year (in this case, you know my intent - in Mary's case, no one does). Did I? No. You're entire apologetic is empty.



.

CaliforniaJosiah,

You are responsible for the full import of St. Luke 1:34.

1. You didn't respond to anything I posted.


2. Yes, we are accountable to the words of Luke 1:34. It says NOTHING about Mary's vaginal state at the second of her death (or was it undeath, which was it?).

The Word of God as transmitted by Sacred Writing is inerrant, is it not? Then I urge you to make true sense of this verse and see where it leads you.

Yes, SCRIPTURE in errant. IMO, your "sense" of what God chose to not say is not.

Your signatures seem to indicate that you believe that the Holy Catholic Church is a cult. I consider this to be absurd unto the infinite degree

Wrong.


Perhaps you have the same problem with my signature that you do with Luke 1:34? You seem to ignore that is there and instead focus entirely on what is NOT there, invisible words not there - then base your entire pov on your "sense" of what you yourself "see" that isn't there, that was NOT said. Even if it conflicts, entirely, with what is said. My position on your denomination is common and public knowledge and makes your accusations incredible and absurd and impossible. It IS difficult to discuss what is said if what is said is wholly ignored and instead the whole issue becomes invisible words you "see" and the "sense" you make from these invisible words that aren't there.

Wile I hold fast to our Lutheran position regarding adiaphora, I tend to view beliefs that we consider adiaphora that other Churches have deemed "dogmas" still as adiaphora. This I can do without prejudice, since in matters of adiaphora there is no prohibition to holding such belief; they have made a choice in accepting this teaching, just as I have. If they are at odds with what we consider adiaphoral teachings, no one is forcing them to stay where they are. It's their choice, I respect that; my choice is mine and I would hope that others respect that as well (if they don't that's ok too).

Respected. Valid.


I reply to EXACTLY WHAT IS PRESENTED. As such. If it's presented as a dogmatic fact, I respond to that. If it's presented as a matter of personal faith, I respond to that. If it's presented as adiaphora, I respond to that. IMO, replies to posts are to reply to the post - to the position as presented. As much as I am able to do. Not infrequently, there are two issues involved: the view itself and the status given to it. Both are important, and not infrequently, the poster gives greater emphasis to the later.


Consider this example: A "I am of the belief that it is at least possible that there is life of some nature elsewhere in our own solar system."
B "It is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all persons on Earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Fact and Truth, a matter that impacts your destiny as Heaven or Hell, that there are human beings living on Titan." The response to these would be entirely different (as they should be). The view AND the status become relevant and issues to be discussed. If I respond to "A" when "B" is posted, then, IMO, I'm not responding to the post. Just my view....


On a personal note, I left the RC Denomination in large part over this very point. I do not REJECT Transubstantiation or Purgatory or the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary. I respect the RCC's view on abortion and contraception. In fact, I suspect there are very few (VERY FEW!) Protestants posting in GT that are more OPEN to these things than I am. And IF they were pious opinions in Catholicism, I might still be Catholic (well, probably not, but let's move on, lol). I don't even reject the Infalliblity of the Roman Pontiff IF this is embraced as it was for centuries - as official papal declarations having finality within the denomination. My "issue" is rarely with the pov, per se. But the STATUS can't be ignored! They are as much a part of the discussion and issue as the pov. In fact, IMO, MUCH of the "problem" between Lutherans and Catholics is not viewpoints but the issue of dogma. Perhaps you disagree. I DO sense that the EOC is different than the RCC on this point, and I've TRIED (for years!) to explore that difference, to no avail. After years of trying, I've given up trying to discover the difference there (if any exists).



Thank you to all! With this, I'm signing out of this thread and unsubscribing.



Pax



- Josiah








.

 

[AHJE]

Dear CaliforniaJosiah,

Holy Catholic Church: "The Teaching of the Church is the very Teaching of Christ, ... therefore it is True. The Church is as Christ in our midst and the Instrument/Channel of His Grace via the 7 Sacraments."

Protestant: "I interpret the Bible for myself, therefore no External Authority such as the Pope can correct me, teach me, or guide me in matters of faith or morals. It's me and Jesus, ... no inbetweens."

This, I think, is more akin to the reality as it is.

Peace be with all.

 

[Zeek]

Dear CaliforniaJosiah,

Holy Catholic Church: "The Teaching of the Church is the very Teaching of Christ, ... therefore it is True. The Church is as Christ in our midst and the Instrument/Channel of His Grace via the 7 Sacraments."

Protestant: "I interpret the Bible for myself, therefore no External Authority such as the Pope can correct me, teach me, or guide me in matters of faith or morals. It's me and Jesus, ... no inbetweens."

This, I think, is more akin to the reality as it is.

Peace be with all.

Or you could say....

Catholic Church: " I place myself into the hands of this Body and submit to everything they teach as if from YHWH Himself...I will believe what they tell me despite much of their history, both past and present, and lack of clear Scriptural authority.

Protestant: "I read and believe what the Bible says, and am careful to only submit to the authority of those YHWH has placed over me from within the Body whose doctrine is pure and whose character has been refined by the Spirit."

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Or you could say....

Catholic Church: " I place myself into the hands of this Body and submit to everything they teach as if from YHWH Himself...I will believe what they tell me despite much of their history, both past and present, and lack of clear Scriptural authority.

Protestant: "I read and believe what the Bible says, and am careful to only submit to the authority of those YHWH has placed over me from within the Body whose doctrine is pure and whose character has been refined by the Spirit."

IMHO, it'd be illoigical trying to exalt a Protestant above a Catholic when making it out as if the Protestant alone is abel to say they believe in/read what the Bible says...sumbitting to the authority of YHWH while making it out as if the Catholic submits to things that don't have spiritual authority. For scripture was NOT written in a vaccum...and Martin Luther, who began the Protestant Reformation, was not against all things within the Catholic faith to begin with. Moreover, there were others who noted the danger of trying to pride oneself on "scripture alone" since nearly all dangerous heresies were formed on the basis of someone picking up a Bible, reading it and thinking they "submit" to it because they read it....and were passionate about anyone being able to have their own interpretation of the scripture since it's scripture alone.

There can be A LOT of assumptions/circular logic when saying one must submit to a body that's "pure" while saying Catholics don't since that term is always changing from one context to the next...each group saying of another in the Protestant camp/world that they're not as "pure" as the other in their creeds/view points ( more discussed here, here, here, and here).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Since I have been hanging around EO bishops (most of my life) almost for ever...I would say this...The EO do not excommunicate someone for he does not believe in a dogma. Bishops do not go around chasing faithful around to see if they agree with this canon or the other.... Unless this person would openly preach against the EV they would not "lift a finger" to harm such individual. I know personally some of the converts who do come to the EO but deny to venerate any icons or believing the EV or Mary. Our faith is not so legalistic and deviations to the EO tradition and dogma can indeed happen....

Faithful to be called "heretics" they have to preach that heresy and trying to divide the faithful...thus the word "heretic". It is NOT someone who for this or that reason beliefs something different (we all do to a point as we are NOT the same in our background and level of understanding)...There are shades of the Truth for sure and ONLY God understands it 100% we are all vulnarable humans after all....

The fathers named someone heretic who constantly preaches the "wrong" truth according to the canons and the dogma of the church. Unless a person does if he keeps to his own counsel and whatever he believes he keeps it private although not good ...still not in the verge of being ex-communicated.Rather the Church using despensaton would allow it to go on seeing it as a weakness of one's faith. Like any other things that are sinful...For example we do have many agnostics in our midst who are in our church as in a lot of churches even the RC or OO...These faithful are trying depserately to hang to our church and community as long as they do not harm and divide the flock they are to remain in the "ship of salvation"

My 0.2 cents on the matter

 

[Zeek]

IMHO, it'd be illoigical trying to exalt a Protestant above a Catholic when making it out as if the Protestant alone is abel to say they believe in/read what the Bible says...sumbitting to the authority of YHWH while making it out as if the Catholic submits to things that don't have spiritual authority. For scripture was NOT written in a vaccum...and Martin Luther, who began the Protestant Reformation, was not against all things within the Catholic faith to begin with. Moreover, there were others who noted the danger of trying to pride oneself on "scripture alone" since nearly all dangerous heresies were formed on the basis of someone picking up a Bible, reading it and thinking they "submit" to it because they read it....and were passionate about anyone being able to have their own interpretation of the scripture since it's scripture alone.

There can be A LOT of assumptions/circular logic when saying one must submit to a body that's "pure" while saying Catholics don't since that term is always changing from one context to the next...each group saying of another in the Protestant camp/world that they're not as "pure" as the other in their creeds/view points ( more discussed here, here, here, and here).

I think you missed my point bro which was to submit something as unbalanced as AHJE did when he gave his definition of the difference between Catholics and Protestants....I was trying to show that we can all play the same game and it isn't fruitful.

I am not one of those that subscribes to the unnatural division of the Body into Catholics and Protestants...I never tire of explaining that the Body is One entity made up of those that have been born again of the Spirit, filled with the Spirit and sealed with the Spirit....we are the Sheep who know the Shepherds voice....irrespective of what particular tradition or denomination we have come from.

I think as Believers per se our main reason for arguing against some traditions and beliefs should be out of love and the desire to see both our brethren and ourselves appear before YHWH with works that will remain after the Holy fire has consumed the wood, hay and stubble. It should not be to win an argument or put others down.

Hope this clarifies....Zazal

 

[AHJE]

I think you missed my point bro which was to submit something as unbalanced as AHJE did when he gave his definition of the difference between Catholics and Protestants....I was trying to show that we can all play the same game and it isn't fruitful.

My post was in response to CaliforniaJosiah's signature comment on the bottom of his posts, which I felt was a caricature of the Truth. I felt I did an honest job of trying to correct the matter. You call it unbalanced, but there is virtually no protestant that will disagree with the words I posted. This is usually the spirit that they adopt (what I posted of them) ... Your post on the other hand seems to be accusing us that all of Catholic Church history is corrupt while ignoring the astounding contributions it has made. For ex, ... The New Testament Canon, Universities, Hospitals, the thousands of heroic examples of the Saints who lived Christ-like lives in Faith Hope and Charity.

This is what you posted:

Or you could say....

Catholic Church: " I place myself into the hands of this Body and submit to everything they teach as if from YHWH Himself...I will believe what they tell me despite much of their history, both past and present, and lack of clear Scriptural authority.

Protestant: "I read and believe what the Bible says, and am careful to only submit to the authority of those YHWH has placed over me from within the Body whose doctrine is pure and whose character has been refined by the Spirit."

Catholics uphold the Authority of Sacred Scripture and the Bishops of the Catholic Church ARE INDEED "those YHWH has placed over [us] from within the Body whose doctrine is pure and whose character has been refined by the Spirit" yet I don't see many Prostestants doing this. There are some, however, who are coming back to the Sheepfold, thanks to God's grace.

I am not one of those that subscribes to the unnatural division of the Body into Catholics and Protestants...I never tire of explaining that the Body is One entity made up of those that have been born again of the Spirit, filled with the Spirit and sealed with the Spirit....we are the Sheep who know the Shepherds voice....irrespective of what particular tradition or denomination we have come from.

If you do not acknowledge that it was the Protestant movement that left the Ancient Church (SENT from the Beginning) then I invite you to read your history. The Church has remained while the fruits of the protestant movement speaks for itself in terms of the thousands, tens of thousands of divisions that it has produced.

There is such a thing as SCHISM and it must be acknowledged as a grave sin contrary to the 1st Commandment, since it is a sin against FAITH. When you do not receive the Successor of Peter or the Bishops in communion with him, you are rejecting Christ also and the Father who Sent Him. See St. Luke 10:16

I think as Believers per se our main reason for arguing against some traditions and beliefs should be out of love and the desire to see both our brethren and ourselves appear before YHWH with works that will remain after the Holy fire has consumed the wood, hay and stubble. It should not be to win an argument or put others down.

Hope this clarifies....Zazal

Your intention is good but I think that you have misunderstood my post. I was not really putting anyone down. I was stating the reality of the situation. Do you not think so? Which part of my post do you feel was inaccurate or misrepresentative of the way that the Protestant person practices?

May all the sheep who hear the Voice of the Good Shepherd find their way to the ONE SHEEPFOLD of the Redeemer. In Jesus Name, I humbly pray. Amen.

God bless you.

 

[Zeek]

Originally Posted by Zazal

I think you missed my point bro which was to submit something as unbalanced as AHJE did when he gave his definition of the difference between Catholics and Protestants....I was trying to show that we can all play the same game and it isn't fruitful.
​

My post was in response to CaliforniaJosiah's signature comment on the bottom of his posts, which I felt was a caricature of the Truth. I felt I did an honest job of trying to correct the matter. You call it unbalanced, but there is virtually no protestant that will disagree with the words I posted. This is usually the spirit that they adopt (what I posted of them) ... Your post on the other hand seems to be accusing us that all of Catholic Church history is corrupt while ignoring the astounding contributions it has made. For ex, ... The New Testament Canon, Universities, Hospitals, the thousands of heroic examples of the Saints who lived Christ-like lives in Faith Hope and Charity.

Hi there AHJE,

I think you are working from a false premise when on the one hand you talk about the Holy Catholic Church and then contrast it with Protestants, unless by calling it the Holy Catholic Church you mean the One Body world-wide...the entity you are describing is not one that Scripture recognises. It is pretty basic stuff really, because there is one Body to which all Believers belong irrespective of their different emphases or traditions. I have certainly never referred to myself as either a Protestant or a Catholic, but as a Believer or a Christian if you like.

I absolutely recognise the contributions made by all Believers down through the centuries irrespective of denominational affiliations....but there has also been a great deal of bad amongst us, and many times we have repeated some of the same sins of pride and religiosity found amongst certain groups of people within Scripture.

This is what you posted:


Originally Posted by Zazal

Or you could say....

Catholic Church: " I place myself into the hands of this Body and submit to everything they teach as if from YHWH Himself...I will believe what they tell me despite much of their history, both past and present, and lack of clear Scriptural authority.

Protestant: "I read and believe what the Bible says, and am careful to only submit to the authority of those YHWH has placed over me from within the Body whose doctrine is pure and whose character has been refined by the Spirit."
​

Catholics uphold the Authority of Sacred Scripture and the Bishops of the Catholic Church ARE INDEED "those YHWH has placed over [us] from within the Body whose doctrine is pure and whose character has been refined by the Spirit" yet I don't see many Prostestants doing this. There are some, however, who are coming back to the Sheepfold, thanks to God's grace.

Again I don't recognise the unnatural division, but for the sake of the argument I find it hard to believe that Catholics uphold the authority of Sacred Scripture, because if they did they would never have made an idol our of our L-rds mother...the two just don't match up.

I can't really comment on the Characters of the Bishops within the Catholic Church...I dare say there are good, bad and indifferent, just as there are within leadership roles other than Catholic.

The Anglican Church has a similar set up to the Catholic Church, and an Archbishop who is placed at the same level as the Pope...as does the Eastern Orthodox and several other organized Christian movements.
Even the Free Churches have a hierarchy of authority to which congregants submit...so I can't really see any differences.

I am not one of those that subscribes to the unnatural division of the Body into Catholics and Protestants...I never tire of explaining that the Body is One entity made up of those that have been born again of the Spirit, filled with the Spirit and sealed with the Spirit....we are the Sheep who know the Shepherds voice....irrespective of what particular tradition or denomination we have come from.
​

If you do not acknowledge that it was the Protestant movement that left the Ancient Church (SENT from the Beginning) then I invite you to read your history. The Church has remained while the fruits of the protestant movement speaks for itself in terms of the thousands, tens of thousands of divisions that it has produced.

I have read plenty of what is commonly referred to as 'Church history' believe it or not. I do not subscribe to the authority of the 'Ancient Church' or 'Roman Catholic Church' I don't believe it is modelled around the original Apostolic ekklesia initiated by the Spirit through the Apostles but has morphed into a man-made institution containing a mixture of good and bad, and some of the bad has been very very bad if you read up on your history.

There is such a thing as SCHISM and it must be acknowledged as a grave sin contrary to the 1st Commandment, since it is a sin against FAITH. When you do not receive the Successor of Peter or the Bishops in communion with him, you are rejecting Christ also and the Father who Sent Him. See St. Luke 10:16

Lk 10:16 “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”
​

But someone like myself in no way rejects Jesus or His words, I just don't accept the Roman Catholic version of events, and therefore cannot submit to the Bishop of Rome..I believe the whole idea of Peter being the one whom Jesus chose to build His ekklesia on just doesn't hold water, and like many others I believe He builds His ekklesia on the faith that Peter declared...in other words 'revelation of the Spirit'...something that is initiated by G-d and birthed in man.

​

I think as Believers per se our main reason for arguing against some traditions and beliefs should be out of love and the desire to see both our brethren and ourselves appear before YHWH with works that will remain after the Holy fire has consumed the wood, hay and stubble. It should not be to win an argument or put others down.

Hope this clarifies....Zazal
​

Your intention is good but I think that you have misunderstood my post. I was not really putting anyone down. I was stating the reality of the situation. Do you not think so? Which part of my post do you feel was inaccurate or misrepresentative of the way that the Protestant person practices?

You wrote:

Protestant: "I interpret the Bible for myself, therefore no External Authority such as the Pope can correct me, teach me, or guide me in matters of faith or morals. It's me and Jesus, ... no inbetweens."

I don't believe the Bible needs to be interpreted as such...it means what it says...we just have to understand it within its historical framework and Jewish context...I think we should all be humble enough to receive correction, whether from the Pope or a child. I have been taught, corrected and guided by all sorts of men and some women in whom I recognised a gift and aptitude to teach, and in whom was a maturity and insight that I submitted myself to. On a number of occasions my trust was misplaced and I took a few knocks.

So to say 'its me and Jesus no inbetweens' doesn't give a fair indication at all...just because the structure of authority varies from some established Christian organizations.

May all the sheep who hear the Voice of the Good Shepherd find their way to the ONE SHEEPFOLD of the Redeemer. In Jesus Name, I humbly pray. Amen.

Amen...His Sheepfold.

God bless you.

Thanks, and may the L-rd instruct and guide you in His truths on a daily basis, encourage you and give you His peace and His Joy through all the ups and downs in life.

Kind regards. Zazal
​