|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Protestantism
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I want to use this thread so that we can all learn more about Protestantism, especially what modern Protestants believe in and what they believed in throughout their (brief) history.
So, I propose we discuss some points through this thread.
Let me start the discussion by quoting the epistle of James (2.24), where it is written quote:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
How did the people that created Protestantism view that verse? What do modern Protestants think about it now?
[edited thread title for archiving]
[ 10. January 2006, 04:44: Message edited by: RuthW ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
their (brief) history
Even if we don't count precursors in the 14th and 15th Centuries, and only go from Luther, we are talking almost 500 years.
And of course Protestants stand in the history of the Church, going back to Christ.
And of course Christians are inheritors of the Jewish tradition of faith going back thousands of years before that.
I wouldn't call 500 years all that brief, to be honest.
[ 29. October 2005, 09:13: Message edited by: Demas ]
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
their (brief) history
Even if we don't count precursors in the 14th and 15th Centuries, and only go from Luther, we are talking almost 500 years.
As I read it, I think that's the point he was making. 500 years is a long time or a short time depending on your perspective. For someone in Greece, with as rich and extended a local history as that country and region has, 500 years is a very short period of time, as it also is in relation to this:
quote:
And of course Christians are inheritors of the Jewish tradition of faith going back thousands of years before that.
In light of that, Christianity itself is quite new, and all developments within Christianity are newer still.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
How did the people that created Protestantism view that verse?
Luther didn't think much of James:
'(I)t is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works.'
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
An epistle of straw!
Don't you just love Martin Luther.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
I think we need to be clear what sort of "Protestantism"* we're talking about. We're also going to need some definitions of justification and sanctification as we use them, and to examine whether James used them in the same way.
From my perspective, I would take Wesley's distinction (given in his sermon on Justification by Faith, but quite possibly not original there) between justification as the moment of conversion, solely by grace (through faith) and sanctification, namely growing in holiness towards Christian Perfection, which certainly does involve works. Sometimes justification is used to cover both of these which is suspect what is meant in James' epistle.
*Protestantism is not a very useful term for defining a theological tradition. It only really says "Western Church not in communion with Rome" and can mean anything from Anglo-Catholics to Mad Fundies. If we mean a more precise tradition than that we need to be clear which one. I prefer not to call myself a Protestant for that reason - it's not very clear.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
But the point is that the history of the Protestant churches is neither longer nor shorter than that of any other churches. They were reformed, not invented, in the 16th century.
Actually if we were being really picky the institutional history of separatly organised Protestant denominations goes back over 500 years to the Hussites in the early 1400s, and before that to the teaching of Wyclif, in the late 14th century - the Moravian churches have a direct organisational continuity with them, and are in that sense the oldest Protestant denomination, formally separating from Rome in 1467.
OK, the Waldenisans are even older. But althought hey later allied themselves with the Protestants they originally had a quite seperate history and their distinctive doctrines were not really the same as the later Protestants - they really come from the same stable as the Franciscans. Peter Waldo was into holy poverty, common life. pacifism and so on.
If history repeats itself first as tragedy and then as farce the 15th century history of the Hussites should have been a lesson to the 16th & 17th centuries. What started as a movement to reform the churches based on frequent communion in both kinds was brutally persecuted by the Papacy and in less than twenty years you had vast crowds assembling on hilltops in imminent expectation of the Second Coming while their slightly more practically-minded brethren got themselves Europe's largest collection of mobile artillery and tried to institute the Rule of the Saints by fire and the sword.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
OK, the Waldenisans are even older. But althought hey later allied themselves with the Protestants they originally had a quite seperate history and their distinctive doctrines were not really the same as the later Protestants - they really come from the same stable as the Franciscans. Peter Waldo was into holy poverty, common life. pacifism and so on.
It's not too much of a tangent (is it, Hosts?) to ask Ken and/or anyone else who knows, to tell us a bit more about the Waldensians. Am I right in thinking that in modern Italy they are in some sort of partnership with the Methodists? And would that reflect their general theological/spiritual approach?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
scoticanus
Shipmate
# 5140
|
Posted
What I was taught in Confirmation Class about Paul vs James and Faith vs Works still seems good sense to me, and I quote it here, from C B Moss's The Christian Faith, SPCK 1964. Moss was an Anglican theologian of the Tractarian school, strong on the Scriptures and the Fathers but distinctly antipathetic to Rome. The whole of this book is to be found on line:
Project Canterbury, C B Moss, The Christian Faith
quote:
II. Apparent Difference between St. Paul and St. James
St. Paul,s doctrine of justification by faith (Rom. 3:28, 4:2) is verbally contradicted by St. James (2:14-26) who says: "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" (verse 24). (It was for this reason that Luther called the Epistle of St. James "an epistle of straw".)
The contradiction is explained by the use of the words "faith" and "works" in different senses by St. Paul and St. James.
St. Paul means by "faith" complete confidence and self-surrender to God. St. James means intellectual assent to a proposition, such as "There is one God".
St. Paul means by "works" obedience to the Jewish Law and its traditional interpretation by which, according to the Pharisees, a man might earn his salvation from God.
St. James means by "works" deeds of mercy such as, according to St. Paul, were the result of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22; Rom. 8:5).
St. Paul and St. James were dealing with different situations and with different opponents. The opponents of St. Paul held that salvation could be earned by observing the Law. The opponents of St. James held that right belief (orthodoxy) was sufficient, even if it bore no fruit in the believer's life. St. Paul taught that works without faith cannot save us; St. James, that faith without works is dead; and both appealed to the example of Abraham. The truth is that both faith and works are needed, but works are the result of faith, not a substitute for it.
Posts: 491 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scoticanus:
What I was taught in Confirmation Class about Paul vs James and Faith vs Works still seems good sense to me, and I quote it here, from C B Moss's The Christian Faith, SPCK 1964. Moss was an Anglican theologian of the Tractarian school, strong on the Scriptures and the Fathers but distinctly antipathetic to Rome. The whole of this book is to be found on line:
Project Canterbury, C B Moss, The Christian Faith
quote:
II. Apparent Difference between St. Paul and St. James
St. Paul,s doctrine of justification by faith (Rom. 3:28, 4:2) is verbally contradicted by St. James (2:14-26) who says: "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" (verse 24). (It was for this reason that Luther called the Epistle of St. James "an epistle of straw".)
The contradiction is explained by the use of the words "faith" and "works" in different senses by St. Paul and St. James.
St. Paul means by "faith" complete confidence and self-surrender to God. St. James means intellectual assent to a proposition, such as "There is one God".
St. Paul means by "works" obedience to the Jewish Law and its traditional interpretation by which, according to the Pharisees, a man might earn his salvation from God.
St. James means by "works" deeds of mercy such as, according to St. Paul, were the result of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22; Rom. 8:5).
St. Paul and St. James were dealing with different situations and with different opponents. The opponents of St. Paul held that salvation could be earned by observing the Law. The opponents of St. James held that right belief (orthodoxy) was sufficient, even if it bore no fruit in the believer's life. St. Paul taught that works without faith cannot save us; St. James, that faith without works is dead; and both appealed to the example of Abraham. The truth is that both faith and works are needed, but works are the result of faith, not a substitute for it.
I see a problem in always trying to reconcile such differences, as between the view of ‘James’ and Paul. I do not think this syncretistic view point is helpful, espcially on a thread alooking at Protestantism. We can just as simply define Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as exactly the same, just defining their words differently. I do think it will do.
There is more than one theological viewpoint in the NT and there has been numerous theological viewpoints within Christianity since. Let us acknowledge that they are different and that there are differences.
Can we see antecedants of Protestantism within the Lollards, the Anabaptists, the Hussites, the galicans and many other hounded and persecuted groups before the Reformation finally happened?
Is the danger now that the protestant Churches themselves need to be protested against?
--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles
G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Waldenses?
I think it goes like this (though I'm more up on the mediaeval then the modern history which is pretty nerdish of me...)
Waldenses were founded by Peter Waldo, a rich merchant of Lyon who wanted to give all his money to the poor etc. Very much contemporary with Franciscans & coming from same place. Main difference was that they were not celibate - there were married members and they also allowed women to preach (actually in that sort of atmosphere I doubt if "allowed" is the right word - people get moved by the Spirit and stand up in the street & start yelling). The movement was popular all over southern France & adjacent parts of Italy & so on. Basically an informal organisation of lay preachers. Their followers continued to attend their parish churches (similarities to early Methodism already apparent...)
In the eyes of the papacy they were associated with the Cathars (wrongly, as I think even the RCs now acknowledge) and became victims of the Albigensian Crusade. Many were scattered all over Europe. Others took refuge in the Alps, where they set up separate communities, with their own churches and priests. They had a high view of marriage (positive proof that they weren't Cathars) and encouraged priests and laity to marry. Their doctrines seem to have been more or less orthodox mainstream Christianity, western Catholic but not Roman. Services were in the vernacular, and they had lay preachers.
They were still persecuted in the cities but the mountain communities were ignored rather than tolerated and survived a couple of centuries. In the late 15th century violent peresecution started again and many of them were driven from their homes. This went on for nearly 200 years. They found allies in the French and Swiss Reformed churches and most of them joined them and adopted their doctrines - so nearly all the Waldenisans from the 1530s on are Calvinists. (This is the background to John Milton's famous poem On the Late Massacres in Piedmont)
Some of them survived in Italy. After Napoleon thety began to come down out of the mountains and started orgainising Protestant churches in Italy. I'm not sure on this bit but I have a vague idea (mainly from contradictory websites) that like most Protestant denominations they got more liberal and less Calvinist in the 19th century. They are now allied with the Methodists (not that there are a lot of them in Italy...) and together make up the largest homegrown Italian Protestant denomination (not that that is saying much at all - there are individual congregations in some other countries that outnumber them)
NB there are a lot of histories of them around, some on the Net, which claim more ancient origins - but this seems to be part and parcel of a later Protestant claim that there was always a proto-Protestant "resistance" to Rome - which some idiots stretch to include Montanists, Marcionites and even Cathars.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
Roughly what Scotianus said - I think I read something very similar in one of John Stott's IVP works, so Tractarians and moderately con evos in agreement on this.
When James talks about "faith" in this context, he means correct knowledge about God - something close to "doctrinal orthodoxy". Hence he can say that "the devils have faith like this - and tremble". There may be no actual commitment to God - someone with only this kind of faith merely knows about him. This sort of faith has no tendency to produce good works - hence James' concern that if someone is not doing good works, they may only have this detached, barren type of "faith".
However, when Paul talks about "faith", he means trust in God's promises - active trust like Abraham's. Such a faith will certainly result in good works, but the trust itself is the gateway for God's love to act in our lives. Hence (Romans 4) he can say that "When a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness". Paul is emphasising that trying to do "good works" without this trust in God will not be helpful.
So:
James:
- Doctrinal orthodoxy (what James calls "faith") is No Good (TM) without trusting God.
- If you do really trust God, then you will both have faith (be doctrinally orthodox) and do good works.
Paul:
- Good works are No Good (TM) unless they spring out of trusting God (what Paul calls "faith").
- If you have faith (trust God), then you will do good works (e.g. Romans 6-8)
Since trusting God (what Paul calls "faith") will tend to produce both doctrinal orthodoxy and good works, they are both a good sign and the absence of either is cause for concern - e.g. "You shall know them by their fruits".
What you should not do is try for both doctrinal orthodoxy and good works while still not trusting God. This would be No Good At All (TM).
Incidentally this distinction between "trust in God" and "right belief about God" is why I deeply dislike part of the new Common Worship baptism service:
Old service (roughly):
Q: Do you believe and trust in God the Father?
A: I believe and trust in him
Q: Do you believe and trust in God the Son?
A: I believe and trust in him
Q: Do you believe and trust in God the Holy Spirit?
A: I believe and trust in him
But in the new baptism service, the candidate replies to these questions with the words of the Apostles' Creed! You're asked a question about personal faith and you reply with a statement of doctrinal orthodoxy! Trust is not mentioned at all! It makes me think:
New service:
Q: Do you believe and trust in God the Father?
A: Well, I believe in him...
By all means include the Apostles' Creed in the service, but why oh why does it have to be at this point? A simple "YES" would be better.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
Getting bored of spending my Saturday catching up with work e-mails so took a brief glimpse at the ship
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Roughly what Scotianus said - I think I read something very similar in one of John Stott's IVP works, so Tractarians and moderately con evos in agreement on this...........................
Exactly, which is presumably why my personal view has had to go through little change through my Stott type Evangelical youth to my current Anglo Catholic position (other views have changed e.g. re the sacraments),
The key is:
quote:
Originally posted by scoticanus:
....... The truth is that both faith and works are needed, but works are the result of faith, not a substitute for it.
I was quite surprised by
quote:
Originally posted by Alliebath:
…………..I see a problem in always trying to reconcile such differences, as between the view of ‘James’ and Paul. I do not think this syncretistic view point is helpful, especially on a thread alooking at Protestantism. We can just as simply define Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as exactly the same, just defining their words differently. I do think it will do………….
I think I can see why it would not do to simply define Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as exactly the same but my understanding is that the Reformation resulted in Protestant church and a reformed Catholic church both of which have further developed (its always my hope that the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth even if the ride appears very bumpy ). As a result of this development the Lutherans and the Romans have been working on a joint understanding of the role of faith and works and there is some form of joint declaration: this article gives one analysis of the situation.
I think the article suggest that both Protestant and Catholics may have legitimate theological reservations but why would protestants need to protest against such a development ?
The OP asked especially what modern Protestants believe. It offered Justification by faith alone as one defining issue. However, is it the only or even the main characteristic ?
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
Re the tangent:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Waldenses?
..............Some of them survived in Italy. After Napoleon thety began to come down out of the mountains and started orgainising Protestant churches in Italy. I'm not sure on this bit but I have a vague idea (mainly from contradictory websites) that like most Protestant denominations they got more liberal and less Calvinist in the 19th century. They are now allied with the Methodists (not that there are a lot of them in Italy...) and together make up the largest homegrown Italian Protestant denomination (not that that is saying much at all - there are individual congregations in some other countries that outnumber them)...........
I was taught Italian by a Waldenese in Milan 89-82, he was a very interesting academic type who worshipped in the Anglican Chaplaincy in Milan from time to time for lack of a convenient alternative. I cannot remember anything that differs from what ken said and they certainly seemed more liberal than a Calvinist - - I have a vague recollection that their version of the faith was v intellectual but that might have just been the representative that I knew.
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
As to the original post, I'm not sure that it's any more possible to say what "Protestants" believe than it is to say what "Christians" believe.
If you look into the history of Protestant denominations (and I don't consider myself an expert, because there is much history to know!), Luther genuinely wanted to reform the RC church and his issues were mainly theological/doctrinal; he was not looking to found a new denomination. Other Protestant reformers did consciously want to be separate from the RC church; these people had theological/doctrinal issues, but their context in time and culture also compelled them to think theologically about their ecclesiology.
As someone already said, as a Methodist, I have no problem with the Epsitle of James. But I grew up in a Lutheran denomination with strong quietist tendencies which almost made one feel guilty for trying to do any good to anyone lest one become beset with the sin of pride at trying to earn one's own salvation. I'll bet there are Protestant denominations which will inhabit different places on the spectrum between those two extremes.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
Jesus seems to have had fairly clear ideas about works:
"Not every one that saith unto me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but every one that doeth the will of my Father, which is in heaven."
"If you love me, keep my commandments."
"The second {commandment} is like, namely this: that you shall love your neighbour as yourself."
I don't think it's possible to separate right thought from right action. I also think this is a potential red herring in distinguishing Protestant from (Roman) Catholic or (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.F. Steve
Shipmate
# 9057
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Jesus seems to have had fairly clear ideas about works:
"Not every one that saith unto me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but every one that doeth the will of my Father, which is in heaven."
"If you love me, keep my commandments."
"The second {commandment} is like, namely this: that you shall love your neighbour as yourself."
I don't think it's possible to separate right thought from right action. I also think this is a potential red herring in distinguishing Protestant from (Roman) Catholic or (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity.
T.
I think you'll find that there is also considerable difference here, as Wesleyan traditions are very emphatic upon works as necessary "fruits of faith" while Lutheran circles are far less emphatic. And, Calvinist though makes works almost irrelevant, as well as the free will to engage in faith for that matter.
In fact, the Wesleyan thought regarding sanctification and the three forms of grace (Prevenient grace - freely given to all to heed the call; Justifying grace to save from damnation; Sanctifying grace to develop spiritually and approach (if never attaining) perfection) have some traits which are more comparable to Eastern Christianity than Western. I seem to recall once reading that John Wesley considered jumping ship and pursuing ordination as an Eastern Orthodox priest, but instead tried to reform the Anglican church from within.
Aside from this, the most identifying characteristics of Methodism would be the encouragement of logic and reason in all aspects of faith. This is certainly not something you will find encouraged within most Baptist churches.
--------------------
Lived in FL, TX, NE, CA... I'm now immune to culture shock.
Posts: 1187 | From: Central CA Coast | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
quote:
An epistle of straw!
Don't you just love Martin Luther.
This was said by Luther, about James, in an early edition of his translation of the German Bible. It also needs to be said that James is still part of the German Bible, and that we have written sermons from Luther, on James. So despite personal (and early) doubts, expressed as only Luther was able, the great man thought James was in.
Actually, on OP, the best way to begin understanding Protestantism is to begin with the original Protestant, Luther, and work on from him. Man between God and the Devil by Heiko Obermann is good, but nothing beats reading Luther himself. Plenty available online, some of it brief and to to the point. Read his stuff on Romans 1; he started believing "justification by faith alone" as he taught through Psalms and Romans in his Wittenberg teaching post.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.F. Steve:
Aside from this, the most identifying characteristics of Methodism would be the encouragement of logic and reason in all aspects of faith. This is certainly not something you will find encouraged within most Baptist churches.
The Scottish Baptist churches that I belonged to had that as essential, and so did the one I belonged to in England, which had a couple of Scottish ministers.
I would regard that as one of the most important aspects of protestantism - logic and reasoning married with faith and belief and trust in God.
One of the other aspects would be the "Protestant Work Ethic" which means always working really hard, right up to the "Sabbath" and then letting that be the day that you concentrate on not working. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
As to justification and sanctification, they both mean that you can act well in this world, because you have been transformed and redeemed and instinctively do good works as well as positively choosing to do them, avoiding temptation and obeying God's rules.
Another thing protestants do is learn bits of the bible off by heart, and learn the order of the "books of the bible" so that they can quickly find references, and again use their brains to compare and contrast and balance and marry verses and chapters, and dismiss bits they don't think fit in with reason.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Another thing protestants do is learn bits of the bible off by heart, and learn the order of the "books of the bible" so that they can quickly find references, and again use their brains to compare and contrast and balance and marry verses and chapters, and dismiss bits they don't think fit in with reason.
I'm a Protestant but I would object to this use of reason. I would start with Scripture and insist that reason must fit in with what is found there.
ETA: Luther was scathing about this use of reason, as his debates with Erasmus show.
[ 30. October 2005, 01:03: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.F. Steve
Shipmate
# 9057
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
quote:
Originally posted by A.F. Steve:
Aside from this, the most identifying characteristics of Methodism would be the encouragement of logic and reason in all aspects of faith. This is certainly not something you will find encouraged within most Baptist churches.
The Scottish Baptist churches that I belonged to had that as essential, and so did the one I belonged to in England, which had a couple of Scottish ministers.
I would regard that as one of the most important aspects of protestantism - logic and reasoning married with faith and belief and trust in God.
One of the other aspects would be the "Protestant Work Ethic" which means always working really hard, right up to the "Sabbath" and then letting that be the day that you concentrate on not working.
As to justification and sanctification, they both mean that you can act well in this world, because you have been transformed and redeemed and instinctively do good works as well as positively choosing to do them, avoiding temptation and obeying God's rules.
Another thing protestants do is learn bits of the bible off by heart, and learn the order of the "books of the bible" so that they can quickly find references, and again use their brains to compare and contrast and balance and marry verses and chapters, and dismiss bits they don't think fit in with reason.
Fair enough... In the US, however, one of the largest denominations in the US is the Southern Baptist Convention, and there is a very strong anti-intellectual element in these churches.
--------------------
Lived in FL, TX, NE, CA... I'm now immune to culture shock.
Posts: 1187 | From: Central CA Coast | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
Going back to the OP, the essence of the Reformation is the understanding that it is God's grace alone by which we are saved. This is the pivotal point, the fundamental difference between Protesants and others. This leads directly to other central truths; for example, the full sufficency of Christ's sacrifice for our conversion, justification and glorification, in fact for everything to take us from death to perfect life; and that all the glory for our salvation, and for everything else, belongs to God. It also implies Protestant worship, where the ability to worship is itself given to us by God, not invented by ourselves, and where true worship is trusting upon, acting in accordance with and expressing the aforementioned teaching.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I'm amazed the thread has got this long without anyone mentioning Augustine... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The way I see it, if the "the essence of the Reformation is the understanding that it is God's grace alone by which we are saved", then either Protestantism isn't saying much in it's essence, since this has already been accepted by the universall church from the beginning and has been proclaimed at the council of Orange, or we end up with the heresy of Calvinism, were God is portrayed as a monster for saving some and condemning others.
So, I have to ask, when you say "by grace alone" you mean it in the orthodox context of the council of Orange, or in the context of Calvinism? And if you use it in Orange's context, then why Reformation happened and it's fruit need to exist still?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Indeed, andreas1984, ever since the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church it has become perfectly clear that this is (and actually always was) a non-issue. Unfortunately, while bogus disagreement on doctrine was sufficient to split the Western church, current re-agreement is not sufficient to unite it. The social and ecclesiastical momentum of centuries most likely cannot be reversed.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Yes, this is what I thought too, but let's see what Protestants think, because Zwingli said that we differ from Protestants on that, so there may be something I don't see.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Indeed, andreas1984, ever since the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church it has become perfectly clear that this is (and actually always was) a non-issue. Unfortunately, while bogus disagreement on doctrine was sufficient to split the Western church, current re-agreement is not sufficient to unite it. The social and ecclesiastical momentum of centuries most likely cannot be reversed.
What a pity that at the time of the Reformation someone in the Roman Catholic church didn't say "Hang on a second, what are we arguing about? We don't actually disagree, you know. Let's all have a nice party, maybe with some cake, and forget the whole thing."
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
R.A.M.
Shipmate
# 7390
|
Posted
I strongly suspect even if there had been a party the two groups would have violently disagreed on the One True Cake; as such history would have taken its course much unchanged (except maybe fruitier).
On a less flippant note, surely the way that most people experience the differences between Catholocism and Protestantism is in the style of worship; and the importance given to certain rituals or observences. These may have some echo in doctrine - but 90% of any given congregation will only partially understand this. The question to ask to help understand other churches is "Why do you do ___?" immeadietly followed by "So why don't I/we do ___?".
--------------------
Formerly Real Ale Methodist
Back after prolonged absence...
Posts: 1584 | From: (Sunshine on) Leith | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Indeed, andreas1984, ever since the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church it has become perfectly clear that this is (and actually always was) a non-issue. Unfortunately, while bogus disagreement on doctrine was sufficient to split the Western church, current re-agreement is not sufficient to unite it. The social and ecclesiastical momentum of centuries most likely cannot be reversed.
What a pity that at the time of the Reformation someone in the Roman Catholic church didn't say "Hang on a second, what are we arguing about? We don't actually disagree, you know. Let's all have a nice party, maybe with some cake, and forget the whole thing."
No, no. It's the CofE that loves cake.
CofE Inquistor: "Cake or death?"
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
bogus disagreement on doctrine was sufficient to split the Western church
Disagreement about the rightness of the sale of indulgences was bogus?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
bogus disagreement on doctrine was sufficient to split the Western church
Disagreement about the rightness of the sale of indulgences was bogus?
What I tried to say before:
quote:
Originally posted by Merchant Trader:
The OP asked especially what modern Protestants believe. It offered Justification by faith alone' as one defining issue. However, is it the only or even the main characteristic ?
I think we have tramrailed ourselves n the 'justifcation by faith issue.There were (and are) other issues. Ruth has suggested the sale of indulgences but again this is an also an area where the Romans have been reformed too. Someone suggested styles of worship but as far as I can see a huge range of syle is allowed in both the Anglican and Roman churches and, I presume others too. My own suggestion is the question of authority - I am a three legged stool man who has problems with the idea of infalliable Papal authority. What else distinguishes Protestants?
[ 30. October 2005, 16:41: Message edited by: Merchant Trader ]
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Scriptural language was another area originally, which has now been changed. I would say that generally, there is a greater sacramental focus in Catholic than Protestant churches, and vice versa for a focus on teaching from the front.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The Orthodox reject both papal infallibility and indulgences, so this is not what makes Protestantism unique. But the issue of authority is an interesting one. The Orthodox think that the Lord and the Apostles have taught the Church in all things and that the Church has kept these teachings in her life and heart. How do Protestants reply to that?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I brought up the sale of indulgences not to say that objecting to it is a unique feature of Protestantism but because IngoB had implied that there was no good reason for the Reformation to have taken place.
[clarity is good]
[ 30. October 2005, 17:51: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.F. Steve
Shipmate
# 9057
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The Orthodox reject both papal infallibility and indulgences, so this is not what makes Protestantism unique. But the issue of authority is an interesting one. The Orthodox think that the Lord and the Apostles have taught the Church in all things and that the Church has kept these teachings in her life and heart. How do Protestants reply to that?
Sola Scriptura would be another good point... Many protestant branches view the Bible as the sole authority, though Anglicanism and by extension Methodism look to tradition as authoritative as well, though not as equal with scriptures.
To great extent, Protestantism was a rejection of the corruption of the church through the dark ages. Out of desires to reform the Roman Catholic church came those who wished to restore the church to perceived New Testament Christianity. The Eastern church was seen as an apostatic, and the western church as corrupt and degraded. Thus, the desire to erase the past two millenia and start over again anew. The various churches went in all different directions from here, but a desire to cast off what was seen as a corrupt, secular remnant of the original church and restore it to its initial simplicity is Protestantism at its most basic.
The Anglican church, of course, is the result of Queen Elizabeth's search for a "middle way" between Protestants' desires to wipe the slate clean and RCs' loyalty to the rich tradition of faith. It's always appeared to be pseudo-protestant at best, leading to the jokes (at least over here) of Episcopalians being "Catholic-lite"
--------------------
Lived in FL, TX, NE, CA... I'm now immune to culture shock.
Posts: 1187 | From: Central CA Coast | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
I have been loking for a signature ! - Thanks A. F. Steve
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Yes, but this is not Sola Scriptura, because one group of Christians arbitrarily chooses the Scriptures as the only authority when the Scriptures themselves speak of the rich oral tradition the Apostles gave to the Church. I think that Protestants by rejecting other sources do not uphold the Scriptures, but try to find a way to validate their opinions which are different than those the other Christians have. How do Protestants reply to that? I think that Sola Scriptura is not really helpful in order to understand Protestantism, because both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church revere Scriptures as well. For example, I note that the practices of the Orthodox are not in opposition with the Scriptures. So, in what way does the use of the Scriptures makes Protestantism unique?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Waldensians:
Not much to add as I have forgotten most of what I know. They themselves tell the story of a trek to Geneva during one of the Persecutions and the story of the return.
Liberal maybe in the same sense the URC is liberal. Calvinism goes for extremes, either conservative or liberal, so being liberal does not remove being Calvinist! Actually its more subtle than that but I leave that up to you to work out. Unitarians and United Churches of Christ both have Calvinist roots.
Thirdly they are politically left of the communist party of Italy and very anti Roman Catholic due to the persecution they have suffered.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
For example, I note that the practices of the Orthodox are not in opposition with the Scriptures. So, in what way does the use of the Scriptures makes Protestantism unique?
Large numbers of people (many of them Protestants) would disagree with your first sentence.
Given two conflicting views of the meaning of scripture, you would turn to the teachings of the heirachical organisation you (from a Protestant view) mistakenly call the Church. You view the teachings of that heirachy to be trustworthy.
At the core of Protestantism is a view that human organisations are not always trustworthy in this imperfect/fallen world, and that it is thus responsibility of the individual believer, as part of the Church (ie all Christians) and in the light of God's indwelling spirit to discern right beliefs and from them right actions.
Speaking for myself, the Bible is our best and earliest witness to the Word of God, Christ. Other people will obviously go further.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Another thing protestants do is learn bits of the bible off by heart, and learn the order of the "books of the bible" so that they can quickly find references, and again use their brains to compare and contrast and balance and marry verses and chapters, and dismiss bits they don't think fit in with reason.
I'm a Protestant but I would object to this use of reason. I would start with Scripture and insist that reason must fit in with what is found there.
ETA: Luther was scathing about this use of reason, as his debates with Erasmus show.
I think there is a probably a biggish difference between very northern european and other ways of using and respecting reason. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, mind..." means that they respect the fact that God has given us the opportunity of thinking about beliefs, including scripture teachings. It goes on to the point where some people get unbelieving in specific places that others accept.
On a different definition/history of protestantism, one of the deepest roots (not Australian ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) ) is the reading and studying the bible in their own language, and not always being taught what to believe, but making their own minds up - again leading to positive and negative results in behaviour and belief.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Large numbers of people (many of them Protestants) would disagree with your first sentence.
If you are one of them, then I ask you to tell me which practices of the Orthodox Church are not in accordance to scriptures. Furthermore, if you are Protestant, I'd like to ask you on many practices God in the scriptures commands, like fasting. Do you fast? Do you magnify the Mother of God, according to the prophecy made by the Holy Spirit? I am asking because I have heard that Protestants have some reservations on these practices. I think that this thread might be a good place to clarify these things.
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Given two conflicting views of the meaning of scripture, you would turn to the teachings of the heirachical organisation
Do you have a specific example of that being the case? Or do you just speculate on how the Orthodox cope with problems? For example, I have not heard of conflicting views on the meaning of scripture inside Orthodoxy for as long I live. There are conflicts, but not on the meaning of scripture. Do you have something particular in mind?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ericksdahl
Apprentice
# 10588
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I want to use this thread so that we can all learn more about Protestantism, especially what modern Protestants believe in and what they believed in throughout their (brief) history.
So, I propose we discuss some points through this thread.
Let me start the discussion by quoting the epistle of James (2.24), where it is written quote:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
How did the people that created Protestantism view that verse? What do modern Protestants think about it now?
I do not know if you consider me a “modern” Protestant but as a member of the original Protestants, as Lutheran, I will frame my answers.
The epistle of James was called an epistle of straw by Luther because he saw in it at first the opposite position that Paul took on justification but as time went by he did not throw it out. He kept it. He never did hold it up to be one of the major readings that theology should be formulated from. He stated that scriptures were the manger that held the infant, the Living Word. All scriptures should point to this Living Word. The gospels revealed Jesus most clearly. So he did proclaim scriptures alone but some were more important than others.
Luther points out that James did try to rise to the occasion and address those who had an intellectual ascent to the gospel of Jesus but whose faith did not change or shape their lives. James was addressing a group of dead assed, lazy Christians. Here is Luther on James, “In a word, he(James) wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.” Luther Works 35
Luther also points out that many of the acients (though I have not done enough research to know who he refers to) rejected James outright. So he is not alone in his regarding James as not as important. If traditon is important to you then Luther is not acting alone. Nothing is wrong with the idea that works are important. What is being objected to is the idea that works are the base of salvation.
Grace & Peace!
Posts: 23 | From: West Texas | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ericksdahl:
Luther also points out that many of the acients (though I have not done enough research to know who he refers to) rejected James outright. So he is not alone in his regarding James as not as important. If traditon is important to you then Luther is not acting alone. Nothing is wrong with the idea that works are important. What is being objected to is the idea that works are the base of salvation.
Two points here. First, not putting James in the canon because they were ignorant of the epistle's existence does not mean that they rejected it. Unless you can find evidence where they specifically rejected it.
Secondly, works might not be the base of salvation, they are the base of the Judgement to come though.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I want to use this thread so that we can all learn more about Protestantism, especially what modern Protestants believe in and what they believed in throughout their (brief) history.
...
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
How did the people that created Protestantism view that verse? What do modern Protestants think about it now?
If I might say so, I think you are asking the wrong question - if you want to understand Protestantism better.
The simple answer to your question is that the Reformers tried to wangle their way out of it. But that's inevitable because it's the one verse in the Bible that sits most uncomfortably with Protestant understanding of justification.
It's the same as the way that the second commandment is the one verse in the Bible that sits most uncomfortably with Orthodox use of images. And if I wanted to understand Orthodoxy better I would learn very little from asking how exactly they get around that prominent prohibition. I would learn a lot more by asking how they understand images, positively.
If you do want to understand Protestantism better (rather than baiting Protestants (not suggesting that that was your intention, but it is perhaps the likely result of your approach)) you would I think do better to ask how they understand Paul's teaching on justification.
After all, the fundamental problem with the verse you quote is that it directly and explicitly contradicts Paul, so every Christian tradition that does not believe the Bible contains errors has to wangle its way out of one or the other.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Hi there SteveTom!
Thanks for your comments, but I think that we have gotten past the meaning of this verse. I didn't imply that the verse is against sanctification by God's grace. I only asked on the meaning of the verse. So, in a way, I did what you propose. You are right in the approach you suggest.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
But the issue of authority is an interesting one. The Orthodox think that the Lord and the Apostles have taught the Church in all things and that the Church has kept these teachings in her life and heart. How do Protestants reply to that?
The reformers would agree that the Lord and the apostles taught the church; in reply to the idea that the medieval church had kept these teachings, they would laugh until lager came out of their noses.
quote:
Furthermore, if you are Protestant, I'd like to ask you on many practices God in the scriptures commands, like fasting. Do you fast?
Protestants have always practised fasting (that's not to say all of them, necessarily, but in general). The difference is that they would tend to do it as an accompaniment to prayer as the need arose, rather than as a regular ritual or ascetic way of life, seeing this as the Biblical precedent.
quote:
Do you magnify the Mother of God, according to the prophecy made by the Holy Spirit?
I think most Protestants would be puzzled by the suggestion that the Bible contains a prophecy instructing readers to magnify the Mother of God.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Furthermore, if you are Protestant, I'd like to ask you on many practices God in the scriptures commands, like fasting. Do you fast? Do you magnify the Mother of God, according to the prophecy made by the Holy Spirit? I am asking because I have heard that Protestants have some reservations on these practices. I think that this thread might be a good place to clarify these things.
Some Protestants fast, some don't. The differences seem to be whether or not the group sees fasting as an RC practice or as a biblical one.
And as to magnifying the Mother of God, most Protestants would say that such an act comes close (if not does) put Mary at the same level as Jesus and that we worship the One God, not two. And, therefore, such an act is against the first commandment of worshiping God and only God. Mary to them is important, but nothing is more important than Jesus and his word.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ericksdahl
Apprentice
# 10588
|
Posted
In reply to several of andreas1984's posts
quote:
If you are one of them, then I ask you to tell me which practices of the Orthodox Church are not in accordance to scriptures. Furthermore, if you are Protestant, I'd like to ask you on many practices God in the scriptures commands, like fasting. Do you fast?
Not in order to achieve justification or sanctification but I have done so (fasted) in order to clear my mind and focus on where it is God is leading me. My stomach shows me that I need to be listening to God more !
quote:
Do you magnify the Mother of God, according to the prophecy made by the Holy Spirit? I am asking because I have heard that Protestants have some reservations on these practices. I think that this thread might be a good place to clarify these things.
We do not pray to her or ask her to intervene for us since we go straight to her son but we do lift her up as a model of faith, as being the earthly mother of Jesus and being a vessel that God used to make himself known to us. She is an example to us of how we should react to God’s calling and how to live in faith.
quote:
Two points here. First, not putting James in the canon because they were ignorant of the epistle's existence does not mean that they rejected it. Unless you can find evidence where they specifically rejected it.
Here is apparently what Luther was using for at least part of his base for saying that the ancients rejected it. I am sure there are others but this is one I found quickly as a footnote to Luther's works.
In the earliest general history of the church, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (II, xxiii, 25), the author (died ca. 339) writes, “Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude’s.” Lake, op. cit, I, 179. Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of “Disputed Books” (History, III, xxiv, 3). Lake, op. cit., I, 257. Cf. the statement by Jerome (d. 420) in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II) concerning the pseudonymity ascribed to the epistle of James and its rather gradual attainment of authoritative status. Migne 23, 609.
quote:
Secondly, works might not be the base of salvation, they are the base of the Judgement to come though.
We are justified by Christ's finished work on the cross not our works. The finished work of Jesus on the cross makes our works possible but we are made righteous and acceptable to God by God not man. You will see our faith by our works is very true except many will try to do works to earn salvation and acceptance while their hearts will be full of evil. Jesus was very harsh against the Pharisees who paraded around their "works" while what God really wanted was their hearts.
Are you aware that in the Reformation, Luther tried to work with the Orthodox leaders but only got a lukewarm if not cold reception?
Posts: 23 | From: West Texas | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
ericksdahl
A. Eusebious talks about people not knowing James, and therefore not adding his epistle to the canon. This is why he says that the authenticity is questioned, because not all ancient authors seemed to know that epistle.
B. People that are not Christians will be judged on that day too. These people, like the rest of us, will not get judged for their faith, but from their works. Blessed are the dead for their works come with them, John wrote in Revelations.
C. If you read the correspondence between the early Protestants and the Orthodox, you will see that they did not want to work with them, but to make them accept their Confessions of Faith, and that the Orthodox were not cold, but rather warm and kind. Have you actually read the correspondence?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
