Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49183 | ||
Joe, Here is link which addresses a question about "the current status of the anathemas of Trent" and also a touches on the fact that the anathemas of that Council were canon law anathemas, which differs from biblical anathemas. I must confess it is not a question I loose a lot of sleep over. (I also don't loose any sleep over Protestant anathemas of Catholics, whatever form they take.)But apparently you are not alone in your interest. http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q137.htm Emmaus |
||||||
2 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49191 | ||
So what is the difference between "canon-law anathema" and "biblical anathema." The link you posted just stated that the two were different. Is there any historical support for such a view. It also alludes to the Nicene anathema as an example of a "traditional wording." But here is the Nicene anathema: "But those who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that He had no existence before He was begotten, or that He was formed of things non-existent, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different substance or essence, or is created, mutable, or variable, these men the Catholic and Apostolic Church of God holds accursed." Can someone believe what is anathematized above and still be a Christian? I hope that we would both agree that he cannot. Likewise, I would assume that since there is no salvation outside the Church, any type of anathema (biblical or canon-law or whatever), being a form of excommunication, would be considered a "cutting off" of the anathematized (including Protestants before 1983, apparently) from the means of grace unto salvation, barring recanting and repenting on the part of the "heretic." In the Bible itself, it means nothing else but "accursed" (such as the Judaizers preaching a false gospel in Galatians 1:8-9 and Paul's desire that he be accursed for the sake of his fellow Jews in Romans 9:3). Nowhere do we see any license for it to be interpreted as a disciplinary measure by the church, but rather a direct and final judgment from God. I would need a lot more historical support for such a two-tiered "anathematizing" before I would buy into such a notion. Seems like attempts at retroactive harmonizing on the part of canon lawyers. How did the Church of Rome understand Trent in the 17th century? Was it different than the 1994 Catechism depicts the relationship between Protestants and Catholics? And why, if the church is infallible, would they abolish the anathema after so long (at least as far back as Nicea, according to the answer given in the link you provided)? --Joe! |
||||||
3 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49374 | ||
Joe, As I have previously indicated this subject s not my forte. However I found an interesting dialogue on another website that cover the exact same ground between a Reformed believer and a Catholic who is better organized in this area than I, although I recognize and have read his sources. If you can take time from battles on other fronts, the dialogue at these links may speak to a great extent for both of us. The dialogue is in two parts, hence the two links in order. Have a good holiday weekend. http://catholicoutlook.com/tim1.html http://catholicoutlook.com/tim12.html Emmaus |
||||||
4 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49394 | ||
Thanks for taking the time to get those links for me, Emmaus. Of course, this is a Catholic Web site, and I was less than impressed with the Protestant's line of inquiry. One thing that was brought up regarding heresy that I would like to address with you, however. The Catholic said this: 'You can be sure that the Pelagians considered their doctrines to be the “true gospel,” and they had the Scriptures to back it up. Likewise the Nestorians, Donatists, and Monophysites considered their doctrines to be the “true gospel,” and they too had the Scriptures to back it up.' I would disagree here. The Pelagians and these other heretics were heretics precisely because their doctrines could not be backed up with the whole of Scripture. The early church condemned these groups as heretics, not simply because they differed with the Mother Church (which is another interesting argument in itself since Arians and Pelagians were PART of the Mother Church at the time), but because their views cannot be backed up by the whole counsel of God found in the Scriptures. Interestingly enough, if we look at church history, we find that doctrinal truth was often held by a minority of bishops. For example, at one point Athanasius stood virtually alone in his condemnation of Arianism, and he was exiled more than once by the powers that be. We could take a modern-day heresy and examine it in light of the question of authority. When a Jehovah's Witness comes to my door, I know that he will have verses which, taken out of context, will seem to back his theological perspective. However, being somewhat well-versed in the Scriptures, I know that there are a great many more passages from Scripture which shed light on the false interpretations of the Watchtower Society, rendering their theology to be false. Likewise, the Arians and the Pelagians and the Monophysites can be shown to be in error not simply because they disagree with the early church, but because they disagree with Scripture. When Luther stood before the church officials at Worms, he likewise said that he would not recant unless the Roman position could be demonstrated from Scripture or by common human reason. The problem for the Reformers was not that the church was interpreting Scripture wrong as much as the church was ignoring Scripture for the sake of human traditions that had gradually supplanted the supreme authority of God's word. It wasn;t what was "twisted" in Scripture as much as it was what was "added to" Scripture (and contrary to what Scripture clearly teaches and what the church originally held) and given apostolic authority. The other point I would like to bring up is this statement made by the Catholic participant, when asked about Roman Catholicism being a different gospel in light of Galatians 1: 'Okay, then you must also consider either Calvin’s or Luther’s gospel to be “a different gospel,” since their doctrines were radically different from each other. Which of these men do you think fell under Paul’s anathema, Luther or Calvin?' Now that is moving into a bit of intellectual dishonesty. While Luther and Calvin did disagree on certain issues (chiefly the nature and role of the sacraments), they did not disagree one bit on how a person is saved. Confessional Lutheranism and Calvinism are not "different gospels," any more than the Fransicans, Jesuits, and Benedictines are promoting a "different gospel" than the Dominicans, Cistercians, and Augustinians. As much as some Catholics try and suppress this fact, there are "in-house" disagreements on matters of doctrine in the Mother Church as well. --Joe! |
||||||
5 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49400 | ||
Joe, Of course I would disagree with your analysis, especially comparing different Catholic religious orders with different Protestant denominations. Their dogmatic theology is not different as you will find in different Protestant denominations. Of all the points you make that is the weakest. The unity of the Protestant denominations is in what they are not (Catholic) rather than than in what they are, since they are regularly protestants among themselves as seem by the proliferation of churches, denominational or non. And the argument about the ancient heretics using scripture to support their positions is valid They did that in exactly the same way various parties do the same thing on this forum. The difference is that in the forum and in the Protestant world there is no other really binding authority if one Church, say Lutheran or Reformed, has no more authority than another in resolving these scriptural disputes as the Church Councils do. So we have the sad scandal and spectacle of an ever expanding pattern of division with no hope for an end in sight until the second coming unless there is some sort of significant reunification, which humanly speaking seems rather unlikely without some sort of intervention of divine grace. Emmaus One thing even more sure is that you and I are not going to resolve the matter in our discussions no matter how much we may enjoy the exchange and intellectual and theological exercise. Emmaus |
||||||
6 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49469 | ||
Classical, evangelical Protestants are united on several things. Gee, you make it seem like we are just one big "anti-Catholic club" or something! The Protestants of the Reformation were united in saying that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone. They were also united in saying that while the church are God's people and have been given authority in interpreting Scripture, only Scripture is a binding authority on matters of faith and life. In all Protestant churches that believe the Bible is the word of God, all of these things are held in common. Likewise, while Catholic orders do agree on the key dogmas of Catholicism, the rules established by different orders do emphasize different things. Many of the orders, such as the Society of Jesus, were started as reforming orders within the church. The Franciscans faced a great deal of grief from other Catholics over their insistence upon "apostolic poverty." Many in the Order of St. Francis went to far as to accuse the rest of the orders to be lapsed Catholics who did not understand the Christian life at all. The fact is that, while all who take holy orders are part of Catholicism, there are substantial differences between different orders which, while not being central to Roman Catholicism, are important to them and often the cause of internal disagreements. You wrote: "And the argument about the ancient heretics using scripture to support their positions is valid." I never argued that cults and heretics do not use Scripture to support their claims. My point was that it is not a simple stalemate between opposing parties, simply because the early church used the WHOLE of Scripture to point out where their interpretations were false. For example, the Arians can point out passages where Jesus claims that the Father is "greater than" He is. But once we look at the whole of apostolic revelation in Scripture, it becomes quite clear that Jesus is not talking about His essence or stating that He is a created being. That is the path the Council of Nicea took in condemning him, rather than putting their heads together in a huddle and coming out to say, "This is true because the Church says so." You wrote: "The difference is that in the forum and in the Protestant world there is no other really binding authority if one Church, say Lutheran or Reformed, has no more authority than another in resolving these scriptural disputes as the Church Councils do." I accept many of the Church councils as binding. My church stands with you in believing the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon. We look at Augustine and Aquinas and Anselm and read them as well, even though we do not view their teachings as binding, we recognize that they were used of God to properly interpret Scripture in a great number of instances. My denomination, like most rooted in the Reformation, recognizes RCC baptism as valid as well, even if it disagrees with Rome on what the sacrament "does." I have a very high view of the church. The confession to which I subscribe agrees with the historical position of Rome in stating that "out of which [the church] there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." We just differ on what our definition of the "church" is. Have you ever taken the opportunity to read what the Westminster Confession of Faith says about the Church? If you haven't, I think that taking a look at it might clear up some misconceptions of theauthority I do acknowledge the church in having. Chapter 25 of the WCF is a very short one, and I encourage you to look at it, if only for clarification of my position: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ And I know that if in almost half a milennium that we have not resolved the differences, that a meager series of posts is not going to accomplish much. But I do enjoy the exchange, and hope that you aren't put off by my strong wording. I am not insulted by yours! --Joe! |
||||||
7 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49475 | ||
Joe, I am sure I will suvive strong words. Do you susbcribe to the "anti-Christ" description of the pope in Chapter XXV of the WCF? Talk about anathemas. Emmaus |
||||||
8 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49489 | ||
Yep, talk about them! :) Here is the statement of my denomination on that very section: "The Presbyterian Church in America received the same Confession and Catechisms as those that were adopted by the first American Presbyterian Assembly of 1789, with two minor exceptions, namely, the deletion of strictures against marrying one's wife's kindred (XXIV,4), and the reference to the Pope as the antichrist (XXV,6). Other than these changes, and the American amendments of Chapter XXIII on the civil magistrate (adopted in 1789), this is the Confession and Catechisms as agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster which met from 1643-1647. The Caruthers edition of the Confession and Catechisms, which is based upon the original manuscript written by Cornelius Burgess is the Edition presented to and adopted by the First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America." (http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_preface.htm) So we can acknowledge that some of our spiritual predecessors went too far, erroneously so. But once again, the Confession does not carry the same authority as the Scriptures, so acknowledging the fallibility (and even error) of the Westminster divines does not pose a problem for us. --Joe! |
||||||
9 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49531 | ||
Joe, Thank you. I was aware of the different language in the American Confession. I am happy to know you subscribe to it. Hope springs eternal for an ultimate reconciliation at some point. Emmaus |
||||||
10 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49546 | ||
Yeah, too bad the RCC idea of "reconciliation" involves a unilateral abandonment on the part of Protestants of all the doctrine over which we divided in the first place! :) --Joe! |
||||||
11 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49552 | ||
Joe, Once again you have the last word. Emmaus |
||||||