Some Luther
Martin Luther from Bondage of the Will page 133:
"...the Scriptures are perfectly clear in their teaching, and that by their help such a defence of our position may be made that our adveraries cannot resist; and that what cannot be thus defended is not our business, and is of no concern to Christians." (emphasis mine)I wonder if Luther ever imagined the 100's if not 1000's of denominations that would spring up after these words of his?
Is Luther rolling over in his grave, or is he merely mistaken?
Posted by jeremy stock at April 16, 2002 09:58 PMLuther's probably rolling over in his grave because there's a link to an Orthodox church right above a link to a Protestant one :-).
I like the Eunich's answer when Philip asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" His answer: "How can I, unless someone guides me?" Obviously this doesn't conclusively prove what we want it to prove, but I do think a good point can be made there.
Posted by: wayne at April 16, 2002 10:24 PMWhat do you want it to prove, Wayne?
Posted by: John at April 17, 2002 08:04 AMI wonder if Luther ever imagined the 100's if not 1000's of denominations that would spring up after these words of his?
So what? Rome isn't any more unified than the Protestant church is, they just have a snappy looking hierarchy covering the cracks. Orthodox? I don't know Orthodox but I bet they're just as divided since they are people just like the rest of us.
That notion that a church is unified just because there is a superstructure above it is nonsense. Protestants are divided and they label themselves so. It isn't any better a situation, it just strips off the thin, rosy veneer.
No matter what 'brand' we are, Jesus still said that the world would know we were His by our love for each other and He prayed that we would be as unified as He and His Father. That is a reality we need to work for, but I am pretty sure it isn't going to be seen until His return.
Posted by: Tim Etherington at April 17, 2002 11:04 AMHi John,
Well, in the discussion on "Tradition and the Canon" at my site (sorry, no archive links for the moment) Jeremy made a good point that ties in to this particular post:
Another interesting question related to this whole dicussion is: "Why would the Holy Spirit insure the preservation of the Canon, without insuring the proper interpretation of that canon?" Put another way, and more crudely, "What good are the written Scriptures if the interpretation of those Scriptures comes down to a "free for all"-- each man (insert denomination) finding his/its own interpretation?"
Hi Tim,
Rome isn't any more unified than the Protestant church is, they just have a snappy looking hierarchy covering the cracks. Orthodox? I don't know Orthodox but I bet they're just as divided since they are people just like the rest of us.Hmmm... I'm not sure what to say to this nor am I entirely positive that I understand what you mean here. Both the churches of Rome and of the East share the same dogmatic formulations of their respective faiths, and although there may be differences of opinion within the structure of both churches, this does not mean that they are divided in the same sense that Protestants are divided. In regards to Orthodoxy, there is no centralized "superstructure" like that of Rome; rather the Orthodox Church is comprised of 14 (perhaps 15, I think) autonomous churches. What makes Orthodoxy unified is that all of these churches share the same faith and are in full communion with each other. Of course there are differences of opinion regarding a number of issues, but to say that this constitutes the same sort of disunity that characterizes Protestantism is simply false and a gross mischaracterization.
That notion that a church is unified just because there is a superstructure above it is nonsense.I don't think Jeremy was at all implying this, nor would Rome or the East say that their unity comes from a centralized superstructure alone. I think what I wrote above should be sufficient (for now) to address this. Posted by: wayne at April 17, 2002 12:01 PM
Wayne, you're following me! :)
Of course there are differences of opinion regarding a number of issues, but to say that this constitutes the same sort of disunity that characterizes Protestantism is simply false and a gross mischaracterization.Perhaps I am being overly simplistic, I don't know. I'm going to pick on Rome here because...uh...because I'm a Protestant! :) Roman apologists point to the disunity of the Protestant Church as proof of the error of that system. That implies a better form of unity in the Roman system, yes? And what you've just said, while perhaps accurate in degree, shows, to my mind, how willing non-Protestants are to gloss their problems in this area. Walk into a Roman Catholic Church in Peru, Boston, and Africa and, aside from the same statues of Mary and the same picture of the Pope, you'd swear they were each practicing different religions. I'm not talking about language, I'm talking about practice, devotion, and doctrine.
My point about the Magisterium was that that is often the example of Roman unity. They set doctrine, they ordain priests, they establish a RC church as an RC church. That's all nice but the RC in the pew usually doesn't have a clue (and often couldn't care) about what the Magisterium said about x, y, or z.
Posted by: Tim Etherington at April 17, 2002 02:07 PMDid Luther consider scriptures to be clear in their teaching before or AFTER you toss out James?
Posted by: Katherine at April 17, 2002 02:16 PMP.S. Jeremy, if you don't mind my inserting it here....
What does, "feeling cornered, but all alone" mean?
You're a wannabe Dostoyevsky because you are NOT all alone!
Katherine,
Did Luther consider scriptures to be clear in their teaching before or AFTER you toss out James?Now, now. Luther didn't throw out James, he just didn't like it, "an epistle of straw" he said. He also said that while he didn't like it, he wouldn't deny its place in the canon. I think poor Martin just got tired of explaining James 2:24.
I saw one fella that pitched Hebrews because he didn't like what it had to say about Jewish customs.
Posted by: Tim Etherington at April 17, 2002 03:05 PM"My current church" - haha! I love it.
A presbyterian was found stranded on a dessert island, and the sailors who rescued him saw 3 huts. "What are the huts?" the sailors asked. The man replied "The first one is my house, the second one is my church." - "What about the third?" asked the sailor.
"Oh, that's my OLD church."
Posted by: Blake at April 17, 2002 03:57 PMYes, a dessert island, with strawberries and whipped cream all over the place.
Posted by: Blake at April 17, 2002 03:58 PM~~~"My current church" - haha! I love it.~~~
I knew someone would catch onto that....
Posted by: jeremy at April 17, 2002 06:15 PMTim, I've read from numerous sources that Luther wanted to throw out James as well as two other books of the canon. It seems that saying, "he didn't like it (James)" is putting it lightly if he wanted to get rid of it completely and fought to do so.
That's my understanding of history, but then, I don't want to argue details. My point was simply to say that even Luther, although he wanted to argue that scripture is perfectly clear in its teaching, wanted to get rid of the books that HE disagreed with.
What if everyone just got rid of all the passages (or books) that they disagreed with? Instead of just having different interpretations... just argue that it doesn't have a place in the canon.
Anyway, my point was minor and I don't want to argue about such a small thing. I guess I shouldn't open my mouth around here if I don't want to argue... :)
Posted by: Katherine at April 17, 2002 06:23 PMI don't find arguments from denominational anarchy terribly weighty. A couple of points about the gazillion denominations that exist:
[1] They are not all Protestant. Some are hybrids: e.g., Anglican Catholics. Some are later splits from Roman Catholicism: e.g., Lefevrists, the Old Catholics. Some are splits from Orthodoxy: e.g., Russian Old Believers. Some have pre-Reformation origins: e.g., Waldensians, Moravians. Some have separate origins from any other branch of the church: e.g., some of the Asian Churches of the east.
[2] In most of the world there aren't a gazillion denominations to choose from. Rather, you will only find two or three denominations with any significant presence in a single area. Scandinavia is Lutheran. Southern India is Church of South India. Korea is Presbyterian or Catholic. France is Catholic or Reformed. Much of East Africa is Catholic, Anglican, or Reformed. Romania is Orthodox. And so on.
[3] Denominationalism is an American problem. It is a function of several factors: [a] American individualism; [b] Immigration from diverse places; [c] American anti-authoritarianism; [d] American pragmatism. While some of these American tendencies can be attributed in part to certain peculiar and largely Anglo-American religious phenomena (revivalism, baptist religion, etc.), I would submit that denominationalism has a whole lot more to do with America than it does with some supposedly inherent defect in Protestantism.
Posted by: garver at April 17, 2002 10:05 PM"Throw Jimmy into the stove."
ML
I strongly agree with Joel. The implication in the statement about Luther is that private interpretation is the cause of many denominations. But I think Joel is quite right that denominational factionalism is an American phenomenon -- and a fairly recent one at that.
Of course, you can't escape factions by turning to Orthodoxy. They're still fighting among themselves over who gets jurisdiction (or do they create a new national Orthodox church?) in America.
Historic Protestant churches also share the same faith among themselves (e.g., the solas of the Reformation) and within their historically geographic "homes" the same confessions (e.g., all Presbyterians subscribe to the Westminster Standards). These confessions are as much a guide -- more, IMO -- than anything in Orthodoxy.
Jeremy, everything you're looking for is in your "current" church.
Posted by: Martin at April 18, 2002 01:59 AMJoel writes:
~~~[1] They are not all Protestant. Some are hybrids: e.g., Anglican Catholics. Some are later splits from Roman Catholicism: e.g., Lefevrists, the Old Catholics. Some are splits from Orthodoxy: e.g., Russian Old Believers. Some have pre-Reformation origins: e.g., Waldensians, Moravians. Some have separate origins from any other branch of the church: e.g., some of the Asian Churches of the east.~~~In response to [1] I would like to point out that though there are "some" group factions other than within Protestantism the point still stands that within Protestantism there are literally hundreds of factions and their differences are, more often than not, very great and foundational, e.g., Methodist/Calvary Chapels; Baptist/Presbyterian; Anglican/Pentocostal; etc. So, to lessen the number of "relevant" sects somewhat by claiming that some of them aren't even Protestant seems to be a somewhat trivial point.
Joel writes:
[2] In most of the world there aren't a gazillion denominations to choose from. Rather, you will only find two or three denominations with any significant presence in a single area. Scandinavia is Lutheran. Southern India is Church of South India. Korea is Presbyterian or Catholic. France is Catholic or Reformed. Much of East Africa is Catholic, Anglican, or Reformed. Romania is Orthodox. And so on.Just because certain countries have more monolithic ties to a particular denomination or church does not, in my mind, alter the point that these hundreds of denominations exist; they exist somewhere,predominantly in the U.S.
Joel writes:
[3] Denominationalism is an American problem. It is a function of several factors: [a] American individualism; [b] Immigration from diverse places; [c] American anti-authoritarianism; [d] American pragmatism. While some of these American tendencies can be attributed in part to certain peculiar and largely Anglo-American religious phenomena (revivalism, baptist religion, etc.), I would submit that denominationalism has a whole lot more to do with America than it does with some supposedly inherent defect in Protestantism.On this point I would simply have to disagree with you. It seems to me that though many of these denominations may have their roots in America they are not keeping it that way. Most Protestant churches (and this is to their credit) are highly evangelistic in their missionary work. Most of these churches are engaged in international missionary work, and though their presence in other countries may still be proportionally neglegent that does not diminish the fact that they exist. Further, speaking to denominationalism being more a result of Americanism rather than an inherrant Protestant problem, I would posit that you've got it backwards. I would argue that in fact it is on account "Americanism" i.e., free society, individualism, anti-authoritarianism, etc. that has allowed the weakness in Protestantism to thrive, not to create it. In other words, it seems to me that though America has been a fertile ground for denominationalism, the seed of denominationalism is within Protestantism.
On this point consider my fiance's argument below. Luther wanted very much to literally throw out as "straw" at least the Epistle of James. On what grounds did he suppose he had justification to do this? Well, he would have argued, from Scripture alone, that James is not consistent with his interpretation of the rest of the Bible...hence, trash James. It is this underlying problem within Protestantism that is the SEED I mention above. The seed of Sola Scriptura..."I will attend the church that best conforms to my personal convictions from my reading of Scripture." If I have Baptist convictions from Scripture, Baptist I'll be. If I had...I would.
I would posit further that it is only a matter of time and further Westernization that will lead to greater numbers of denominations in other countries.
Hello Folks,
I had to say something I find to be very important in response to Martin:
Of course, you can't escape factions by turning to Orthodoxy. They're still fighting among themselves over who gets jurisdiction (or do they create a new national Orthodox church?) in America.Even the Orthodox will admit that there are differences of opinion on a wide number of issues within Orthodoxy (and some of these differences are okay), and yes these differences have resulted in 'factions' if that's what we will call them. The fact remains though that there is a big, BIG difference between factions within a communion who try to work out these differences and factions who actually break communion over these differences.
And I still can't think of any reason where schism would be justified. If a particular group breaks communion from the whole, then the more guilt on their part even if they may have been right on the point of disagreement.
Posted by: wayne at April 18, 2002 09:28 AMKathrine,
Tim, I've read from numerous sources that Luther wanted to throw out James as well as two other books of the canon.And I just wish I could remember where that quote from Luther was when he said that he didn't like it but wouldn't object to someone including it in the canon. Memory and history have something in common but I can't recall what it was. :) Posted by: Tim Etherington at April 18, 2002 09:35 AM
Garver,
[3] Denominationalism is an American problem. It is a function of several factors:The problem is that since we send a lot of missionaries out, we export that denominationalism. There are parts of the world where the church is crippled by artificial denominational lines. I've seen it on two short term mission trips to Myanmar. Americans do a lot of good and a lot of harm at the same time. Posted by: Tim Etherington at April 18, 2002 09:38 AM
Jeremy,
The seed of Sola Scriptura..."I will attend the church that best conforms to my personal convictions from my reading of Scripture." If I have Baptist convictions from Scripture, Baptist I'll be. If I had...I would.So what led you to chose the Orthodox church? Are there teachings in Orthodoxy that you don't agree with but submit to just becasue the Church says so? Posted by: Tim Etherington at April 18, 2002 09:43 AM
Martin,
You write:
"Of course, you can't escape factions by turning to Orthodoxy. They're still fighting among themselves over who gets jurisdiction (or do they create a new national Orthodox church?) in America."I have to take issue with you on this one. As Wayne mentions, there is a major difference between Protestant factions and juridical (what really amount to questions of practical oversight) issues within Orthodoxy.
Within Orthodoxy the dicussions concerning the Orthodox church in America have nothing to do with differences in DOCTRINE, nothing to do with differences in DOGMA; rather the Orthodox Church as represented in America is merely looking into what some believe would be more practical oversight, and more efficient management. The Orthodox Church in America is not looking to "break" with the Mother Church--the Orthodox Church in America seeks not to develope its own standards/practices/rules as we know most Protestant denominations do upon their own inception.
Put yet again, the Orthodox Church in America is and wants to remain in full communion with the Four Patriarchates-- remaining one undivided church. To compare Orthodoxy's movement in America with denominationalism seems to me to be unwarranted.
To Jeremy and Wayne:
Granted, there are real differences between the factionalism in Protestantism and the factionalism in Orthodoxy. But either way, it's still fighting among brethren. And with the Orthodox it does involve doctrine and dogma -- that is, what is their doctrine and teaching of the church? Who has authority? Where? How? How is it legitimately passed on? If Orthodox tradition and doctrine regarding the nature of the true church was as clear as they claim it to be, there would be no controversy over who has jurisdiction in America. Moreover, the in-fighting reveals the same sins of pride and lack of love toward one's brother that are manifest in many Protestant factions.
The bottom line is that no Christian church is free of the sin of schism. The debate is who is at fault. The Orthodox blame Rome for 1054; Rome blames the Orthodox. Either way there is still schism and both are parties to it, no matter how hard either side tries to justify it. The same is true for the division between the Orthodox and Egypt, or the Orthodox and Persia, or even the Orthodox and Protestantism.
But one doesn't even need to look outside Orthodoxy for schismatic problems. Try to trace the legitimate heirs of Antioch. How many groups claim that place today? There's a tangled mess of mutual anathemas going back through centuries of history.
Posted by: Martin at April 18, 2002 11:09 PMHi!
Was watching the discovery channel last nite, (Feb. 16, 2004) on taboo's of different cultures and religions throughout the world and it was featureing sexual transgenders, then it featured eunich's in india who are ostricized and said to be spiritual.
I'm a 61 year old Seventh Son of a Seventh Son living in east tennessee. Religious persecution has been one of the curses placed on me and my late father because of the Legend, which you will discover a little about on my web page. Being a seeker most my life, ex businessman, entreprenuer and sceptic, I've studied all the scientific evidence and major philosophies because of the significance this legend implies. That I was born with a pre-ordained purpose in life with the gifts of healing and second sight. Or more to the point, that Seventh Son's are re-incarnations of the historical Jesus and Mary Magdelene, who sired three sons after they escaped to france with their brother james. See the four contested Gospels Sir Francis Bacon/Shakespeare who edited and compiled the King James Bible left out.
I can tell you this: As Thomas Jefferson so aptly stated, in his criticisms of Christianity in his letters, It is a perversion of pure morality and constitutes the anti-christ. That the priests created artifical constructions of the simple teachings of the historical Jesus of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, in order to filch power and wealth from the mass's. And the Priests created sins, and as long as there were sins to be forgiven, of which the fools would pay for, there would be a multitude of sins to be forgiven. In William Blake's philosophy he states: "All Religions Are As One and Derived of the Poetic Genius.". It's all about MAKE BELIEVE and MIND CONTROL for the benefit of a few. In all religions, and all governments. A mental delusion.
Should anyone wish to challange me on my assertations, feel free to contact me at my email above on AOL, I have the facts to prove it.
thank you very much......Donald DeWayne Woods...Listed in Marquis Who's Who in America, look my credentials and qualifications up if don't believe me....
Posted by: Donald D. Woods at February 17, 2004 08:13 AM