the true faith was restored through Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century in America and that the entire structure of Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the post-apostolic church is corrupt and false.
He's right. That's why Mormons are wrong. They think the Church was wrong until Smith restored it to its purity. Everyone knows that Christian Orthodoxy was restored by Luther and Calvin and the gang.
The book of Alma from the Book of Mormon says that Jesus was born in Jerusalem.
I had a similar discussion with a Jewish friend of mine who argued I had no right to say who's Christian and who's not.
I asked him if an Islamic wood worshiping witch could make herself Jewish by saying so. For once he agreed with me.
Signed,
The King of England
Um. You *don't* have any right to say who's Christian and who's not. That's for the Church to decide. Not you.
Many comboxers live under the illusion that they are bishops and Popes, though. So you're not alone.
You're right, we don't have the right to say who is a Christian and who isn't. However, non-Catholics -- Prods and Mormons, and others -- are only Christian to the extent that they adhere to what basically are Catholic dogmas: the Trinity, Christ's divinity, and so on.
Far be it from me to decide at what point a non-Catholic ceases to be Christian, but the further away he moves from Catholic orthodoxy -- or, the more Catholic dogmas he jettisons -- the less claim he has to call himself Christian.
That, I agree with.
Too funny, Dave.
Heh. I love it when people say far be it from me....
Wow, Mr Shea I just read your piece on the "Protestant pickle" that was brilliant.
I am impressed at how well you are able to take a subject and make it so palitable to the average Joe. It is both simple undestand and complex enough to provoke thought.
Sorry I dont mean to sound like I am a "fan boy" but I am very impressed by your blog and have been for a while. Though I still dont agree with most of your political views, I agree entirely with your thoughts on Christianity.
"Um. You *don't* have any right to say who's Christian and who's not. That's for the Church to decide. Not you."
Um, well so I must check with the Pope before I declare my Wiccan neighbor a non-Christian? That seems a bit far-fetched. Isn't it more precise, and more Catholic, to say that Martin is free to assert his opinions on who is Christian and who isn't as long as his assertions are in keeping with Church teaching? Frankly, I don't feel the need to call Rome to assert that my perfectly nice but goofy praciticing-Wiccan neighbor is a non-Christian.
“Christianity is rightly defined in terms of ‘traditional Christian orthodoxy. Thus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christian.”--- Albert Mohler
I'm another one who has a high affection and respect for Albert Mohler. Ever read his blog? Subtle, probing, brain-stimulating, every single time.
But -- as a Catholic married to an Orthodox -- I must say I ~extra and specially~ appreciate him when he defines Christianity in terms of Catholic Orthodoxy. Pax tibi, Albert.
Mike,
I think Mark's point was that in the context of an argument with a Jewish neighbor, a teaching moment was lost by not pointing out, as I think you were, that Martin isn't determining who is or isn't christian, he is merely applying the determinations made by the Church. That it is her authority, he is just taking that authority seriously.
Which is why I think Mark quickly agreed with Sean P. Daily.
From your referenced blog: "For in making private judgment the final arbiter of what constitutes the "essentials" in the very heart of what is an essentially conservative, apostolic and (gasp!) hierarchical tradition, Protestantism has founded itself on a contradiction."
Mark, I thought "sola scriptura" was the foundation of Protestantism - not private judgment. It would seem to me that the Catholic Church, with her Tradition and infallible teaching, is closer to private judgment than anything the reformers had in mind.
Are the essentials of the Bible, and what is necessary for a person to go to heaven, clear enough to be understood? There is a vast chasm between what is taught concerning salvation in Catholic teaching versus classic Protestantism, as you well know.
It may be a fine point, but Paul does not say that those who preach a different gospel are accursed, but rather, "let them be accursed." Similarly, the anathemas attached to those who do not believe the Pope infallible follow a similar pattern.
Mark,
You know how I feel about your oft-demonstrated penchant for taking facile potshots at Martin Luther, so I'm not going to belabor the point.
Despite Luther's faults and foibles - which I readily acknowledge - his doctrine and praxis held far more in common with Roman Catholicism than did the other continental Reformers, let alone modern-day Evangelicalism and/or its various sectarian offshoots, such as the LDS.
If you want to critique Luther fairly and directly, then do so - but not obliquely as part of a lead-in to a linked debate over the LDS, which clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with Lutheran theology.
I respect the Roman Catholic point of view - even if I don't always agree with it - and I would hope (and expect) that the same level of respect would be returned, in kind.
Roger Chapman: of course. Luther never intended the LDS, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, or even the Protestantism of his own day in Geneva. But having asserted the principle that the apostolic faith always taught by the whole Church can be in error, he opened the gates for those who followed.
Insp. Fruiteau: Private judgment does not mean that the Church teaches authoritatively, or that she does so differently from other churches; by Christ's own design and command, the Church should be one and the Holy Spirit led it into all truth. Private judgment (or sola scriptura, if you prefer) means that the individual is the final interpreter of truth, a position that even Protestants disclaim implicitly while they proclaim it explicitly.
Baptists may claim to have no creed, but they fell back to a "faith and message statement", which is a creed by any other name. They know the Baptist faith was going astray without it. Serious Presbyterians and Lutherans may disclaim infallibility, but in practice they treat the Westminster or Augsburg confessions as an example of such; the only ones who don't are rapidly becoming officially indifferentist like the Episcopalians.
"Roger Chapman: of course. Luther never intended the LDS, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, or even the Protestantism of his own day in Geneva. But having asserted the principle that the apostolic faith always taught by the whole Church can be in error, he opened the gates for those who followed."
craig,
No offense intended (truly), but this is a prime example of what I mean by a "facile" opinion with respect to Martin Luther and his theological concerns - one that even many contemporary Roman Catholic scholars have found just cause to reassess, particularly in light of a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the religious, political, and social turmoil of 16th-century Europe. In addition, let's not leave the Eastern Orthodox out of the "whole Church" equation ...
In point of fact, Luther ultimately became convinced (not without a long period of severe personal anguish and grave self-doubt) that he was *recovering* critical elements of the "apostolic faith always taught by the whole Church," which unfortunately - he concluded - had been severely compromised in the Western Church of his day, but he took no great satisfaction in the second schism that ultimately ensued.
You, along with the majority of readers, probably disagree strongly with many of Luther's conclusions and/or actions - and that's fair enough. I'm a Lutheran, and even I don't agree with Luther on all points!
All I ask of everyone here (including the host) is that you take him seriously, and deal with the Lutheran point of view accurately, thoroughly, and fairly - and hopefully, in an irenic spirit - as I strive to do with respect to Roman Catholicism, as well as Eastern Orthodoxy.
Okay?
Fair enough, Franklin, I understand and agree.
But then I think that Mark was perhaps misunderstanding Martin's point, which I took to be simply that the fact that one calls himself a Christian does not make him one, and that Christians are entitled to make that observation.
Mark, I thought "sola scriptura" was the foundation of Protestantism - not private judgment
Sola scriptura and private judgment are the two blades of the same pair of scissors which cut loose Protestantism from the Catholic Church. It seems, in principle, you cannot have Protestantism without private judgment, because private judgment implicates the central issue of Protestantism - who is the proper authority to speak for Christendom? To decide its teachings? To decide what Christianity is? SS relies upon private judgment to even get itself off the ground. If the RCC says you must also consider Tradition, SS is dead in the water unless one applies their private judgment to say the RCC is wrong - only scripture must be considered. I would go so far as to say the exact opposite of the above claim - Protestantism is founded upon private judgment. SS is simply one application of private judgment.
Did anyone else find that the picture of Card reminded them a little of Rod Dreher?
The book of Alma from the Book of Mormon says that Jesus was born in Jerusalem.
Maybe it meant the "Greater Jerusalem Metropolitan Area." You know--like the "Dallas" Cowboys or the "New York" Giants...
Commenting by HaloScan
