Y'know, reading the comments from "Joel", I very much doubt that he is Pr Joel Humann, and I think it is a serious mistake to make the identification you do. To jump to a conclusion like this and to put the onus on the individual concerned to confirm or deny the position is unacceptable. Anyway, a more attentive reading of Lutheran blog comment threads would reveal that Pr Humann never contributes under the handle "Joel".
I think you should edit your post accordingly, and I suspect you may owe Pr Humann an apology.
What are you talking about, John? Dave didn't make any identification or jump to any conclusion. He just said that he thinks Joel MAY be Pastor Humann. Saying that you're not sure is the definition of declining to reach any conclusion. Now, if he'd identified Joel as Pastor Humann, and Joel isn't Pastor Humann, then he'd owe them both an apology, but he hasn't identified Joel at all, so there's absolutely nothing to apologise for. However, you probably owe Dave an apology for falsely claiming that Dave has jumped to conclusions and made an identification.
Jordan: I don't think a newspaper would get very far in a libel case running that defence. "Oh, we only said it might be George Galloway who was taking bribes from Saddam..."
If Dave didn't know who it was, he had no place to start speculating so openly. He could just have said, "I don't know who this Joel is - perhaps he could let me know his identity, in the interests of open discussion".
If I had a comment from someone called "Dave" saying, "Protestants are all going to hell!", and I proceeded to do a lengthy post saying, "Well, this might be Dave Armstrong", I think Dave would have grounds for complaint.
This may be Pastor Joel Humann, but I'm not sure, unless he confirms it. I deduced this from the bracketed reference to "jh" in the citations and on seeing his name in Lutheran blogs before. Just a guess . . .
The "jh" is reasonable grounds for a deduction, and not grounds for complaint, but possibly mere correction of the "I can see why you would think I wrote it, but I in fact didn't."
Back to our regularly scheduled issue...
If people wouldn't insist on using nicknames, so that you can't figure out who they are, this would all be irrelevant. As I always say, this is a constant pet peeve of mine. The single name ones are the worst, because they are so vague.
But I did nothing wrong. There is no wrongdoing in simply speculating.
Why would Pastor Humann be ashamed of his own argument, anyway, if in fact it is him? Is this a roundabout way of saying that the argument was so lousy that you don't want one of your better-known orthodox Lutheran pastors associated with it?
He should not only be proud of his own argument (whoever the person is); he should be able to defend it past the first round. If it is true, it can withstand scrutiny, and he'll be able to proudly defend it and blow the ignorant Catholic reply out of the water.
If not, he should be man enough to concede that he argued wrongly, and that St. Gregory does not, in fact, believe in sola Scriptura, as he confidently proclaimed. Lutheranism doesn't collapse because of this. After all, I cited two Lutheran historians who said that the fathers as a whole denied sola Scriptura.
I have great respect for anyone who can do that, rather than run, or deny the obvious, or rationalize, or start to get insulting when they have no further reply.
It's much ado about nothing. Get away from the irrelevant trifles and groundless accusations and defend your Lutheran view. Be proud of it; give solid reasons for why it is superior to Catholicism, in particulars such as these.
Or, start considering that there are some cracks in the view that should give you some pause, and (maybe at some distant date in the future) consider that the Catholic option may possibly, one chance in a million, be considered preferable at some point.
To jump to a conclusion like this and to put the onus on the individual concerned to confirm or deny the position is unacceptable.
He ("Joel" - whoever he is) doesn't have to do anything. He can simply refuse to be identified, on the grounds that he wishes to remain anonymous. That's fine. All I did was speculate. I don't see how it is possible to hold that this is a terribly wicked thing.
If "Joel" was so ultra-concerned about his identity, then why did he put "jh" in the text? It was only the "h" that made me think of Pastor Humann in the first place. Without that, I wouldn't have made any further speculation as to who it was.
But it's stupid. Whoever wrote this, should be proud of it. Why would he wish to hide his identity? He may, I grant, have some legitimate reasons to do so, but it makes no sense to do so because one is ashamed of his own argument.
Josh S., for example, a notoriously polemical, quasi-anti-Catholic Lutheran blogger (who can't stand me, and makes no bones about it), asked me to remove his complete name from several dialogues, because it was getting him into trouble in his seminary career. Why would
(cont.)
. . . legitimate theological writing get one into trouble?
I think it is obvious in his case, that his style was embarrassing and not a worthy representation of how a good Lutheran should argue and conduct himself.
The way you are acting suggests to me that YOU realize the argument is already lost, and you are seeking to do damage control, because you don't want to see a Lutheran pastor making such a weak showing in talking about the fathers' view of the rule of faith. Something is causing you to become irrationally angry, because in my experience you are usually a level-headed guy.
[Note: I have John's link on my sidebar, too]
I think you should edit your post accordingly,
This thread IS part of the post, because I will list it as "Discussion" when I list the paper on my blog. So the objection is noted. But I am under no ethical compulsion to remove any mere speculation. Of course if Pr Humann denies authorship outright, then I'll remove the speculation. That's totally different. That's a case of a stated fact superceding a simple speculation.
These guys on the other blog sure are touchy! Talk about "high maintenance"! You make an educated guess and you find yourself with a possible threat of a lawsuit! Here's a comment from the other blog:
============================
ME: What say you Protestants now?
Three things:
Firstly, since there is no such thing as a "Protestant" anymore you must be arguing with yourself.
Secondly, what you've demonstrated in that paper on that little blog of yours is that your powers of deduction, through which you have presumed to identify your interlocutor, are pretty shite. In fine, you should remove immediately the references and links to your wrongly-imagined antagonist before he catches wind of it and calls a laywer. I'm pretty sure, if agitated, that's something he might do.
Thirdly, God bless Google Alert.
J Random Hermeneut | 02.07.07 - 6:04 am | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...1429435/
#176096
So we have a cowardly accusation and implied threat from a safely anonymous boor. Very impressive. Is this the sort of response we can expect to receive?
I shall, therefore, modify the text in the paper to the following:
"I definitely don't know who 'Joel' is. I had noticed a bracketed reference to 'jh' in the patristic texts, but there is no question that this 'jh' is definitely not Pastor Joel Humann, since one "J Random Hermeneut" in the comments boxes at Three Hierarchies [link] has made veiled threats to legal action if anyone were rash and stupid enough to speculate such an awfully wicked thing (John H. in my own comboxes also raised a big stink about this). [link]
So (thank heavens) we know who it is not, based on ferocious opposition of two of my esteemed Lutheran brothers in Christ. Please, dear reader, forgive my outrageous, outlandish, hyper-presumptuousness, in making a guess as to who the Lutheran author of a confidently-proclaimed Lutheran argument might be. How thoughtless of me . . ."
I posted at Three Hierarchies:
You guys (the ones who have protested and made a tempest in a teapot) need to lighten up and get a life. I changed the text in my post to the following:
[changed text posted; see above]
Now, would it be too far out of bounds to inquire as to whether anyone here had considered maybe, possibly, um, responding to my arguments, rather than threatening to take a Christian brother to court for a simple, harmless speculation? Doesn't the Bible say something about that? Oh, yeah; now I remember. It does!:
1 Corinthians 6:1-8 (RSV)
1: When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?
2: Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?
3: Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!
4: If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church?
5: I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood,
6: but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?
7: To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?
8: But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=23869#176141
Just for the record, my original text has been preserved in a comment above:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=39858#130716
"This may be Pastor Joel Humann, but I'm not sure, unless he confirms it. I deduced this from the bracketed reference to "jh" in the citations and on seeing his name in Lutheran blogs before. Just a guess . . ."
So, as anyone can see, it is the merest of speculations, complete with no less than five qualifiers:
1. "may"
2. "I'm not sure"
3. "unless he confirms it"
4. "I deduced this from" [two things given]
5. "Just a guess"
And THIS is considered grounds to take a Christian brother to court, blatantly contrary to 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. That passage took in even serious disagreements. It's a matter of principle, of Christian unity and witness. But this is a trifle; nothing at all. I didn't even do any wrong. So the wrongdoing on the part of this guy who threatens legal action is doubly wrong, on explicitly biblical grounds.
Rev. Humann has now written a private letter to me, and stated (with complete cordiality) that he is not the author, and asked me to remove his name from the post, which I will do right after I post this. Here is my return letter:
========================
Dear Rev. Humann,
I apologize for any distress this may have caused. I must say, however, that I don't believe I did anything wrong. I simply speculated as to whom the author might be. As I noted on my blog, I even qualified that five times:
-------------------
"This may be Pastor Joel Humann, but I'm not sure, unless he confirms it. I deduced this from the bracketed reference to "jh" in the citations and on seeing his name in Lutheran blogs before. Just a guess . . ." [original statement in the post]
So, as anyone can see, it is the merest of speculations, complete with no less than five qualifiers:
1. "may"
2. "I'm not sure"
3. "unless he confirms it"
4. "I deduced this from" [two things given]
5. "Just a guess"
---------------
Subsequently, I was threatened with possible legal action by yet another anonymous poster at the Three Hierarchies blog. I consider that to be blatantly contrary to 1 Corinthians 6:1-8; especially in a matter so trivial as a mere, five-times qualified speculation.
Of course, all that said, I'll remove your name from the post altogether, per your wishes. I will make a note in the discussion underneath the post, that you wrote and cordially informed me that you were not the author. Your name won't be in the post itself any longer. If that is agreeable to you, you have no need to write back. But if you want me to do anything else, please let me know and I'll be happy to abide by your specific wishes.
Again, my apologies for any offense or distress caused, and I wish you all God's blessings in your pastoral ministry,
Your brother in Christ,
Dave Armstrong
=========================
This little fracas deserves a place next to your non-encounter with Matt Slick "dialog". 
It's a classic; no doubt about it! Imagine: a threat of a lawsuit for the merest of speculations about who wrote a paper! LOL
I think we have a solemn duty -- all who have witnessed this singular event -- to record this for posterity somewhere, in a compilation of the all-time most ridiculous flame wars on the Internet.
Can you think of anything to top the folly of this? I can't. And I mean just the lawsuit part; not John H's objections, which were groundless, but not by any means the stuff of Internet Legend and all-time absurd folly status.
My sense of humor and love of the ludicrously ironic saves me so many times, let me tell you . . .
"Threat of a lawsuit"
Um... where was that again?
Oh yes: the reference to "calling a lawyer". Well, y'know, just because someone talks to a lawyer doesn't mean they have any intention of starting a lawsuit. Perhaps they have a friend whose a lawyer, and the reference was semi-ironic.
I still think your speculations as to "Joel's" identity were irresponsible and would get you drummed out of any reputable newsroom on the planet.
I must admit to being as surprised as you by the kerfuffle all this has caused: I had no intention of causing a "big stink", and honestly thought the response would be a quick, "Oops, point taken, I'll remove Pr Humann's name", and that would be it. Oh well.
Yes, "oh well." The things people get worked up about . . . This ain't a newsroom, it is a blog. If I were writing a book, I wouldn't have even made the speculation. Blogs are informal.
I did nothing wrong.
Even if I did, I apologized to the main party involved for any offense, so why do you keep commenting on it? I was under no ethical obligation to remove a mere speculation. But when the person speculated about asked me to, I was happy to do so out of courtesy.
Can't you even give me any credit for that, if nothing else?
I don't find references to possible legal action for utterly insignificant "transgressions" funny. I dare say you wouldn't either if you were the recipient of them. If it was intended humor, it was certainly inappropriate and not helpful in the situation.
Meanwhile, not a word in reply to my paper. Joel is nowhere to be seen. I highly suspect there will be no response, but I sure hope I am wrong, because it would be nice for a change to see a Protestant hang around this discussion on Bible and Tradition till something is actually accomplished.
Instead, I am Attila the Hun because I took a guess as a result of all the idiotic, largely unnecessary nicknames we are all burdened with on the Internet (GASP!!!!)
This ain't a newsroom, it is a blog.
Fair point.
Can't you even give me any credit for that, if nothing else?
Ditto. I should have said before, and say now: thank you for making the change to your post.
The things people get worked up about . . .
Careful where you're pointing that thing! Your own comments on this thread (eight in total) come to more than 2,000 words...
Even if I did, I apologized to the main party involved for any offense, so why do you keep commenting on it?
Oh, sheer bloodyminded foolhardiness. Where would online discourse be without it? 
"Jordan: I don't think a newspaper would get very far in a libel case running that defence."
Well then, it's a good thing this isn't a newspaper.
"Oh, we only said it might be George Galloway who was taking bribes from Saddam..."
Interesting. So you think JH's argument is the equivalent of taking bribes from Saddam, eh? Or you think being Pastor Humann is the equivalent of taking bribes. Duly noted.
Sorry, make that "Joel's," not "JH's."
Does anyone have a reply to the CONTENT of Dave's post? Here we have people from a protestant blog going on and on with aminor quibble about how Dave introduced the guy he is replying to. We have not a word about the post itself. Can we assume that everyone agrees with what Dave said about St Gregory?
Does anyone have a reply to the CONTENT of Dave's post? Here we have people from a protestant blog going on and on with aminor quibble about how Dave introduced the guy he is replying to. We have not a word about the post itself. Can we assume that everyone agrees with what Dave said about St Gregory?
I solemnly decree the authorship controversy laid to rest. If anyone saith anything not related to Dave's actual argument, let him be anathema.
Joel is abiding by Rule #362 in the Interaction With Catholics Playbook (written in Augsburg in 1531):
"Thou shalt never proceedeth to the second round of a discussion or defendeth thine own arguments in the case of a dispute over Church Fathers, after the lowly papist hath demonstrated that thy prooftexts are half-truths."
And Rule #9:
"Know when thine arguments have been overthrown and hold thy peace, lest thy fallacies and follies be multiplied unnecessarily."
Violation of this little-known (by outsiders) Playbook (as it is known in short), is strictly monitored in Lutheran circles, and enforced. I've never observed any Lutheran transgress Rule #362, but I have, however, seen on several occasions blatant violations of Rule #9.
In the case of the Fathers, it is evident that many non-Lutheran Protestants have also been inspired by Rule #362 since they all seem to follow it religiously (a little bit of rare inter-Protestant ecumenism and unity there). I've never observed any Protestant to deviate from it, to my recollection, in my 16 years of active Catholic apologetics.
I long for the day when someone will "do a Luther" and have the nerve to go against this arbitrary rule. But alas, it looks like that day has not arrived yet. Perhaps we can hold out hope that Joel is holed up somewhere, working feverishly to prove that all my citations are invalid and out-of-context, whereas his accurately represent the Real Truth (that St. Gregory -- like St. Augustine -- was a Protestant 1100+ years before there was such a thing).
John H. Being a lawyer with over 21 years of practice under my belt, I can assure you that if someone says, "[Y]ou should remove immediately the references and links to your wrongly-imagined antagonist before he catches wind of it and calls a lawyer" one can certainly infer beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a threat to pursue a claim of defamation. Of course, my opinion is merely experiental and not infallible.
"Can we assume that everyone agrees with what Dave said about St Gregory?"
Well, let's just say that anyone who doesn't agree with Dave on this point is dead wrong. Dave has made his point cogently and conclusively. His argument is irrefutable.
Thanks, Paul! Would it be your judgment too that any pursuit of such a "case" would be laughed out of court?
How could anyone think this was even defamation? A mere guess as to someone's identity, with five qualifications, and both people being Lutherans? It isn't like I was speculating that the guy was a child molester or something! LOL
Human psychology and behavior never ceases to amaze me. Some people sure need to lighten up. I always thought both theology and apologetics could be enjoyable as well as edifying.
Well, let's just say that anyone who doesn't agree with Dave on this point is dead wrong.
Let's just say, too, that if anyone disagrees with me (really, it is the facts of history in this instance, not me), they are nowhere to be found, and we would have no reason to believe such a person is out there, . . .
On the one hand, it is immensely frustrating to a guy like me who loves dialogues and challenges, that so often my opponents split just when it gets interesting.
On the other hand, it is quite heartening to us as Catholics that this is so often the case. Our opponents oftentimes not only have no cogent reply, but even refuse to make any defense at all for their viewpoints. So what are we supposed to think as to which is the better case?
And this is one of the many blessings that come with my work (which has its share of frustrations and negative aspects too). I get to see this happening over and over: the weakness or nonexistence of an opposing argument.
And people wonder why I am so confident in my presentations? You tend to get that way when you just sail through making arguments for your position with opponents so often hardly even putting up a protest or a fight. It's like running for a political office unopposed and grabbing 95% of the vote.
No offense intended to my esteemed Protestant brethren, but C'MON, guys! Can't you do better than this to explain and defend your take on things? Don't you have any zeal at all for your position? Some days I wish I could go back to being a Protestant just so I could fight for the other side. They need someone like that who isn't an anti-Catholic. I fought hard for my Protestant positions when I held them.
I can't believe this thread is still going on...
The aftermath of sola scriptura:
Robert Barclay, a 19th century English Quaker, wrote:
“In 1525 the doctrines of the “Brethren of the Free Spirit” were spread at Antwerp, and Luther received at Wittenberg a visit from one these religionist, and he consequently wrote a letter to the Christians at Antwerp, condemning their opinions.”
The Inner life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth, London, 1876, p.415
http://books.google.com/books?
vi...kdwYN0WdN4zb0vg
Luther’s letter reads in part:
“This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism (Taufe); another denies the Sacrament; a third believes there is a another world between this and the Last Day; some teach that Christ is not God (Christus sei nicht Gott); some say this, some that, and there are almost as many sects and beliefs as heads (Secten und Glauben als köpfe). There is now no rustic so rude that if he dreams of thinks anything, it must be the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and he himself a prophet.”
Luther goes on to say that these “prophets” “understand neither God nor Christ and talk like mandmen.” (sie weder Gott noch Christum verstehen und reden wie die unsinnigen).
-- Letter to the Christians in Antwerp (An die Christen zu Antwerpen, April, 1525)
from Hartmann Grisar, vol. 4:407 http://www.openlibrary.org/
detai...uther04grisuoft
Full text (German) in De Wette, vol. 3, pp. 60-64 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wil...erecht_de_Wette
Luther clearly recognized the unfortunate consequences of sola scriptura, but could never effect a remedy, though he went so far as to make appeals to the fathers, councils, and church authority.
Christ prayed that his followers would be one “as we are one ” (John 17:11). He did not pray that there would be “as many sects and beliefs as there are heads.”
The spirit which guides the Church is holy, and produces love, truth, and unity.
The “spirit” of sola scriptura on the other hand, is malignant, and produces hatred, discord, and division. Those possessed by it will never know the true joy of church unity for which Our Lord so earnestly prayed.
This unity of the Church can be summed up in the beautiful words of Christ, “we are ONE.” The “unity” of our Protestant brethren is, unfortunately, more properly summed up in the not so beautiful words of that ancient spirit of DISUNITY, “my name is LEGION, for we are MANY” (Mark 5:9).
I hope and pray that someday God's grace will guide all of our separated brethren back to the unity and peace and intoxicating joy of being united to Christ AND his One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, "which is his body, THE FULLNESS OF HIM who fills everything in every way" Ephesians 1:23
Many protestants are still like Luther. They can see the bad fruit of Sola Scriptora but can't bring themselves to even think it might have been a mistake. Using the fathers and church councils does not help. If you don't say they have authority you can show they agree with you but people can still say you and them are all wrong. It just does not help.
Sola Scriptora has grown so deep ingrained in the protestant mindset that many don't question it even in the most impossible situations. It is like the addict who tells his doctor, 'I will do anything to impove my health except quitting drugs'. The constant choice between liberalism and schism drives many protestants nuts but they won't consider Catholicsm. It really takes a special grace.
I agree with Randy. It really does take "a special grace" for Protestants to begin to see that it is the CHURCH, and not a book, which is the OBJECT of Gods love and concern and for which our lord died.
Here a FEW quotes from scripture, showing just how much the SAINTS (i.e., the Church) dominate the thoughts and affections of God and of his apostles.
...For to see your face is LIKE SEEING THE FACE OF GOD...Genesis 33:10
How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! HOW GREAT IS THE SUM OF THEM! If I should count them, they would be more in number than the sand. Psalm 139:17-18
The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will REJOICE OVER THEE with joy; he will rest in his love, HE WILL JOY OVER THEE WITH SINGING. Zephaniah 3:17
If anyone serves me, the Father will HONOR him. John 12:26
Receive ONE ANOTHER, as CHRIST RECEIVED YOU. Rom. 15:7
...WITHOUT CEASING I make mention of you always in my prayers. Romans 1:9
Remembering WITHOUT CEASING your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thess. 1:3
So, affectionately LONGING FOR YOU, we were well pleased to impart to you NOT ONLY THE GOSPEL OF GOD, BUT OUR OWN LIVES, because you had become dear to us. 1 Thess. 2:8
WITHOUT CEASING I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day. 2 Tim. 1:3
CEASE NOT to GIVE THANKS for you, making mention of you in my prayers. Ephesians 1:16
WE...DO NOT CEASE to pray for you. Col. 1:9
Now I praise you, brethren, that YE REMEMBER ME IN ALL THINGS. 1 Corinthians 11:2
YOU are manifestly declared to be THE EPISTLE OF Christ. 2 Corinthians 3:3
GREAT IS MY GLORYING IN YOU. 2 Cor. 7:4
You became followers of US and OF THE LORD. 1 Thess. 1:6
You became followers of THE CHURCHES OF GOD. 1 Thess. 2:14
But now when Timotheus came from you unto us, and brought us GOOD TIDINGS of your faith and charity, and that ye have good remembrance of us always, DESIRING GREATLY TO SEE US , as we ALSO TO SEE YOU: Therefore, brethren, we were comforted over you in all our affliction and distress by your faith: For now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord. For what thanks can we render to God again for you, for all the joy wherewith we joy for your sakes before our God; 10 NIGHT AND DAY WE PRAY EXCEEDINGLY THAT WE MIGHT SEE YOUR FACE… 1 Thess. 3:6-10
What is OUR HOPE, OR JOY, OR CROWN OF GLORY, IF NOT YOU... YES, YOU ARE OUR GLORY AND JOY. 1 Thess. 2:19
We... thank God ALWAYS for YOU BRETHREN...because your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity show toward each other abounds. FOR THIS REASON, WE BOAST OF YOU IN THE CHURCHES OF GOD... 2 thess.1:3-4
...BELOVED AND LONGED FOR, MY JOY AND MY CROWN... Philippians 4:1
...you have PURIFIED YOURSELVES by obeying the truth so that you have sincere LOVE FOR YOUR BROTHERS, LOVE ONE ANOTHER DEEPLY, from the heart. 1 Peter 1:22
I meant to add this link to the INTERNET ARCHIVE in my last post. The archive has all six volumes of Hartmann Grisar's " Luther," volume iv of which I reference above. I should have done it this way originally.
http://www.archive.org/search.ph...%201845-1932%
22
I can't believe this thread is still going on...
Yeah, me neither, since none of your Lutheran friends has bothered to try to refute the reasoning in my paper. How about you, John?
Dave,
At the very end of the post, you have the following quotes. Are these all from Gregory of Nyssa? Can you please supply the references, so we can at least look them up at the www.ccel.org or www.newadvent.org websites?
Maybe I have not read this thing close enough . . . but . . .
So far, all I see is the guarding of the apostolic tradition in the churches at that time concerning things like the eternal generation of the Son of God, the issues involving the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. Tradition is not a bad word, and there are good traditions obviously, as taught in 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6, I Cor. 15, Jude 3, I Cor. 11, etc. All infallible oral traditions were eventually fully written in the whole canonical witness. Since 1 and 2 Thessalonians does not have the content of Romans or Galatians or Ephesians in them, Paul is talking about the other infallible teachings that were orally taught, but not written to them, specifically. They orally taught the disciples the rule of faith, outlined by the doctrine of the Trinity in Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14, and fleshed out for us in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Athanasius. And the Trinity and Deity of Christ is all there in the Scriptures. John 1:1 communicates the eternal generation of the Son.
Nothing in the "traditions" that are in the early period are the later developed Roman Catholic distinctions; ie, Mary, ever-Virgin, arc, co-mediatrix, sinless, immaculately conceived, assumed bodily into heaven, pope having jurisdictional authority over all the churches, indulgences, penance, treasury of merit, ex opere operato sacerdotal powers, purgatory, praying to the dead, icons, statues, dulia, hyper-dulia, latrea distinctions, etc. -- I have yet to see any of these things defined or mentioned in "the traditions", "the faith", "the preaching", "the rule of faith", etc.
All you have is Scripture as final and infallible authority and the churches responsibility to teach sound doctrine, and interpret things properly, whcih they did when it came to the Trinity and Deity of Christ, especially at Nicea and Constantinople, which is the context of all the affirmations of "the traditons" kept and passed down to us.
Again, references?
Thanks
Ken Temple
The Binding Authority of Tradition
"Instead, the sheep stray from nourishing pastures, that is, from the traditions of the fathers, lodge outside the fold"
"whether or not they support or manifest hostility towards the teachings of the fathers . . ."
"According to pious tradition he is incorporeal, invisible, uncomposite . . ."
"An argument such as the following we have received by tradition from the Fathers; . . . one that naturally invites our credence."
". . . the traditional teaching which has reached us is as follows."
". . . following as we do the utterances of inspiration and the tradition of the Fathers"
Please supply the references.
Thanks,
". . . they say that the charges which are being circulated against us are such as these; that we entertain opinions opposed to those who at Nicaea set forth the right and sound faith"
Protestants agree with Nicea, because it was Biblical, there is no problem here whatsoever -- and no contradiction to Sola Scriptura.
oops, I think I see the references now, they were above, right? and at the end you are just summarizing.
I confess I did not see this clearly until I copied the whole article to my word processor software.
Still, I don't see anything accept defense of Nicea, the Deity of Christ; and Constantinople (381 AD) against Apollinarius, defending the Deity of the Holy Spirit.
Doctrinal Protestants agree with that. there is no problem. ( Liberals don't count. They are apostates.)
From my paper on the history of doctrine in the Fathers, we see that St. Gregory believed the following things (further references can be found there):
"Faith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation."
"The bread . . . has been made over into the Body of God the Word," [and that Christ in the Eucharist is] "blending Himself with the bodies of believers."
He asked the deceased St. Ephraem:
"Thou who standest at the holy altar, . . . remember us all, and implore for us the forgiveness of sins and the enjoyment of the eternal kingdom."
"After his departure out of the body, he . . . finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire."
[He] often refers to Mary's perpetual virginity, calls her "undefiled," (206) and develops the Mary-Eve theme. (207) He infers a vow of virginity on Mary's part, based on Luke 1:34.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ith-
regard.html
All this stuff is part of St. Gregory's "tradition." He was a Catholic, not a Protestant. I hate to break the news to you, Ken, but somebody had to . . .
Ok, that is the historical reality -- that the early church was catholic with a little "c"; but they were not Roman Catholic either --
Protestant Evangelicals are "catholic" with a little "c" also. We are there. So are the Eastern Orthodox.
Also, he does not seem to call any of those things above (Mary, purgatory, praying to Ephraem,) "the tradition that was handed down by the apostles".
I believe you that he taught and believed those things and wrote of them, but does he specifically say, "these things are "the tradition" or "those things also were taught by the apostles" and "they were apart of the original deposit", but were unwritten, and "now we bring them out in the open in the life and worship of the church"; or "we, as the Catholic church have the power to say these things, even though they are not written in the canonical scriptures" ??
They are not listed in the "rule of faith" when Irenaeus and Tertullian and Athanasius tell us what the rule of faith is.
And those things are not there in the above quotes about "the tradition handed down from the apostles". That was all about Nicea and the Deity and eternality of Christ and about the Holy Spirit and His Deity and Personhood.
Seems that the RCC wants to claim authority to just assert and assume that all of those things are traceable to the apostles, when there is not evidence for it.
They seem to have started slowly appearing here and there from various writers. Ephraem is the first one to call Mary, "pure and undefiled". but even that could be understood as relative, (She was a godly woman and in a sense, "pure and undefiled", meaning a godly and holy woman, a virgin until after Jesus was born, and a godly mother; but not sinless) and does not necessarily rule out all sin. Once that seed of bad teaching was planted and let to grow, it grew more and more until it became dogma.
Whatever, Ken. It just goes round and round with you.
All I had to do was show that St. Gregory accepted an authoritative tradition, Church, and apostolic succession. It doesn't even matter what he puts in that tradition, strictly speaking, because the question of what one's rule of faith is, is one of what binding authority he accepts.
Once that is demonstrated (and it was), any inking, myth, or fairy tale that he believed in sola Scriptura disappears into thin air. Period. End of discussion.
You can like that or not, but you can't change reality and the facts of history. Nor can you ever square any kind of Protestantism with the teaching of the Fathers, over against Catholicism. It simply can't be done. Give up now and save yourself a lot of misery and frustration.
Dave,
You sound a bit flustered. I know the feeling. I have a fundamentalist friend who is so steeped in prejudice that it has just about addled his wits completely. Truth bounces off him like light off a mirror. He seems to have thoroughly absorbed just about every lie and distortion ever preached about the Catholic Church. I remember once telling him that the pope's address was 666 Vatican Drive, to which he vulgarly replied,"no sh__?" Well, it took a bit of doing, but I finally convinced him that I was merely having a bit of fun at his expense.
Anyway, I just wanted to encourage you to just keep on doing what you so well and not to be dissuaded from speaking the truth, especially with regard to the lives and teachings of the reformers. This information ought to be made known. And it's up to people like you to make it known, because such information AIN’T NEVER gonna make it onto Protestant web sites-EVER! This is not surprising of course, given the long Protestant history of suppressing many of these unpleasant truths, albeit there have been exceptions.
Theodore G. Tappert, one of the editors of Luther’s works, is one of these exceptions. To his credit, Tappert freely admitted that, at least in Luther‘s case, certain writings had been deliberately suppressed and withheld from public notice. He made this admission in his introduction to Luther’s Tischreden or Table Talk.
“What is presented in this volume is only a selection from the six volumes of Table Talk reproduced in the Weimar edition. This selection represents about one-tenth of the total bulk of what is known today as the Table Talk. It is therefore of some importance to explain on what basis the selection was made."
“A special effort has been made to INCLUDE [in this edition of Luther’s Table Talk] pieces [of his writings] that have played a role in later polemical literature, pieces that have often been cited with triumph by unsympathetic writers or that have been HIDDEN WITH EMBARRASSMENT by friendly writers.”
Luther’s Works, American Edition, vol. 54 (Table Talk), pp. xxiii-xxiv. ISBN 0800603540
http://www.christianbook.com/Chr...RN&
item_code=WW
Apparently such deceptive practices (a ‘tradition’ if you will) arose quite early on, since it was His Lordship, Herr Luther himself, who declared that “a good strong lie” for the sake of the Christian Church was quite acceptable!! Really Luther?
http://books.google.com/books?vi...d+strong+lie%
22
Fight the good fight, Dave. You are doing great work. And I’m certain it is helping and will continue to help many protestants come to realization of just how “ridiculous and intellectually contemptible” (to borrow a phrase from Belloc) the reformation really was.
http://www.catholicapologetics.n...tics.net/htrh-
1
Thanks, Ben.
I made a (three-part) response underneath the Luther thread below, since your comments centered on him:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=23014#130972
I cross-posted most of it to James Swan's blog. Watch how he responds. It will teach us all volumes, to be sure. See comments under this post:
http://beggarsallreformation.blo...-grisar-
on.html
My new favorite verse:
"He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."
(Proverbs 18:17; RSV)
california estate investment loan real california estate investment loan real california estate investment loan real. california payday loan california payday loan california payday loan.
Commenting by HaloScan
