Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

quote:

---

Well, Rahvin, I know that point of view about Luther and Hitler is very popular, but it's at least oversimplified. Luther started out wanting to make friends with the Jews, he was no "anti-semite" at that time. He discovered the blasphemies against Christ in the Talmud (born of a prostitute among other things) and went ballistic, being a staunch defender of the honor of His Lord. You can say he overreacted, perhaps, but his overreaction had some cause.

---

He was also rather upset that they wouldn't convert and join his church, as he expected. (I would add that it is not entirely clear who the Talmudic passages are talking about.)

quote:

---

As for Hitler, Mein Kampf, "My Struggle," Is actually based on his twisted ideas of Darwin's theory of the "struggle for existence" and survival of the fittest and all that.

---

That sounds very unlikely.. From what I've read the original title was rather longer and meant "Four and a Half Years of Struggle against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice." Do you have anything other than the title to support your claim ? Especially as Hitlers ideas on race (excepting the anti-semitism) are derived from Gobineau, who published a few years before Darwin's Origin.

quote:

---

... Hitler was a Catholic all his life and died in the good favor of the Vatican, regarded as a "true son of the church who had been working to further Christianity" or some such notion, and the Vatican had no love for Luther so take it with a grain of salt.

---

Hitler was nominally Catholic, but his relations with the Church seem to be somewhat ambiguous (to say the least). (And I would add that it's quite likely that the Catholic Churches feelings on him were mixed, too). And we should also consider that it's very likely that many of his public statements were more aimed at gathering support from the largely Christian Germany than reflecting his real beliefs. He was a politician, after all.

Aren't there also passages which suggest that there are people who beleive they are saved - but aren't. Try Matthew 7:21-27 In fact read the whole chapter.

Really ? You can cast out demons and prophecy just by assenting to a list of doctrines ?Consider this. Matthew 7:26 (KJV)

I thought that a major part of the Reformation was getting rid of the burden of tradition and authority, not replacing them with different traditions and authorities.

The Catholic Church had traditions in addition to the Bible, and the Church authorities were to be deferred to in the interpretation of the Bible. (Dealing with the latter is one of the reasons the Protestants favoured translating the Bible into the native languages of the people instead of using the common Latin translations).Yet you keep appealing to traditions, and to authorities (and ignoring the Bible). In fact you are claiming that jar is not a Protestant BECAUSE he does not defer to a Protestant authority.

I think the problem is that you don't know what you REALLY believe...

If the Protestant authority is the Bible, and not your authorities' interpretation of the Bible you can't insist that a man isn't a Protestant simply for disagreeing with your authorities' interpretation of the Bible. Why is that so hard to understand ?

quote:

---

I guess you have NO idea how absolutely insane that sounds. You cannot be a Protestant if you deny THE principles of Protestantism, ridicule them as well, and support Roman Catholic ideas which are THE opposition to Protestantism.

---

Since when is accepting Protestant authorities as dictating the interpretation of the Bible one of THE principles of Protestantism? I thought that rejection of that sort of authority was one of THE principles of Protestantism.

It comes done to some guy telling you what the Bible "really" means, as opposed to reading it for yourself. According to you Protestants should agree with Protestant commentaries even if their own reading disagrees. Isn't that contrary to the founding principles of Protestantism ?

That's all very well, but you take disagreeing with commentaries as good reason to hold that jar is not a Protestant. Even when the commentary is engaging in rather obvious eisegesis.And when I see your hatred of a biblical scholarship, both with regard to the text of the Bible and to the authorship (essential to correctly interpreting the Bible by your own preferred method) I really can't take you seriously whenever you talk about the Bible being the primary authority.

Well, no, that's not what she's saying. She's saying that ALL Protestants must interpret Matthew 16:15.20 in a particular way, based only on commentaries (and even her argument there is questionable, as we shall see).see Message 411 which I quote in full here. The relevant text is Matthew 16:15-20 The "rock" is a pun on "Peter", so in fact it seems that Faith's interpretation is wrong. The Amplified Bible renders verse 16 as: Even the commentary she quotes in Message 413 agrees, although she chose not to quote this section: Part that she did quote - with my bolding, instead of Faith's - says: It still acknowledges Peter as the foundation, even if his role is preaching the "heavenly-taught" faith, as of course it must if "Peter" is the "rock".

quote:

---

I have no opinion how wrong Faith may or may not be about Peter and the rock, but there are still foundational principles of Protestantism that define what a Protestant is. The definition of Protestant is not, "Anyone who interprets the Bible for himself."

---

I guess that you're missing the point. It's not that Faith is necessarily wrong, it that she says that ALL Protestants MUST interpret that short passage as she does.Now I have to say that freedom to interpret the Bible is rather more important to Protestantism than agreeing with the interpretation of these verses that Faith happens to like. Do you disagree ?

If you aren't interested enough in an argument to understand what's being discussed then I don't think that you should try to explain it.But surely the fact that even Faith agrees that rejection of non-Biblical traditions and opening up interpretation of the Bible was one of the core drives behind the Reformation is of interest.Abuses like the selling of Indulgences were another important one.

Well maybe this will be of interest. A translation of Luther's 95 Theses.Indulgences seem to be a major point.

quote:

---

I referred to commentaries in that context to demonstrate that there is a CONSENSUS OF OPINION among Protestants that opposes Jar's very Roman Catholic readings. He's welcome to call himself a Catholic on that basis, he is not welcome to call himself a Protestant when he prefers Catholic readings.

---

You didn't show that - and quoting a commentary couldn't show that (especially when it didn't even fully agree with your "consensus"). And I've seen other commentaries that hold to yet ANOTHER view.And if course, in the post that I actually quoted jar's interpretation wasn't even an issue - simply disagreement with the interpretation that you prefer.

quote:

---

Well, there's a nice little hit-and-run slap.

---

At that point I mistakenly assumed that the commentary actually agreed with you...

quote:

---

No, I suppose people who accept modern "scholarship" wouldn't because you all deny the traditional understanding about the authorship and the dating of the Bible which I accept. Modern biblical "scholarship" is a farce that seems to be accepted just because it's called scholarship although it's nothing but a bunch of subjective vaporings by a bunch of unbelievers who ordain their miserable musings to be scholarship just because they say so.

---

You are happy to suggest that others should defer to expert opinion when it suits you - but when the experts disagree with you out comes the hate and the slanders. Hardly Christian behaviour.