1 edit
Originally posted by stockenBecause we love Him.
So you're saying that you follow the commandments, and avoid anything that would displease your God, not because you're afraid of his punishment; going to hell, but because?..
Do we fear displeasing God? Well, of course - but it's a healthy fear. Like looking on both sides before crossing the road. Or having a healthy fear of making your wife unhappy.
Do we fear His punishment? I don't believe He punishes us - we punish ourselves.
Do we fear Hell? Yes, of course - but it's a healthy fear. Like fearing to put your hand in a blazing furnace.
EDIT: If you asked the average Jew, Christian or Muslim whether he/she lived in a constant state of fear of God, he/she'd laugh at you.
Originally posted by HalitoseTo add to the above statement -- by being non-Catholic, I'm not implying a rejection of Catholicism. As a matter of fact, I’ve found Catholics much more willing and capable that the average Evangelical “to provide a reason concerning the hope that is within them”.
Being a non-Catholic Christian, I would have to disagree. That being said, I'm willing to consider (and/or defend) any contradictions LH maintains are in my predominantly protestant beliefs.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageLet's take something basic - the divine inspiration of the Bible. In particular, the New Testament. Without implicitly relying on the authority of the Church to determine which books were divinely inspired (e.g. Gospels of Matthew, Mark) and which not (e.g. Gospels of Peter, James), the Lutheran cannot provide an explanation as to why the 27 books in the current canon are the divinely inspired ones.
What are those doctrines and why can they only be justified on the basis of Catholic authority?
EDIT: If belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible itself cannot be justified apart from Church authority then, for obvious reasons, neither can any belief justified by reference to the Bible.
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm sure you would. I didn't say you lived in constant fear, though. I said your religions are built on the concept of punishment and the fear of being punished keeps you "on track" when you're feeling "weak" and may succumb to acts explicitly forbidden in your "good book". Whether or not you consider this to be healthy, it's still fear lurking beneath all that talk about God's "love" and him being your saviour and all.
If you asked the average Jew, Christian or Muslim whether he/she lived in a constant state of fear of God, he/she'd laugh at you.
Of course a muslim is not scared of his God. He's doing everything Muhammad's written down as the right things to do. He has no reason to fear Allah. A jew or christian has no reason to fear God as long as they live by his rules. Straying from the right path leads to punishment. Thus, the religions are built on the concept of fear.
I suppose most religions are like that (not just abrahamistic ones). Not Stockenism though. There's only one commandment, which is more of a good advice really. Break it and you'll still be fine as far as afterlife and God's are concerned. You may have problems with other people though.
Stockenism. When you're tired of the same old punishments and want something else. For only 99.95, you can be the proud owner of a magnificent copy of the glorious, one-page book. Two sentences, but a depth of a thousand meanings. 😀
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOthers that come to mind - the Divinity of Christ, the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Birth.
OK. A couple more?
While these can be justified in terms of the Bible, the Bible itself has to be accepted as divinely inspired based on Church authority. Further, historically speaking, the Church made no reference to the Bible when these doctrines were defined at the Ecumenical Councils; rather, it employed its teaching authority to do so.
Originally posted by lucifershammerTo say non-Catholics rely soley on the findings of the councils as authorizing the canon of Scripture is specious. While you are correct in claiming most non-Catholics with a minimum amount of historical perspective will likely point to the councils as their reference points, so will most Catholics.
Let's take something basic - the divine inspiration of the Bible. In particular, the New Testament. Without implicitly relying on the authority of the Church to determine which books were divinely inspired (e.g. Gospels of Matthew, Mark) and which not (e.g. Gospels of Peter, James), the Lutheran cannot provide an explanation as to why the 27 books in ...[text shortened]... uthority then, for obvious reasons, neither can any belief justified by reference to the Bible.
However, a more sophisticated understanding of the integrity of the Bible yields the one so equipped with the proper perspective of its boundaries, its origins, and its Originator.
6 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerWrong.
That is what the Doctor is missing.
EDIT: That's the source of incoherence in Lutheranism. It claims to reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, but simultaneously accepts several doctrines that can be justified (either logically or historically) only on the basis of that authority.
Of course Lutherans reject Catholicism. That's a defining characteristic of Lutheranism. See this from the Preface of Luther's Catechism:
"But those who are unwilling to learn [this text] should be told that they deny Christ and are no Christians, neither should they be admitted to the Sacrament, accepted as sponsors at baptism, nor exercise any part of Christian liberty, but should simply be turned back to the Pope and his officials, yea, to the devil himself."
and
"Our office is now become a different thing from what it was under the Pope."
and
"Hence, you must not make any law in this matter, as the Pope does."
And don't forget the theses.
What you cite does not constitute incoherence, even if it were true. If true, if might constitute an unjustified belief system, but what faith isn't such a thing?
If I believe there is a unicorn in my toilet, and can only justify that doctrine by actually peering inside and observing it, and I don't do that observation, my belief system is not incoherent. It is well-defined and free of inconsistencies. It is merely unjustified.
Further, there really isn't any belief that can be justified only on the basis of the authority of the church. The acceptance of that authority is an artificial, man-made standard. If there were such a belief, I could simply construct another artificial standard which entailed that belief, and then claim that the belief in justified, in the very same sense of justification.
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow is belief in the authority of the Church justified?
Let's take something basic - the divine inspiration of the Bible. In particular, the New Testament. Without implicitly relying on the authority of the Church to determine which books were divinely inspired (e.g. Gospels of Matthew, Mark) and which not (e.g. Gospels of Peter, James), the Lutheran cannot provide an explanation as to why the 27 books in ...[text shortened]... uthority then, for obvious reasons, neither can any belief justified by reference to the Bible.
4 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo it doesn't. It can be accepted as true on faith, for example. Or it could be accepted due to its heavenly gilded edges. Or because Luther said so. Or because my parents believe it and I trust them. Or because Muslims don't believe it and Muslims are bad.
Others that come to mind - the Divinity of Christ, the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Birth.
While these can be justified in terms of the Bible, the Bible itself has to be accepted as divinely inspired based on Church authority.
None of these reasons is inferior to "because the Catholic Church says so" with respect to justification. And none make the belief incoherent.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis is the flaw in your reasoning. Perhaps the other traditions simply agree that the Church
While these can be justified in terms of the Bible, the Bible itself has to be accepted as divinely inspired based on Church authority.
got this aspect right, and the rest of it wrong and that their concordance on this issue is merely
coincidental.
Certainly the Trinity is a dogma that predates the Church in any formal sense. Its ratification
by the Church after the dogma gained currency doesn't entail that the Church is correct about
any other issue (or that it is incorrect). And so, that Lutherans agree with the NT ratification,
or the Trinitarian one and not the Perpetual Virginity issue is only incoherent if they agree that
the RCC is infallible on matters of dogma (which, of course, it does not). Otherwise it is
merely points of agreement.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEither you can't read, or you are just trying to stir the pot. I never denied the Trinity's
He lives!
Welcome back, Nemmy. However, weren't you the one denying the Trinity's presence prior to the councils, just a bit ago?
presence at any point. It is demonstrable, however, that the Trinity, as a dogma, is a
post-Biblical construct, although quite early in Christian history. Its ratification didn't
take place until long after the NT period, as you well know.
The point is that, simply because Lutherans agree with the Church's formal assessment
that the dogma is true doesn't entail that it is illogical for them to disagree on other
assessments by the Church. The Lutherans are simply agreeing with the same sort of
'faith-evidence' with which the Church agreed.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioEither you can't read, or you are just trying to stir the pot. I never denied the Trinity's presence at any point.
'Guess I can't read! However, in the interest of clarifying the soup, what is the Trinity, if not the Godhead? And who are the members of the Godhead, if not one of the three Persons? When you repeatedly claim Jesus is not God, how can Jesus be a member of the Godhead?
It is demonstrable, however, that the Trinity, as a dogma, is a
post-Biblical construct, although quite early in Christian history.
The nature of doctrine is 'here a little, there a little; item by item, line by line,' and, as such, not every piece of orthodoxy will necessarily be reduced to one sentence or passage of Scripture. While some technical terms such as Trinity are not biblical, the concepts are demonstrably true, textually and contextually.
The Lutherans are simply agreeing with the same sort of
'faith-evidence' with which the Church agreed.
Agreed.