I'm not surprised by this article. My friend jo kus and I have been discussing this very issue for the last several days. As I've harp on this until everyone out here gets sick of reading my posts (I know I do) the issue really revolves around our interpretation of God and man.
While the Catholics and Orthodox don’t like to admit it, there are many "sects" of Catholics and Orthodox as well as Protestants albeit probably not as many. People bounce around these various sects like Pacheco balls simply because they have the wrong soteriology. The leap isn’t that great anymore. It doesn’t surprise me when an AOG, Baptist or even a liberal Presbyterian becomes Orthodox, a Catholic becomes Protestant, an Orthodox become Catholic, etc.
The distinction between most churches is growing fainter with ecumenicalism as the message gets distilled down into “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” This is the tradition of men.
Luther had it right. Sola Scriptura. You must look to the scriptures first and THEN the tradition of men. You cannot look to tradition first PLUS the scripture. This was the early church fathers belief, especially Augustine and Jerome, and the primary reason they distinguish the inspired writings from the uninspired. The church fathers knew they and we were prone to make mistakes and traditions based upon mistakes.
That didn’t stop us.
the issue really revolves around our interpretation of God and man.
Our anthropology of who is man is very important to the question of how God and man relate to each other. Harley has an excellent point on this matter - especially when one considers how humanism has pervaded our society, and by osmosis, into our own thoughts. While we don't agree on our anthropologies, (specifically on man's free will) we need good Calvinists to remind us of who we are in comparison to God! We can forget God's sovereignty and how EVERYTHING that we do depends on Him - whether faith or good deeds. This is opposed to our society's view that has turned decidely Pelagianistic.
While the Catholics and Orthodox don’t like to admit it, there are many "sects" of Catholics and Orthodox as well as Protestants albeit probably not as many.
While I would agree that there are fewer Protestant denominations than advertised by some Catholic apologists, I don't agree with the term "sect" when discussing the various "wings" of Catholicism - such as Traditional Catholics, Liberal Catholics, Neo-Conservatives, etc. I do agree with Harley, though, that we as Catholics are no longer as monolithic-appearing as we once were. While my studies of the history of thought in Catholicism has yielded a pretty good diversity, (there has ALWAYS been a number of theologians who had varying opinions on matters) the typical lay person probably believed roughly the same thing wherever one went. Maybe because of the speed of communication and modernism, things have changed somewhat on this. Or maybe it is the effect of ecumenicism. This would be an interesting topic to further explore.
God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” This is the tradition of men
Of course, since our anthropologies are different, I must disagree with my friend's total view of Scripture. This line of thought is similar to Manichaeism, a Gnostic heresy of early Christianity that had a strongly negative view towards the material world and man. From my reading of the Church Fathers, I find that there was a Gnostic component that had to be dealt with - men such as Marcion who could not see that the OT and NT God was the same one. However, orthodox beliefs won over - God is love. The message of the entire Bible is that God, despite man's disobedience, condescended to save us because we were worth saving - and He loved us. This message is reflected in nearly every Christian writer who was not overreacting to Pelagianism. We posit that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son - not because He had to, because He wanted to.
Luther had it right. Sola Scriptura. You must look to the scriptures first and THEN the tradition of men. You cannot look to tradition first PLUS the scripture
Luther's initial impetus was correct. Some of the Catholic Church were emphasizing tradition to the EXCLUSION of Scripture. Luther began the swing of the pendulum back to the balanced position that the Church Fathers had seemed to always have a knack for - Apostolic Tradition being used to interpret the Scriptures - the Scriptures being the "source" of our beliefs. Yes, all of the Church's beliefs come from the Scripture, either implicitly or explicitly. And the Apostolic Tradition is used to interpret these writings. To be a Christian the way the early Christians were, one MUST read the Scriptures with the Apostolic Traditions as background. Even in 200, Tertullian could say that heretics didn't deserve the Scriptures because they twisted them to their own intents.
Luther's mistake was that he went too far. Sola Scriptura led to each man to become his own tradition. Unfortunately, the idea that the Spirit inspired men outside of the Church's presentation of the faith is patently false. Christ didn't teach that, nor did the Apostles. Proof of this is noted by Luther HIMSELF.
"If God had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals {drunkenness, despising the word of God, and no longer caring for the churches}, I would never had begun to teach the gospel" (WL 6, 920)
"If the world last long, it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith we should receive the Councils (of the Catholic Church) and decrees and fly to them for refuge" (Letter to Zwingli, Contra Zuingli et Oecol.)
Luther became disillusioned with Sola Scriptura. By ignoring Apostolic Tradition to help us interpret the Scriptures, we come up with hundreds of creeds, some quite different from the others, such as on the Eucharist, Baptism, salvation, who is God, and so forth. Christ did not intend for His community to be so divided on such primary issues.
Scriptures are clear that the "heirarchy" (those who the "elders" layed their hands upon) was commanded to "hold onto the traditions passed down to you, whether given orally or in written word", NOT the individual with his bible and notes in tow. NOWHERE does the Scripture teach that we are to read the Scriptures and come to conclusions in opposition of the Church on what God wants from man and how we are to pick up our crosses daily and follow Christ.
Brother in Christ
Luther simply established his own traditions of men. It is simple vanity to say Protestant interpretations of the Bible represent Bible teaching.
Even Lucifer knows how to quote scripture.
Not as many???? There are less than 30 churches that fall under the authority of the Pope. There are some 30,000 varying Protestant groups. At leats be accurate with your assertions.