Posted on 01/15/2011 8:05:51 AM PST by topcat54
"The Roots of Fundamentalism," by Ernest R. Sandeen, in discussing the history of the Brethren, says that [John Nelson] Darby introduced the idea of a secret rapture of the church and a gap in prophetic fulfillment between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel. These beliefs became basic to the system of theology known as dispensationalism.
From 1862 to 1877, Darby lived in and traveled throughout the United States and Canada, spreading his message. He was a very appealing speaker and also intolerant to criticism. At first he tried to win members of existing Protestant congregations to his sect, but met with little success. He then spread his end-times message to influential clergymen and laymen in churches in major cities without insisting they leave their denominations.
(Excerpt) Read more at reformed-theology.org ...
What I have seen from textual studies in college, the manuscripts available today don't vary significantly. We have A & B readings for the great majority of the NT reaching back to the early second century. That the "Fathers" massaged them doesn't really concern me since we are after what the writers themselves intended. The Fathers were all over the map on all kinds of things.
As far as "choosing" what was in the so-called "Canon", read the rest of the 75 or so competitors and notice that there is no comparison. Scripture is as bright as day, the others being abberant and odd (eg. Jesus killing some boys who hurt his bird?). You and I would have spotted the real McCoys right along with those everyday believers who exchanged these letters for decades before the "Fathers" even got their hands on them.
Strange? Hardly. It is precisely what we would expect of a nation that loves pornography, a national red light district, a drug infested park in downtown Amsterdam (fail) and some of the most godless attitudes in the once-Christian world. It is exactly what post-Christian, post-modern thinking is comprised of...mostly Roman Catholic infection and an abandonment of Reformed biblicism.
Taking your posted list of scripture is only half of the story (the negative side at that). It brings me to the same place as the disciples who asked Christ, "Who then can be saved?" Christ said to them, " with men, this is impossible but with God all things are possible". The lesson being we can't do one single thing to be saved, yet, we can be saved. How? only through the Grace of God. How? By faith. Not faith and go to church, faith and be nice, faith and not sin (which is impossible to start with),faith and beg for forgiveness. Repent, yes. Every sin you ever committed , will commit today, and in the future has already been forgiving and was nailed to that cross at Calvary. It must be insulting to the Lord when Christians come to him begging for the very forgiveness he died for 2000 years ago.
Once they're fed up of that, they'll return to the Catholic Church, to Christianity.
So that we understand clearly the crack-pot theory promulgated here, allow me to summarize this post: You are claiming that the theology of freedom from Rome's oppressive sacerdotalism, the morality of removing the papal sponsored whore houses and the enlightenment derived by reading the Scriptures for oneself, features that accompanied the Reformation in the 16th century, gave rise to the degradation we observe in Holland during the 20th & 21st century as the population increasingly turn to the RCC?
May I say, you may wish to adjust your tin foil cap, my FRiend. It would have made more sense to blame Bush, Palin & Beck, or Pee Wee Herman, or ailiens, or... Does Rome permit thinking, at all?
lol
People return to Rome and the State when they no longer wish to think for themselves.
What I have seen from textual studies in college, the manuscripts available today don't vary significantly. We have A & B readings for the great majority of the NT reaching back to the early second century. That the "Fathers" massaged them doesn't really concern me since we are after what the writers themselves intended. The Fathers were all over the map on all kinds of things.changes in meaning in the first 300 years. Kosta has made much more detailed study of some of these changes which have caused distress to some. However, my reply is that I believe that the Holy Spirit has led the Church to make these changes. Led, by the way, not frogmarched. Are Scriptures perfect? No. I believe, though, that the Church interpretation of them is what Christ intended.
As far as "choosing" what was in the so-called "Canon", read the rest of the 75 or so competitors and notice that there is no comparison. Scripture is as bright as day, the others being abberant and odd (eg. Jesus killing some boys who hurt his bird?). You and I would have spotted the real McCoys right along with those everyday believers who exchanged these letters for decades before the "Fathers" even got their hands on them.
Could we? I wonder. The protoevangelium of James and the Shepherd of Hermas were odds-on favorites to make the cut, and Revelation was pretty darn shaky - the East is still iffy, although they accept it as Scripture.
But to put things in perspective, NT Scripture did not occur before the AD 50's to 90's. The later books were written 50 to 100 years after that. And the revisions did not wane until the 300s. Scripture and Tradition went hand in hand, although Sacred Tradition chose Sacred Scripture. Not vice versa.
The Church enforced Orthodoxy and did not permit what became Luther's any milkmaid to create innovative theologies, such as are common today. I'm not aware of papal sponsored whorehouses - could you send me a link? When more than 90% of people could not read, and the hand copying of a Bible took almost a man-year, how many Bibles could possibly be distributed? That is why icons were developed - to provide a mnemonic of the Faith to the illiterate.
The Netherlands are as secular a society as there is in Europe. The "liberation" of the Reformation freed the people to stop thinking of the Church and Christ and start thinking of their navels. Why are you blaming the Church for its degradation?
They don't because copies were purposefully "harmonized" with the oldest extant copies, so there is a great deal of "concordance" with what is genera ll (doctrinally) believed to be true. But this is retro-vision. We still don't know what the first century originals looked like. The oldest codex (circa end of the 2nd century) is, first of all, incomplete, and is not necessarily in agreement with other manuscripts, mostly fragments. For instance, you have long and short version of Luke's Gospel. Which one is is your pick?
There are numerous differences among manuscripts if not in artificially harmonized modern Bibles.
With all due respect, your Textual Criticism regarding the authorship of portions of the NT is the liberal Catholic version of reality. Having researched the matter myself, I don’t subscribe to this perspective.
Thus, the Holy Spirit’s work is more related to helping those called to understand what is already written, not creating new perspectives (traditions, interpretations) or correcting “errant” Scriptures. That which has been recorded provides sufficient information to lead believers into the correct apostolic teaching, given the Holy Spirit’s guidance, so my attention is on what the writers intended.
To mention just a few of the culprits, the period known as the Pornocracy gave rise to all kinds of this activity. Sergius III took a 15 year old concubine, Innocent VIII (there is an oxymoron, or perhaps just a moron) had illegitimate children all over the place and Paul III had at least 4 illegitimate children. The list is long and ugly. But, if you are unaware of these fellows, it may explain why you might be unaware of the sponsored whorehouses. Perhaps Rome scrubs its history.
But, there were many such activities during the early part of the Reformation as Reformers called out such evil. It was during this time tunnels between the monastaries and nunneries were discovered. Just google “sexually active priests” or “tunnels between monastaries and convents” and you will get a passel of hits. To be fair, many so-called Protestant groups have developed their own illicit activities.
But, speaking of links, please send one where the Reformation’s focus was on “navels”.
This post #70 does not warrant an answer.
In that case, would you be willing to illustrate just who wrote what passages of the Gospels (to start) and when those writings occured?
Thus, the Holy Spirit’s work is more related to helping those called to understand what is already written, not creating new perspectives (traditions, interpretations) or correcting “errant” Scriptures. That which has been recorded provides sufficient information to lead believers into the correct apostolic teaching, given the Holy Spirit’s guidance, so my attention is on what the writers intended.
How do you know what the writers intended when nobody knows for sure what the first version of each book actually was? I agree about the role of the Holy Spirit, but that was promised to the Church (and its choosing and interpretation of Scripture), not to Luther's every milkmaid.
I don't necessarily pay that much attention to recent Protestant allusions or names for things or events which are known under their original names. The original name in Latin meant Dark Ages, not the recently coined Pornocracy (Wiki really did assist me for once). We are not unaware, we prefer to call things as they are.
But, there were many such activities during the early part of the Reformation as Reformers called out such evil. It was during this time tunnels between the monastaries and nunneries were discovered. Just google “sexually active priests” or “tunnels between monastaries and convents” and you will get a passel of hits. To be fair, many so-called Protestant groups have developed their own illicit activities.
To be fair, sure. I condemn these Catholic incidents, as you may or may not be aware.
But, speaking of links, please send one where the Reformation’s focus was on “navels”.
Reading the Institutes through, one is struck by the amount of navel gazing went into it. But even Martin Luther, once one goes beyond the 95 Theses, is remarkably self-absorbed, at least until he understood his mortality and began along the road of repentence (did he ever get there? The evidence is mixed).
Really? "Navel gazing"? I have a copy at home and am interested in the portion you consider "Navel gazing". No question Calvin drilled on the damage sin has wreaked, the broken natures of man at war with God and the desparate need for God to reach to man, but I would hardly consider this navel gazing. Perhaps more such "navel gazing" needs to be done by Rome and then they might abandon their Semi-Pelagian heresies.
And, speaking of Semi-Pelagianism, when you get an opportunity, check Luther's "Bondage of the Will". Here is the "hingepin" of the Reformation, one of his watershed works wherein he set out robust Augustinianism from the weak Semi-Pelagianism of Erasmus (as he was asked to speak for the RCC in his "Diatribe").
Hopefully, Luther never repented from this position, although his consubstantiation moved dangerously close to the transubstantiation he was originally taught to embrace. Old habits die hard.
As I've mentioned, that's why we don't venerate men and have no heroes. None. That God used men to produce His Word, the Scriptures, does not mean that the men themselves warrant reverence any more than the sun does, even though God made both.
But, this whole line of discussion came from a post that implied there was something remarkable about Holland now descending into moral obliviion and simultaneiously returning to Catholicism. I was struggling to understand anything positive the writer intended to prove with this statistic. He/she claimed that the country was tiring of Reformed theology and was going home. Such argument is not only laughable, but if it represents the general use of logic from within the RCC, may tip us off why Holland is concurrently descending. Reality is not on the radar screen. I ping him/her here only out of courtesy.
How do you know what the writers intended when nobody knows for sure what the first version of each book actually was? I agree about the role of the Holy Spirit, but that was promised to the Church (and its choosing and interpretation of Scripture), not to Luther's every milkmaid."
Well, this is one of those, "Okay, then reproduce 40 volumes of information right here!" remarks. We will have to settle on the fact that I am comfortable the text is properly represented and you do not share that view. I base this upon your remark, "How do you know for sure..." From this we understand you have little confidence in the text and much in the organization. Mine is reversed. Fair enough. We'll have to wait and see who is right.
Consubstantiation is not Lutheran.
Luther ultimately waffled on this matter, early on being persuaded that the bread and wine were symbolic. Likely, this was in reaction to the errant transubstantiation of the RCC. Later, he adopted a view wherein he argued that Jesus' words "...this is..." meant something stronger, but not actual change. The middle ground became known as consubstantiation. Perhaps Lutheranism has adopted some other view at this point. Frankly, Luther wouldn't recognize Lutheranism today.
No, it hasn't changed.
Frankly, Luther wouldn't recognize Lutheranism today.
If you refer to ELCA, I'd agree. Otherwise not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.