tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post1009117421525577502..comments2023-11-05T01:28:27.551-07:00Comments on Theology of Andrew: Private Judgment RevisitedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post-91348051257589477832010-05-22T16:42:26.370-07:002010-05-22T16:42:26.370-07:00Sorry . . . formatting issue.
Protestants changed...Sorry . . . formatting issue.<br /><br /><i>Protestants changed the canonical books</i><br /><br />Protestants affirm the canon as it was received by the early church.<br /><br /><i>-'spiritualized' the one holy catholic and apostolic church</i><br /><br />Does the Creed distinguish between a visible and invisible church?<br /><br /><i>-luther said the imago dei was replaced by the image of satan, and Protestants teach total depravity<br />-Lutherans conflated the natural law and the law of moses</i><br /><br />I can't take responsibility for Luther. I'm a Reformed Catholic. I'm going off of the Reformed Confessions, all of which affirm the imago Dei and the natural law.<br /><br /><i>-Protestants deny the freedom of the will</i><br /><br />See the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 9. It's Augustinian down the line.<br /><br /><i>-They magnify original sin into total depravity</i><br /><br />Was there an official declaration distinguishing between total depravity and original sin prior to the Reformation?<br /><br /><i>-teach justification by faith ALONE which was an innovation or 're-discovery' of a belief that was absent for 1400 years.</i><br /><br />Again, was there an official declaration against sola fide prior to Trent? (I'm not arguing that there have been no doctrinal developments since the Apostles). <br /><br /><i>-teach penal substitution not anselmic substitution</i><br /><br />Again, was there an official declaration distinguishing between penal and Anselmic substitution prior to the Reformation? (According to your theory here the hypostatic union is an illegitimate teaching because the early early church did not officially teach it [not to mention the heresies of Vatican 2]). <br /><br /><i>-deny the real sacrifice of the eucharist and in most cases, the real presence, and deny the regenerative nature of baptism and sometimes infant baptism</i><br /><br />Protestants do not deny the real presence. We confess the real spiritual presence. We do deny that it is a sacrifice. We do deny that baptism is regenerative. However, on these last two points, did the early church distinguish between the issues at hand in the Reformation with precision? Also, I can't claim the baptists. <br /><br /><i>-teach that the final judgment is not for Christians, or that they will not be judged on their own works, breaking with Tradition.</i><br /><br />Was there a declaration saying believers are judged by their works instead of the works of Christ? Also, see WCF 33.1.M. Jay Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14196144533530725736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post-35747617772001269912010-05-22T16:38:33.219-07:002010-05-22T16:38:33.219-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.M. Jay Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14196144533530725736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post-8370176306214595892010-05-22T15:40:28.420-07:002010-05-22T15:40:28.420-07:00-Protestants changed the canonical books
-'spi...-Protestants changed the canonical books<br />-'spiritualized' the one holy catholic and apostolic church<br />-luther said the imago dei was replaced by the image of satan, and Protestants teach total depravity<br />-Lutherans conflated the natural law and the law of moses<br />-Protestants deny the freedom of the will<br />-They magnify original sin into total depravity<br />-teach justification by faith ALONE which was an innovation or 're-discovery' of a belief that was absent for 1400 years.<br />-teach penal substitution not anselmic substitution<br />-deny the real sacrifice of the eucharist and in most cases, the real presence, and deny the regenerative nature of baptism and sometimes infant baptism<br />-teach that the final judgment is not for Christians, or that they will not be judged on their own works, breaking with Tradition.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02752373297874435269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post-1969276462514281632010-05-21T21:45:31.429-07:002010-05-21T21:45:31.429-07:00The 66 book Protestant Canon didn't exist till...<i>The 66 book Protestant Canon didn't exist till the 16th century</i><br /><br />Which Apostle lived till the 16th century?<br /><br />Of course, I would argue Roman Catholicism as distinct from Protestantism didn't exist until the Council of Trent. There were no previous councils on <i>sola fide.</i><br /><br />Doctrines of the Protestant confessions that demonstrate the catholicity of the church are (just to name a few):<br /><br />The authority of Scripture<br />The received canonical books<br />The inspiration of Scripture<br />Monotheism<br />One holy catholic and apostolic church<br />Creation <i>ex nihilo</i><br />The <i>imago Dei</i><br />Natural law<br />Freedom of the human will<br />Original sin<br />Trinity (the full deity of Christ)<br />The full humanity of Christ<br />The hypostatic union<br />The Holy Spirit<br />The priority of grace in salvation<br />Justification by faith<br />Substitutionary atonement<br />The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper<br />The necessity of church discipline<br />The final judgment<br />Heaven and HellM. Jay Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14196144533530725736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post-72605904055119306692010-05-21T16:03:58.577-07:002010-05-21T16:03:58.577-07:00The 66 book Protestant Canon didn't exist till...The 66 book Protestant Canon didn't exist till the 16th century, so our final authority is still older (even if the bogus Reformed claim that St. Gregory the Great was the first 'pope' were true).<br /><br />The problem is that it's nice to say you accept the consent of the fathers, but you don't. Just look at your view of Nature and Grace, it's Pelagian. You might have good exegetical reasons for such a view, but it is in contradiction to the intepretation of the undivided church. This is what I find frustrating. If you debated about whether satisfaction was properly a part of the sacrament of penance, that could be defended, but the problem is that Protestantism is entirely ahistorical. Which is why every Protestant church history has to have the mormon-esque doctrine of 'the great apostasy'.<br /><br />I get why you have those views -because everything is structured around and interpretted in light of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. But I'm just saying, please - I beg you - show me a single doctrine of the Reformed confession which is in continuity with the Christian Tradition.<br /><br />This might sound insulting, it really is not meant to be at all. Reformed theology has great minds, it's just that I think they are not formed by Tradition.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02752373297874435269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post-13227344213923124152010-05-21T12:39:23.964-07:002010-05-21T12:39:23.964-07:00Spelling error . . .
If this were true, I would b...Spelling error . . .<br /><br />If this were true, I would be Roman Catholic too. <br /><br />But Protestantism does not confess or practice the ultimate authority of private interpretation. We confess that the completed canon of Scripture, which includes the interpretation of the Apostles, is ultimately authoritative. Nonetheless, the consensus of the church (properly defined, of course) in its reflection upon Scripture in the post-Apostolic era is also authoritative. <br /><br />Protestantism confesses one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. But rather than defining catholicity as submission to the Apostolic office (i.e. the papacy), we define it as submission to the Apostolic teaching (i.e. the completed canon of Scripture). The Apostolic teaching is the foundation of the church, not a supposed Apostolic office, the supremacy of which didn't officially exist until the late 6th century.M. Jay Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14196144533530725736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post-42360172646181087112010-05-21T12:38:06.001-07:002010-05-21T12:38:06.001-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.M. Jay Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14196144533530725736noreply@blogger.com