Divine Inspiration or Divine Dictation?

[Sheilbh]

Very neutral summary of Protestantism there sheilbh.

  I try.

To be fair I actually think the Anglicans, the Lutherans and Calvin's theological writings have good points.  But they're points that have been made throughout the entire history of the Church, most of them are cribbed off of Augustine.  But I think that Augustine's other point about the unity and authority of the Church and of Bishops was ignored at their peril.  The Catholic Church stands where it stood against Monophysitism, it stands where it stood against Arianism, it stands where it stood against Monothelitism; it can, to borrow another phrase, do no other.

By contrast without central authority and Bishops, which even the CofE, say, had to attack to succeed, there can be no theological position because if people disagree they can found their own church, or it doesn't matter because of the individual nature of grace and so on.  Any via media between Catholicism and a million babbling voices and interpretations of Christianity cannot hold.  Newman was right.

Well, it's hard to blame them, since Eastern Christianity had proven itself to be false by being almost wiped out, and Roman Catholicism had largely degenerated into a pyramid scheme by the Reformation.

Actually by the Reformation the Catholic Church was changing pretty rapidly.  Those changes, and reforms, gained impetus and strength because of the Reformation but what ultimately came out of Trent started a long time before any theses were nailed to any doors. 

There were still lingering issues though, it's true.

[garbon]

Augustine.

[Neil]

Actually by the Reformation the Catholic Church was changing pretty rapidly.  Those changes, and reforms, gained impetus and strength because of the Reformation but what ultimately came out of Trent started a long time before any theses were nailed to any doors. 

There were still lingering issues though, it's true.

I would argue that the Church had already damaged itself long before 1517, as Wycliffe or Hus would tell you, and that there was little that they could have done.  The Church had built a reputation (with some justification) as the most corrupt and evil body on earth, and it would take a lot of time and effort to shake it.

[Barrister]

By contrast without central authority and Bishops, which even the CofE, say, had to attack to succeed, there can be no theological position because if people disagree they can found their own church, or it doesn't matter because of the individual nature of grace and so on.  Any via media between Catholicism and a million babbling voices and interpretations of Christianity cannot hold.  Newman was right.

You still have to demonstrate why the lack of a central authority and the lack of a single theological position is a bad thing however.

[Jacob]

How come so many Asian-Americans are devout Christians?

Like 90% of the ones I've known have been hardcore Protestants of some flavor.

Targeted recruitment.

Hard core Christians realize that new immigrants are vulnerable to social pressure techniques and shams.  They invite them to learn English at their church groups, peddle their theology calibrated to emphasize values in common with traditional Asian values and self-improvement (usually attractive to immigrants).  This, combined with a ready and welcoming community means that many of the people who go there end up sticking around.

My wife was invited to some Evangelical church under false pretenses and evangelized at.  She thought it was entirely too much like some of the sillier antics of Communist China and never went back.

[Sheilbh]

You still have to demonstrate why the lack of a central authority and the lack of a single theological position is a bad thing however.

Because Christianity is a faith to do with beliefs.  Judaism is largely about following certain laws, Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity in that sense.  In Christianity it is belief that allows for redemption, so if you believe wrong you're damned (and that includes a faith of works as much as one of exuberant emotional outbursts).  That's why you need guidance.  That's why you need theology of what to believe rather than an explication of law.

And, as Augustine argues, Apostolic Succession matters for the Church.  The Anglicans still believe in it, rather preposterously.  All Protestants, except some 20th century varieties, accept the importance of the Church Fathers.  Those Fathers ordained the future Bishops of the Church right down to the current day.  The Church hasn't moved significantly.  How can something be right then but not now?

I would argue that the Church had already damaged itself long before 1517, as Wycliffe or Hus would tell you, and that there was little that they could have done.  The Church had built a reputation (with some justification) as the most corrupt and evil body on earth, and it would take a lot of time and effort to shake it.

I think that's rather over the top.  Actually it indicates the multiplicity of Churches that existed before the Catholic Reformation that led up and then proceeded from Trent.  The oppression in England after Wycliffe was a local decision made by Arundel under pressure from the secular authorities - an intertwining of religious and secular authority was, of course, far worse in Protestant societies for quite some time. 

So, for example, the much cited repression of anything but Latin just isn't true.  The Catholic Church had authorised translations of the Bible in, off the top of my head Czech, Catalan, High and Low German well before Luther was around or even born.  The Church was very weirdly mixed between the very local communitarian expressions of religion that were encouraged and venality at some of the top level.

However the reform movement in the Catholic Church was alive and gathering strength for some time.  I think some rupture was inevitable but I want to argue against the idea of Reformation - Counter Reformation.  I think there were two reformations, one Catholic and one Protestant that stemmed from a common list of complaints and a common reform movement within the Catholic church.

[Siege]

Too bad I missed this thread.

[vinraith]

Augustine.

I can almost forgive some of his other... eccentricities in light of this:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." [1 Timothy 1.7]

St. Augustine [De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) translated by J. H. Taylor, Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41; Book 1 Chapter 19 Paragraph 39]